Slashdot Log In
MPAA v. Hogan, or Vice Versa?
from the hulking-v-behemoth dept.
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.
For anyone interested, Recording Industry vs The People keeps an eye on many of the RIAA cases in progress.
Thanks to everyone whose comments informed this discussion, especially the readers whose comments are quoted above.
Oh I know who'd win that one... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, just what is the MPAA thinking? (Score:3, Funny)
Go Hulkster!
Re:Oh I know who'd win that one... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh I know who'd win that one... (Score:5, Funny)
BBH
Parent
Re:Oh I know who'd win that one... (Score:2, Funny)
You hear that sound? THat cross between a whiz and a zip? That was the sound of a joke going over your head at mach 5, while simultaneously showing to the world that you like profe(*cough*laughter*cough*)ssional wrestling....
wrestting fan site = famed spyware site (Score:3, Informative)
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 too
Re:Oh I know who'd win that one... (Score:4, Funny)
Ha ha! You watch wrestling!!
Parent
Re:Real American (Score:3, Informative)
Suing non-smokers for secondhand smoke (Score:3, Funny)
MEET THE FOCKERS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suing for this sees unsportsman-like. Kicking a fellow, when he's down, wot?
So if he turns it around.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So if he turns it around.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:So if he turns it around.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So if he turns it around.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So if he turns it around.... (Score:2)
Or you could get Santa Claus to do it. Or maybe the Tooth Fairy. Such a personage would be more likely to exist.
*This Is True* - MPAA Doesn't Want Trial (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Re:So if he turns it around.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hogan downloads torrent before owning the dvd:
If there is zero damage to the MPAA, do they still deserve damages?
Hogan does not download the torrent and owns the dvd:
Suit dropped, MPAA gets their shorts sued into oblivion.
Hogan downloads torrent after buying the dvd:
Suit tranforms into a fair-use debate.
I personally would like to see a good fair-use case.
Re:So if he turns it around.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's shouldn't, but... (Score:2)
Unless there's really another alternative besides paying your protection money to the MPAA that doesn't involve fleeing the country
I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I know, the industry lobbyists on K Street will never allow it. *
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:2)
That's already how it is -- in theory. In practice, most people the RIAA/MPAA are going after do not have the resources or time to go to court to win, much less twice that to file their own lawsuit to get back legal fees and damages.
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:3, Insightful)
of course the courts should do that in every case, but particularly in cases where the plaintiff has some serious issues getting things right.
due process should protect parties in legitimate proceedings, the
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. The typical filesharer is only uploading to 5-30 people. For a song, that should be $5-30. For a movie, it should be $75-450. The individual should not
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just dumb. There are interesting constitutional challenges to some copyright laws, but the ordinary MPAA case involves none of them. If you want to fix copyright law, you need to go through Congress. The courts are not really able to do so, and are not going to do so since it is not broken in any way that is relevant for them. Bad laws
Re:I'd just wish that, someday,.. (Score:3, Informative)
WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Funny)
you're reading
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Only newstravaganza tabloid-trials have daily updates. Real legal cases frequently take years, and people generally try to be tight-lipped about them.
seriously - point of information here. (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:seriously - point of information here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Get the media on it (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Get the media on it (Score:4, Funny)
Uh... you must have missed the War In The Middle East, which pushed off of the front page the War In The Middle East, which itself grabbed headlines away from the War In The Middle East, which is making everyone forget the Impending Nuclear War In The Middle East. Or the heat wave that is about to turn America into the Middle East.
Nice time to invest in camel futures.
Either way, I don't think "Local man gets sued for downloading 'Meet The Fockers'" is going to be on any front page anytime soon
Parent
self representation (Score:2)
Re:self representation (Score:2)
transmissions aren't that hard... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?"
Thanks for the new formatting (Score:2)
I want to be the **AA (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I want to be the **AA (Score:3, Interesting)
$BIG_MOVIE -- Buy it today!!!!
not,
$BIG_MOVIE -- License it today!!!
Seems to me that either I'm buying a copy, not a license, or the studios are guilty of false advertising, fraud, and Bait&Switch.
Re:I want to be the **AA (Score:3, Informative)
Why doesn't owning a copy = Right to download? (Score:3, Interesting)
owning DVD (Score:2)
I suspect thatt the people who have criticized Hogan's claim that he already owned the DVD have missed his point. He probably didn't intend that as an argument that he had no reason to download it. Rather, he was probably referring to the idea that it is legal to download a copy of something that you have legally purchased because it is equivalent to making a backup copy or shifting to another medium.
Transmissions aren't that complexe. (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Transmissions aren't that complexe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Could it be done? Yes. It might take a really long time, and wouldn't be as good as if a professional had done it, but it would be built. Now, put some time constraints on it. It's not like you can tell the judge, "Sir, I need another 2 years of study to get all the proceedures down, may I have a continuance?" So not only are you building a tranny, but you are d
Re:What about a "loser pays" legal system? (Score:3, Insightful)
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_198800 34_en_1.htm). If you can't convince the legal-aid lawyers that you have a fighting chance, there are also several lawyer fi
Re:What about a "loser pays" legal system? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 tha