Slashdot Log In
CEO Shawn Hogan Takes on MPAA
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Jul 25, 2006 01:43 PM
from the how-long-till-it-stops dept.
from the how-long-till-it-stops dept.
IAmTheDave writes "Shawn Hogan, CEO of Digital Point Solutions, has found himself on the receiving end of an MPAA lawsuit claiming he downloaded a copy of 'Meet the Fockers' on Bittorrent. Mr. Hogan both denies the charges as well as claims he already owns the movie on DVD. After being asked to pay a $2500 extortion fee, Mr. Hogan lawyered up and has vowed to challenge and help change the MPAA's tactics. 'They're completely abusing the system,' Hogan says. Although expecting to pay well over $100,000 to defend himself, he claims 'I would spend well into the millions on this.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Backslash: MPAA v. Hogan, or Vice Versa? 210 comments
Unsurprisingly, the story that Digital Point Solutions CEO Shawn Hogan has "found himself on the receiving end of an MPAA lawsuit" (for allegedly downloading a copy of Meet the Fockers via BitTorrent) and has vowed to fight it drew hundreds of comments, many of them expressing hope that Hogan both stays in court and prevails against the MPAA. Read on for the Backslash summary of the discussion.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what they're saying now. Give it a couple months. They'll probably drop it quietly after everyone has forgotten about it.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
And just like them, they'll have no evidence that proves anything. Whether an IP address from a log from a P2P search bot is enough to convince a judge of the merit of the case... well, that's the interesting part.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
What are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
I notice this because I have watched "the scene" for going on 20 years and I have yet to ever see a single case of ANYONE being prosecuted for only downloading. In 100% of the cases, the defendant is accused of distributing copyrighted materials. And distributing = upload. You aren't distributing if you are downloading only. And the (legal) distinction is very very important.
Are you guys paying attention? There is a lesson to be learned here [faqs.org].
Mixed metaphor much? (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I do not want to see what the girls at your school looked like...
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose he *could* try and get them into court for some kind of criminal offense, but what would it be? The courts so far have no problem with the MPAA and RIAA's tactics, and as far as I know, their extortion-like lawsuits break now existing laws.
Basically, while I appreciate what he's doing, it's not going to change anything.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
If he got damages it could. It would establish a roadmap if not a legal precedent. If he gets real damages out of the MPAA you'll find lawyers lining up to take clients being sued by the MPAA.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts can't rule on if their suits are viable/legal until one actually makes it through the door. If it goes to discovery & the courts uphold that they can't use the name/IP due to improper search/seasure then they're screwed.
Failing that, they have the preponderance of evidence - I think I would pass out the latest figures on botnets, along with reports of Govt/military/police 'puters being botted. "Latest reports indicate 20% of computers connected to the internet are vulnerable to remote control via malware, can **AA show mine wasn't controlled at the time of the alleged violation?"
Have the **AA bothered to track MAC addresses to show if there was an instance of IP spoofing, or simple IP overriding?
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
perhaps some state attorney general could bring up charges against the RIAA
for extortion/racketeering.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
It's very difficult for lower classes to participate now. They can get a public defender if they're brought to criminal court, but not in a civil suit. They'll have to hire a lawyer. In addition, the MPAA knows that drawing out the suit as long as possible is in their interest, and will attempt to do so, until the defendant is simply out of money and can't affort to pay their lawyers any further, forcing them into a settlement.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire system is based around how many cases they can grind through in a week, not how fair or right the outcomes are. If you're perceived to be slowing things down, you'll have no friends to help you.
The only self-represented, successful civil suits I've ever heard of is where the issue was really clear-cut: the other people were really evil and totally unsympathetic. While you and I might think the RIAA fits that bill, they might be able to pull off "artists rights" in the courtroom and make you look like the bad guy
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem is that you have to deal with all kinds of procedural issues, most of which are well known by the lawyers, but not by the rest of us. Failing to file the proper papers or filing after a deadline can seriously damage your case. If you fail to bring up the proper arguments at the right time, you may not be permitted to bring them up later.
In other words, when you hit the ground, you have to hit the ground at full speed instead of feeling your way along.
The legal system is designed for the perpetuation of lawyers, not to arrive at a just outcome.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
The Wikipedia article only says:
... the two had no formal post-secondary school education, and few financial resources. Furthermore, they were denied legal aid by the courts. Although the pair were deemed no legal match for McDonald's enormous legal assets, they represented themselves, receiving much free legal advice, and doing enormous amounts of research in their spare time.
however I recall reading in a Sunday broadsheet at the time that the case dragged on for a couple of years (I think that was just the first case!) and that the two represented themselves in court for 8 hours a day, then spent several hours of an evening preparing their briefs for the next day.
