TetsuoShima Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Wired Article Last November, Shawn Hogan received an unsettling call: A lawyer representing Universal Pictures and the Motion Picture Association of America informed the 30-year-old software developer that they were suing him for downloading Meet the Fockers over BitTorrent. Hogan was baffled. Not only does he deny the accusation, he says he already owned the film on DVD. The attorney said they would settle for $2,500. Hogan declined. Now he’s embroiled in a surprisingly rare situation – a drawn-out legal fight with the MPAA. The organization and its music cousin, the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed thousands of similar lawsuits between them, but largely because of the legal costs few have been contested and none have gone to trial. This has left several controversies unresolved, including the lawfulness of how the associations get access to ISP records and whether it’s possible to definitively tie a person to an IP address in the age of Wi-Fi. Hogan, who coded his way to millions as the CEO of Digital Point Solutions, is determined to change this. Though he expects to incur more than $100,000 in legal fees, he thinks it’s a small price to pay to challenge the MPAA’s tactics. “They’re completely abusing the system,” Hogan says. “I would spend well into the millions on this.” Of course, the MPAA isn’t backing down either. “I hear Mr. Hogan has said, ‘I’m absolutely going to go to trial,’ and that is his prerogative,” says John G. Malcolm, the MPAA’s head of antipiracy. “We look forward to addressing his issues in a court of law.” Look for a jury to weigh in by next summer. Well, it looks like things are going to get settled then after all... Or are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Finally! Someone with actual money and a wrongful MPAA attack is going to court! This is very nice. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 Another reason to believe that these lawsuits are merely intimidation tactics meant to cow the general public into submission over the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 It won't change the underlying problem of western legal systems - paying for justice. I'm all for the free market economy but the legal system should not be used as a club to keep anyone but the super-rich having their day in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meateater Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 This is a weird story. I doubt that a millionaire and the CEO of a software company would forgo the $18 for a DVD and risk downloading it. But, then again, Winona Ryder comes to mind. If any of you had money to spare, would you still download? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted July 27, 2006 Share Posted July 27, 2006 It made the TV news in Sweden today... SOURCE (in Swedish) According to SVT this is the FIRST case that is going to court, and that all the previous suits (thousands) has been settled outside courts. It's about time!!! :mad: I really, really hope that the MP@@ looses big time and gets countersued for bogus lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaphodiLe Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 It won't change the underlying problem of western legal systems - paying for justice. I'm all for the free market economy but the legal system should not be used as a club to keep anyone but the super-rich having their day in court. Yes, it's quite disturbing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPAA1 Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Wired Article Last November, Shawn Hogan received an unsettling call: A lawyer representing Universal Pictures and the Motion Picture Association of America informed the 30-year-old software developer that they were suing him for downloading Meet the Fockers over BitTorrent. Hogan was baffled. Not only does he deny the accusation, he says he already owned the film on DVD. The attorney said they would settle for $2,500. Hogan declined. Now he’s embroiled in a surprisingly rare situation – a drawn-out legal fight with the MPAA. The organization and its music cousin, the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed thousands of similar lawsuits between them, but largely because of the legal costs few have been contested and none have gone to trial. This has left several controversies unresolved, including the lawfulness of how the associations get access to ISP records and whether it’s possible to definitively tie a person to an IP address in the age of Wi-Fi. Hogan, who coded his way to millions as the CEO of Digital Point Solutions, is determined to change this. Though he expects to incur more than $100,000 in legal fees, he thinks it’s a small price to pay to challenge the MPAA’s tactics. “They’re completely abusing the system,” Hogan says. “I would spend well into the millions on this.” Of course, the MPAA isn’t backing down either. “I hear Mr. Hogan has said, ‘I’m absolutely going to go to trial,’ and that is his prerogative,” says John G. Malcolm, the MPAA’s head of antipiracy. “We look forward to addressing his issues in a court of law.” Look for a jury to weigh in by next summer. Well, it looks like things are going to get settled then after all... Or are they? Settled? Mr. Hogan is in for a long fight and next summer is just a tentative date. The MPAA is confident in our position and have the logs from Mr. Hogans ISP and the ip is not part of a wifi connection. Further the mpaa does not disclose how ip address's are gathered and what specific means used to collect any information unless a court order or specific evidence is used pertaining to an ongoing case. Mr. Hogan may own the dvd and i would suggest he photocopy the sales slip and send it to the following address. New York (Anti-Piracy Office) One Executive Blvd. Suite 455 Yonkers, NY 10701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symok Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Mr. Hogan may own the dvd and i would suggest he photocopy the sales slip and send it to the following address. New York (Anti-Piracy Office) One Executive Blvd. Suite 455 Yonkers, NY 10701 Do you really think he reads these forums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Thanks for the address! I've sent a sub-space message (with my hobbled together interplexing beacon made up of