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....
What can really come though from him keeping them in court after they drop it?
Everything. If he wins, it sets precedent. Remember that everyone so far has simply paid the MPAA a settlement rather than go to court. If Hogan can get a judge to say "ip adresses and a bittorrent log is not enough evidence to prove your claim," everyone else who gets a letter can get a cheap lawyer to easily argue that point.
But after they drop it how can this information be requested?
I don't know if Hogan would be able to demand that information in a counter-suit -- the burden is on him to prove point. Like risk, the defense has a +1 cloak of advantage.
I know someone recently published "statistics" about the rate of comments over time from a slashdot story breaking. They drop off dramatically after like 12 hours or so. So if you miss a story, backslashes are your chance to get in the fray without your voice being relegated to page 3.
By the way, IANAL but what from I've seen Dungeons and Dragons references don't go over very well in a court of law.
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.
Actually no they are not.
it has become fairly obvious they are using a shotgun approach and hitting an aweful lot of people that clearly did not download anything. The dead person for instance, the person without a computer, the computer that cant even run the software at all etc.
The fact they managed to file a suit against a single person that was found invalid should put their entire methodology into question and all lawsuits should be dismissed until they have a proven method of verifying the wrongs they claim.
Sueing people that in no way, under any circumstance actually did the thing you claim should make you instantly liable to the tune of the victim winning the lottery instantly.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Unfortunately 99% of MPAA lawsuits are valid because people are, in fact, breaking copyright laws and getting stuff for free.
I agree, many are probably guilty (though the number is probably less that 99%.)
However the MPAA/RIAA should not have the ability to financially devastate an individual for downloading a song or movie. There has to be an obligation to prove real damages. Right now the sky is the limit-- why are they allowed to sue a teenager for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a song that costs $1 on itunes, or a movie that costs $7 at Best Buy? Even taking the fact that they are uploading it back to others into consideration, that still is not more that (in all practicality) a dozen to a hundred people. This should be a case in small claims court.
That's the biggest problem here, IMO. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, and the legal system does nothing to prevent corporate entities with unlimited legal resources from demanding incredibly exaggerated sums from average people who can't be expected to have the means to fight or pay. Wal-Mart can't sue you for hundreds of thousands for stealing a DVD in their store-- why should the MPAA be able to for stealing a movie online?
On the other hand, if no one respects copyright, it would be somewhat similar to no one respecting physical property rights.
There is an alternative, you know.
No one respected Prohibition. And that disrespect led to disrespect for laws that were actually important, it led to support for organized crime, etc.
The appropriate thing to do here is to legalize otherwise infringing acts, if they're engaged in by natural persons, noncommercially. Thus, Alice and Bob could share files with one another and it would be lawful. But Bob couldn't sell copies to Carol, DaveCo couldn't sell copies in its stores, and the Eve Charitable Organization couldn't give away copies for free even in pursuit of its charitable mission.
Personally, I think that legalization is the way to go. Copyright can remain vital in the commercial and non-natural person areas, but ordinary people should never have to care about it in their day to day affairs. We wouldn't try to alter their behavior, but would instead try to live with it, which is important since 1) the law should serve them; and 2) they'll do it anyway.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.