Slashdot Mirror
MPAA v. Hogan, or Vice Versa?
Other comments took that defense a bit more seriously, pointing out that "I own the DVD already!" is no ironclad defense against claims of copyright infringement. Junior J. Junior III, for instance, wroteNo wonder he doesn't want to admit to downloading it, that movie sucked! I bet he doesn't even have the DVD.
In response to the desire evident in some comments to see a trial take place and (perhaps) cast doubt on the MPAA's aggressive tactics, reader BigNumber predicts that this is "not gonna happen," writing:I don't see how ownership of the original media serves as "proof" that he didn't download it.
Besides, with BitTorrent, you upload chunks of the torrent even as you download the file. What if he didn't download the .torrent of MtF, but rather seeded a .torrent of the ISO of the DVD he ripped?
What if he purchased the DVD after viewing the downloaded torrent? It's still an unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work, even if it did end up resulting in a sale that benefits the Plaintiff... if they want to sue because to them the principle of control is more important than the short-term profit of a unit sale, who are we to question such prioritization?
Reader Elsimer points out that the odds that Hogan will get a day in court against the MPAA are better than for most people; he has money and determination, as demonstrated in the Zeropaid interview with Hogan from which Elsimer quotes, in which Hogan saysHe won't get a chance to 'defend himself' unless he decides to counter-sue. The MPAA will simply drop the case and move on to a less aggressive victim.
Despite Hogan's personal resources, eldavojohn was one of several who said they'd like to contribute to his cause, writingYep. At this point they have pushed me enough to where I'm going to do whatever I can to keep them from dropping the case. I can't prevent them from dropping it, but I am going to try and force them to go to a full trial. Basically, my lawyers aren't even going to file a motion to dismiss. ... At this point, I don't care what it costs. If they drop it, I will find something to counter with to keep it in court.
Reader toad3k points out that Hogan is "not exactly hiding," and points out the location of Hogan's blog. eldavojohn responded in the same thread to the idea that such support might be "a little misplaced," writingI personally would like to extend a helping hand to Shawn. If he wants to take this to court, I would like to pay him a simple $10 through Paypal for fighting the good fight. I've given the same donations to Slashdot and many many open source projects (especially those on SourceForge) that have made my life easier.
I would like to live in a world where I'm not worried about some organization of rich bastards strong arming citizens out of hard earned cash. There have been several cases so far where people have been charged with little or no evidence. The methods by which they obtain their evidence is even shadier.
If you're reading this, Shawn Hogan, please leave some contact info so we can donate small sums of money to aid in your defense.
I'm not going to support the person who just pays the obscene fine because they want to avoid the trial and lawyers. I want to support this guy if he's willing to bring the lawyers and cast doubt on the MPAA.
Several readers predicted that the MPAA would hastily drop legal action against such a determined opponent (TheSpoom's was typical: "My guess: They'll drop the suit against this guy, but continue to threaten those that don't have the means to fight back. ), but as milamber3 points out, according to the article
Reader Danse is skeptical:The head of their anti-piracy division is openly saying they're looking forward to a trial and verdict next summer.
To this, reader TechForensics saysThat's what they're saying now. Give it a couple months. They'll probably drop it quietly after everyone has forgotten about it.
Several readers' comments focused on the question of how those who aren't ready to pay the cost of a lawsuit but who would like to contest the MPAA's legal case against them, and many of these comments speculate on the viability of a pre se (self-representation) defense; as embodied in voice_of_all_reason's comment that "[w]ith a reasonable amount of study on basic law, it shouldn't be that hard at all." Reader schnell disagrees, and offers a few pointed analogies:They can't drop the case if the defendant files a counterclaim. Or if they do, they're still in court on the counterclaim. If Hogan wants to teach them a lesson, he'll make sure his counterclaim litigates all of the issues they don't want litigated, including some they'd be forced to litigate if they actually took someone all the way to court.
Also on the legal front, Squalish makes an important distinction:Describing an intellectual property civil lawsuit against people with law degrees and years of experience like this may just be a little cavalier. Let's try a little substitution here and see how it sounds:
- No, I meant fix your transmission yourself. With a reasonable amount of study on basic automotive engineering, it shouldn't be that hard at all.
- No, I meant perform a root canal on yourself. With a reasonable amount of study ovn basic orthodontics, some local anesthesia and a mirror, it shouldn't be that hard at all.
Finally and usefully, reader shotfeel offers an informative link for those interested in this as well as other MPAA-related cases:They're filing civil lawsuits, which are a different legal category than crimes here in the U.S. One key: Civil law goes on preponderance (51% convinced = hold the defendant liable), so a mere 'reasonable doubt' that you were using your computer is not a defense. They just have to convince a judge that you probably were, rather than proving it.
Thanks to everyone whose comments informed this discussion, especially the readers whose comments are quoted above.For anyone interested, Recording Industry vs The People keeps an eye on many of the RIAA cases in progress.