pie tins, electric eels, hard peanutbutter, a dead mouse and a teaspoon of Drain-O) to the Borg informing them. The MPAA WILL be assimilated! c4 :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 hehe, It's funny to see the MPAA reply to someone who can stand up to them, I don't think they would comment otherwise. I personnally am still a little confused on this fact.... But maybe you could answer this: Being that one owns a legitimate copy of a film etc... Is one allowed to download a film that one already has on DVD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I do believe they have stated that downloading any copy protected material is criminal. I don't think it matters if you already own it. By the same token...why is it OK for me to tape a program off my TV but I can't download the very same show from the net?!? Geez... c4 :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subspatial Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 ...or how about: If i was in the USA, Can I Copy a DVD i bought and email it (format shifted) to my computer in Australia??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 I'm not sure how it is with movies, but for most software it is so that you can make a backup and do anything you want with it (eat it/sit on it/store it/install the software on a computer even), BUT: you cannot use 2 of the same software copies (ie. the original an the copy) at the same time. Ex. you install software A on computer A. You make a backupdisk of this software. You take that backupdisk with you to your summerhouse and install the software on computer B. As long as you don't use the software on computer A and on computer B at the same time, you're clean. That is, for most software. There are exeptions to this rule. I think it is a fair rule, all in all. I would hope something like that existed for movies/music/.... but I'm not sure about it and frankly, given some of the things these guys do and state I have some serious doubts about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 If he was using something like Bit Torrent, he's not just gettng a copy of a file he owns - he's actively distributing and that's GENERALLY what offends them more but yeah, we're getting to the point where owning even a backup of a film you have on dvd is going to get the police knocking down your door and shooting you on sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 If he was using something like Bit Torrent' date=' he's not just gettng a copy of a file he owns - he's actively distributing and that's GENERALLY what offends them more but yeah, we're getting to the point where owning even a backup of a film you have on dvd is going to get the police knocking down your door and shooting you on sight.[/quote'] Yes, this is what i was going to add until I read your comment. Even if you own the legal copy, if you download via bittorrent you are actively distributing to people who do not. Though in my opinion, the burden of proof that you have distributed bits of the file(s) in part or in whole to people who do not own a so-called "legal" copy of the movie is up to the prosecution. And I don't think they can prove that without illegal tactics. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 I was wondering, who's to say that these other people don't allready have the dvd... Maybe they just don't know or dopn't want to spend the time transcoding it... Or maybe they just don't have it with them on holiday and would like to see it anyway. Or any of a dozen other reasons... Okay, far fetched maybe, but if you're innocent untill proven guilty (and can afford that line of defence), then I can imagine it being extremely hard to prove that using bittorrent to download a movie you allready have bought on dvd is illegal. That is, if 'the deed' itself is not illegal, off which I'm still not sure. But reasoning slightly differently: since it is illegal to break encryptions, it is illegal to transcode a dvd to divx. So when you send or recieve such a file you are getting an illegal file whether you have the original or not. Unless the original coder taped it from tv and there was no encryption on it and coded it to 'a friendlier' format afterwards... In the second case, I don't immediately see, how they are going to get 'a conviction'.... edit: on second thought, it of course also possible to 'tape' the dvd (record it digitally without breaking the encryption). I'm not sure whether or not this allowed though??? Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 seems to me that a backup copy is a backup copy if i had had a backup copy of galaxy quest i wouldn't have been so pissed when the video ate it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symok Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 edit: on second thought, it of course also possible to 'tape' the dvd (record it digitally without breaking the encryption). I'm not sure whether or not this allowed though??? Any thoughts? My DVD player (and I assume most/all others) won't play the DVD properly if its being run through a VCR, I assume whatever prevents that would prevent a copying by using a "TV IN" type of method on capture cards. Though it may be possible to get it by using some screen-capture program while playing it directly on the computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 If he was using something like Bit Torrent' date=' he's not just gettng a copy of a file he owns - he's actively distributing and that's GENERALLY what offends them more but yeah, we're getting to the point where owning even a backup of a film you have on dvd is going to get the police knocking down your door and shooting you on sight.[/quote'] Yes, this is what i was going to add until I read your comment. Even if you own the legal copy, if you download via bittorrent you are actively distributing to people who do not. Though in my opinion, the burden of proof that you have distributed bits of the file(s) in part or in whole to people who do not own a so-called "legal" copy of the movie is up to the prosecution. And I don't think they can prove that without illegal tactics. Thoughts? None of that matters. Wether they can prove anything or not. All they have to do is pull your arse into court. Most of us can't afford a bigshot mouthpiece so we'll settle. They know this all too well! c4 :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now