Faced with legal action by a corporate behemoth like McDonalds, there was really no other affordable way to defend themselves, and I am in awe of their commitment - 3 other defendants were named in the initial proceedings, but they retracted the statements in the disputed pamphlet and apologised for its content. I believe that Steel & Morris gave up their jobs as a postman & as a gardener [mcspotlight.org] in because they refused to back down.
IIRC none of the defendants were the authors of the leaflet - the group they belonged to was very ad-hoc, meeting weekly in a pub, and the court case was brought a couple of years after the leaflet had been distributed; Steel or Morris was quoted in the article I read as saying they didn't remember who did write it, as it was only one of many activities the group undertook. This seems to me to quite a reasonable assertion after two years, considering that someone might've only attended only a few of the meetings over a period of a few months - you might well remember faces but be unable to put names to them, and be unable to provide contact details for Mick or Joe.
Stroller.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
or:
No, I meant perform a root canal on yourself. With a reasonable amount of study on basic orthodontics, some local anesthesia and a mirror, it shouldn't be that hard at all.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Fight the Good Fight (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fight the Good Fight (Score:5, Informative)
His blog.
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/ [digitalpoint.com]
Re:Fight the Good Fight (Score:5, Informative)
Relevant posts!!
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2005/11/loeb-a
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2006/04/mpaa-o
http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2006/06/im-des
That's Not What I Want (Score:5, Insightful)
MPAA's reaction (Score:5, Funny)
Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Meet the Fockers? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meet the Fockers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, with BitTorrent, you upload chunks of the torrent even as you download the file. What if he didn't download the
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?
Give 'em hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Oops! (Score:5, Funny)
For those... (Score:4, Funny)
This will not go to court. (Score:5, Insightful)
In what way is it in the MPAA's interest to see this all the way to the court?
The defendent blogs (Score:5, Informative)
Standard of proof? (Score:5, Interesting)
Go Shawn Hogan. Get these crooks to tell us "Where's the proof?"
Attorney's fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Is he kidding? If he wins he's obligated to seek reimbursement for his attorney's fees.
The obvious quote (Score:5, Funny)
Fighting the suit: $100,000
Good PR and being the hero of the DRM-free world:
No, I'm not finishing this, I don't have the money to fight out the ensuing Mastercard law suit.
Re:Extortion fee? (Score:4, Insightful)
why not? its just the same as backing it up yourself, only someone else did the hard work for you.
Re:Extortion fee? (Score:5, Insightful)
They wouldn't have to. In this country, the person bringing the suit/charges is supposed to prove THEIR point. If they can't do that, you can come to court and draw funny pictures all day if you like -- they (shouldn't) win.
Re:Extortion fee? (Score:4, Insightful)
With regard to the charge of copyright violation,
(1) I did not do it, as evidenced by my ownership of a legally-obtained copy of the movie in question;
(2) Or in the alternative, I did download the copy, but since I own a legally-obtained copy of the movie in question, my infringement qualifies as fair use and I was therefore justified in downloading it
And, as I said in one response, court isn't just going in and flinging things at a jury, trying to convince them. The jury is given the law and has to apply what happened to it. If the instructions say "If he downloaded a copy from the internet he violated copyright" with no other instruction for a fair use defense, the jury is generally going to say he's in violation, regardless of whatever "The Man is out to get you" idea his lawyers get in through argument.
Re:Extortion fee? (Score:5, Informative)
Note that a number of scholars not only say that this should be a moral right, but go further and question the entire notion of "intellectual property" having value to society. For instance, Stephan Kinsella [wikipedia.org] has written against intellectual property [mises.org], and in Brian Martin's book Information Liberation [dannyreviews.com] he simialrly argues against the existence of "IP" [danny.oz.au]. These are but a few examples. In the debate about the "ethics of intellectual property" there are many scholars on both sides.
Perhaps what you meant (although not exactly what you said) was that no respected lawyer would argue that it is legal to download a copy based on already owning a copy. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched a defence to claim that since you already bought a copy, and could have made a copy for your own personal use under fair-use, you simply downloaded a copy for convenience. If this use doesn't limit the copyright-holder's market, then it may not be judged infringement. At the very least I can imagine a lawyer using such an argument for a client... although of course in the end it's up to the judge to decide the merit of the argument.
Re:class action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:class action (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the unfortunate reality... (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, if he effectively counter sues for defamation of character and/or some other damages done to him by their abusive litigation practices and sets a precedent for others it could open some doors.
How do you even begin to quantify the damage done to his reputation? He's got Meet the Fockers on DVD! And now the whole world knows about it!
Re:You can own meet the fockers in 10 minutes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Give some support (Score:5, Funny)