Hogan... man he was an awesome wrestler, and he was pretty good in that movie with Christopher Plumber, oh and it was funny to see him in Rock... what? Paul Hogan.... Oh, never mind....
There is no way the MPAA will let this go to trial since he is trying to take the offencive on this. What can really come though from him keeping them in court after they drop it? I can see if they bring him to trial they could be asked to show their methods of identifying him. But after they drop it how can this information be requested? I am a legal newb.
Yeah, I know, the industry lobbyists on K Street will never allow it. *Sigh*
I know NOTHING, I know NOTHING
They are so going to piss off legions of Hulkamaniacs out there by suing Hogan. I hope Hogan grabs the MPAA in a headlock and performs a legal suplex on them!
Go Hulkster!
This is not a flame, and I've perused the FAQ, and I can't seem to find an explanation for the goal of these Backslash stories. What purpose are they meant to serve, and what value do they offer over temporarily browsing a story at +5?
/. editors, I'd rather see more effort elsewhere, rather than a recap of yesterday's news, with no additional opinion or analysis, not including those who comment, added.
I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but I just don't understand these stories. Yes, I know I can block them in my preferences, but I remain optimistic for now. With the (somewhat justifiable) criticism of the
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
The bottom line is this - the MPAA can prove what IP is listed as the one that downloaded the file. They may even be able to prove that said file is on a particular computer.
But it is unlikely that they can prove who, *exaclty*, downloaded the file.
Bottom line - if you know one of three people committed a murder, they *all* walk b/c that isn't good enough to convict.
The RIAA and MPAA have been running an elaborate legal scam for some time. They've gamed the *expensive* system to force people to just pay their tax.
America is falling apart on more than one front.
The State Attorney Generals are, apparently, bought and paid for.
Protect your freaking citizens from abuse. I feel for their situation, the world changing and all, but they can't just abuse people b/c of it. At least, they shouldn't be able to.
It's Summer. Nothing happening. What time would be better to draw this to the front line?
If possible, let's get the donation thing rolling. I know, he's rich, so the money doesn't matter. And neither do 10 bucks matter to the majority of us. But it's a token that says "me too" in the chorus that cries out against the RIAA peppering innocent people with lawsuits.
Now, when it has enough attention, the media will pick it up. Simply out of self interest. Let's face it, geeks are no target audience. We're few. We tend to think for ourselves. So why bother trying to get the spinning onto us? But the issue of copyright getting way out of hand is not only affecting us. It is a matter that concerns pretty much everyone owning a computer with online access (and as previous lawsuits from the RIAA show us, even people who never touched one).
So the attention is there.
And as soon as media spin is up, politicians will start noticing it. After all, it's an election year, and the campaigns are already running...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
OK, enough people seem to be confused about this, so I'm just going to try and clear this up.
Yes, the two names are confusing: this is likely done on purpose. Slashdot was named Slashdot explicitly to make it hard to spell out the URL. (If you're going to try to spell out the full URL, it would sound like: Aych tea tea pea colon slash slash dot dot org slash. This made more sense in 1998 when Slashdot was named and most radio ads would spell out the entire URL.)
But, yeah, Backslash is kinda lame. In many web forums, it'd likely be called "necroposting" - attempting to resurrect a discussion that had mostly completed by posting something vague and useless to it, causing it to move to the top of the topic list. There's really nothing to add to Backslash stories in the comments, since the story just happened, so they're usually fairly vague and useless. They are, in essense, intentional dupes.
And, yes, I know how to disable them. I'm considering it, but I'm still holding out hope (for some reason) that they may eventually become some what more interesting.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I understand what the poster is trying to say, but I think it backfired, because auto repair is easier than many think.
In this case- the manual transmission for my car (which is full-time AWD and has a limited-slip center differential, so it is fairly complex as transmissions go) doesn't require much rocket science. It requires the factory repair manual, a few special tools (some are specific to the transmission, others are just standard measuring tools), attention to detail, and making sure all the tolerances are correct (they're adjusted via lots of extra washers/spacers/shims.)
Granted it is one of the more complex mechanical jobs aside from a full engine rebuild, but those aren't very hard either. If you're ever curious about it and want to learn- sign up for an appropriate class at the local tech school to get basic good practices down. Then, start with old car bought off the classifieds for which you can find factory manuals/rebuild guides for. Set aside a fair bit of cash for the various tools you'll need, although some can be rented.
All this has me thinking, "gee, wouldn't it be nice if there was a 'Law for Citizens' class at the local community college?"
Please help metamoderate.
That's Shawn Hogan. Paul Hogan plays "Crocodile Dundee".
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
I love these guys, there almost as cool as SCO. ... [tap][tap]... pay attention, you can get protection under copywrite - you are selling the data on the disc as a collective work, or you can be selling a liscense for the work on the disk. You don't get to play both games - if for no other reason, the IRS demands it be one or the other.
When you get around the 'it's not copywrite, it's a liscense' issue, they turn around and go back to quoting it's a copywrite violation.
Hello
Hmm, guess that's one way for us to be certain whether we buy a copywriten work or the liscence to view it. We can check the IRS filings of the companies that are members of the **AA. The sales have to be listed as goods or liscenses, and we know you never, ever, ever lie to the IRS.
If you own your copy, how does downloading another copy in some other format differ from other means of exercising fair use rights? The only difference I can see is that the user didn't actually do the work of transcoding the data. I am assuming the copy of the movie is an AVI or some other non-DVD bit-image format.
I predict the MPAA dominate the entire court case and about to win until Hogan's hand is raised for the third time and just before it falls he'll suddenly find a new leash of evidence, bounce the MPAA of the ropes, kick them in the face then leg drop them, yet again winning another court case.
To be fair, neither of these analogies are accurate.
1.With the proper tools and a good manual, any literate able bodied person can rebuild a tranny. Follow the instructions and it's no problem.
2.Performing a root canal on yourself presents several physical challanges not at all related to the root canal. If you changed this one to performing a root canal on someone else, it would be accurate. With the basic knowledge, you would know what to do, but with out the experience, practice, and muscle memory, it would be incredibly difficult to do well.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This article serves no purpose and is totally a flamebait!
As seen here, there is a famed wrestling fan site which is well known for the vast quantities of spyware that it unleashes on an unsuspecting user. the guy writing the article decided to deliberately infect a virtual machine set up especially for the purpose:
By clicking "Yes" to the security warning, one spyware was installed. That first spyware downloaded and installed three other spywares. Those installed three new spywares each. Spyware was procreating on my computer at a geometric rate!
Six new toolbars showed up in Internet Explorer. Something deleted the Google Toolbar entirely. Three new icons appeared in the system tray. Three internet shortcuts appeared on the desktop and well over a hundred more showed up in my "Favorites" folder. Dozens of processes were loaded into memory. 200 new files appeared on the hard drive as well as over 400 new registry entries. And pop-ups were appearing at a rate of five per minute.
Within half an hour, my virtual computer was as infested with malware as anything I have ever seen at the message board.
I believe my favorite was the AdDestroyer program. That one sat in my system tray popping up ad windows, then declaring that "Your trial has expired. Click here to block pop-ups like that one.". It made a very obnoxious squealing noise every time it did it.
Verrry nice. I believe the Federal Trade Commission sued a company last year for doing that.
Once I had decided that all the spyware that was going to be installed was installed, I set about trying to remove it all.
Oh boy.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Quick, patent that business model!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
That is its own punishment!
Suing for this sees unsportsman-like. Kicking a fellow, when he's down, wot?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Because it's not fair. And those countries don't have as much entirely justifiable litigation either. Since litigation is simply dispute resolution, this means that they have a lot of unresolved disputes. That's not desirable
0 34_en_1.htm). If you can't convince the legal-aid lawyers that you have a fighting chance, there are also several lawyer firms who operate on a no-win,no-fee basis that isn't *too* disproportionate.
I'm not so sure about "not fair". In the UK it's generally "loser pays", but there is such a thing as legal-aid (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880
And there *are* a lot less lawsuits. There is also binding arbitration, and the small-claims court (for any claim against anyone/any company under £1000) which keeps the courts free of frivolous stuff - I don't know if the same happens in the US. The small-claims court is *really* useful if a company screws you - the company *very* rarely turn up, so the judge usually just finds in your favour, and the company loses.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
And since it appears that the main difference is the loser pays rule, and that British society is probably no better or worse than American society, that implies that a lot of fair, perfectly meritorious cases are going untried because of the dangers of the loser pays rule. That's why I don't like it; it's unfair.
:-) trying. Perhaps (*because* it's a last-resort) there is more money (relatively speaking) to support those who *need* to go to court to resolve something...
There's an in-built assumption that going to court is "a good thing" in the above statement, and a representation of the alternative system as "more dangerous", an emotive term. I would suggest that it simply encourages more people to come to an agreement outside of a court-room in the UK; that when no agreement is forthcoming a court-case is a perfectly acceptable solution, but that other routes ought to be pursued first.
I guess what you see as "unfair", I see as more pragmatic, and more efficient. Perhaps it's just a difference of style - going to court in the UK is usually a last-resort (unless it's a criminal case, of course) even if you're completely confident of winning.
From what you write above, it seems that the equivalent of legal-aid is not as common as in the UK, either. I've had two members of my family claim (and get) legal aid in civil cases. It wasn't particularly (pun intended
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Just to point out, in a legal case they not only use the IP address leased at that time by your modem/router, but also your MAC address(or physical address, though this can be spoofed) and the node you are connecting thru in the ISP's network. If(when) they subpoena your ISP's logs, it will show this information and be very, very difficult to disprove. ISP's tend to keep very thorough track of these things for billing purposes :)
This space intentionally left blank