AfterDawn: Tech news

Millionaire vows to challenge MPAA suit

Written by Ben Reid @ 25 Jul 2006 14:49 User comments (137)

Millionaire vows to challenge MPAA suit Last November, software developer Shawn Hogan received a call from a lawyer representing Universal Pictures and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) notifying him that they were suing him for downloading "Meet the Fockers" over the BitTorrent network.
Hogan strongly denies the MPAA's accusation, adding that he even owns the movie on DVD. The attorney said they would settle for $2,500, however, Hogan declined.

Now he's locked in a legal fight with the MPAA. The MPAA, along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), who represent the music industry, have filed thousands of similar lawsuits between them, but due to the legal costs involved, few have been challenged & none have gone to trial. This has left several controversies unresolved, including the lawfulness of the methods associations use access ISP records and whether it's possible to definitively link a person to an IP address in the age of Wi-Fi.

Hogan, who has amassed millions as the CEO of Digital Point Solutions, is determined to alter that trend. Although he expects to incur more than $100,000 in legal fees, he believes it is worth it to challenge the MPAA’s tactics. "They’re completely abusing the system," Hogan says. "I would spend well into the millions on this."

The MPAA remains defiant though. "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."

Source:
Wired Magazine

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

137 user comments

125.7.2006 15:13

haha thank fluff for that. its about time someone giv these idiots a grand old scaring. As far as im concerned they think they can just fine people rather than go to court but alas i praise shawn hogan for him standing up to these fat ass lemons *phew* i made it all the way through even with anger building up inside without swearing lol chris

225.7.2006 15:34

LOL! well, this guy should counter sue the MPAA if he owns the original DVD. Thats not piracy. The MPAA are pathetic.

325.7.2006 17:11

we all know he's going to counter sue if he can put the MPAA in there place and doesnt get found guilty but i have a good feeling the MPAA is gonna be screwed on this one.....

425.7.2006 17:11

Finally someone with the money and cajones to fight them.

525.7.2006 17:43

Personally I only have one thing to say. We need more people like him (ones with $$$) to fight s t like that.

625.7.2006 21:19

When you draw names out of a hat and sue, it's bound to get you in trouble eventually. I couldn't agree more that it's about time.

725.7.2006 21:40
vegeta66
Inactive

!!!!!!go hogan!!!!!! and seriously 2,500 for one movie thats a little extreme, especially sense he owns it.

826.7.2006 0:40

well if he is a millionaire it's pretty much pocket change... also cases like these he is technically correct but when the MPAA catches a guy with over 500 pirated movies, do you think it would be wise to fight?

926.7.2006 2:27

as rich as he is a feel the MPAA will have the better of him, there probally worth a lot more then him. he still gets my backing though

1026.7.2006 3:27

Are the MPAA stupid? First of all he owns the movie on DVD so its not even against the law, secondly he is a MILLIONAIRE why would he download a film when he could afford to buy like 10000 copied of it legally? I hope he wins and sues them for wasting him time and abusing him!

1126.7.2006 5:33

John Hogan is a pirates jesus!!! Lol Hope he wins and sues them for all there worth.

1226.7.2006 7:45

What I want to know is how did teh MPAA find him? I sometimes use bit torrent an I wonder if they could find me?

1326.7.2006 8:20

It is all about sticking it to the man. Go get em Hogan.

1426.7.2006 9:18
jziman
Inactive

Woo Hoo The MPAA decided to pick a fight with somone who can afford to go to court! Extortion is all the MPAA/RIAA are doing. I hope this guy wins. He has my support. Now this is something that I must follow and find out the outcome.

1526.7.2006 10:01
xhardc0re
Inactive

I hope Mr. Hogan sues the fock out of the MPAA fockers, and Mr. Malcom eats his focking words!!! Looks like the MPAA has focked the wrong person, and it about to get its focking house of cards blown away. Anyone see the irony in this? He was accused of downloading "Meet the Fockers". Hahah.

1626.7.2006 10:23

Although i agree with you edit out your language. Changing a U to an O doesnt count.

1726.7.2006 10:27

This might intrest you guys. Its about the case: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6466/MPAA+v+Shawn+Hogan:+The+Zeropaid+Interview

1826.7.2006 10:27

This might intrest you guys. Its about the case: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6466/MPAA+v+Shawn+Hogan:+The+Zeropaid+Interview

1926.7.2006 10:30

My support goes to Hogan.... However....maybe Hogans kids are the culprit. Maybe he didn't do it himself. One cannot say that since he is a millionare...."Why would he do it". Maybe he is just a rebel in disguise. Anywayz....i'm glad he is on our side. Someone needs to stand up....especially when the MPAA have a history of being dead wrong, jumping the gun, and having too much free time and $$$ to squander.

2026.7.2006 11:01

These two dreadful set of crooks organized under the MPAA and RIAA are a modern version of the inquisition and deserve a lesson. Hopefuly Hogan makes his case, and judges go for rightness and justice instead of money.

2126.7.2006 11:15

The big question is if he goes to trial AND WINS, can you imagine how this will change everything the MPAA does business?

2226.7.2006 12:07

Three cheers for Shawn Hogan !!!

2326.7.2006 12:08
xhardc0re
Inactive

Quote:
djgizmo said: The big question is if he goes to trial AND WINS, can you imagine how this will change everything the MPAA does business?
If he won, based on what the court said was legal/illegal in their witchhunt, it would devestate the MPAA/RIAA in their ability to sue people. No longer could they pull some random search from http://www.bigchampagne.com and other anti-P2P companies, and sue someone. They would have to go back to the file host, subpoena the records, verify those records against the anti-P2P search, see if that person was just an average joe (i.e. not rich), before doing anything. That would be expensive. Rich people do not like spending money....at all. So yeah, it would definitely make the MPAA/RIAA think twice before trying to financially destroy someone for downloading a file from the Internet. The MPAA/RIAA are nothing but rich, arrogant motherfockers.

2426.7.2006 13:01

lecsiy "...edit out your language...Changing a U to an O doesnt count." ??? Does that apply to the article as well? To me this case is about taking the **AAs to task on their abusive methods more than anything. Racketeering, intimidation, lack of credible evidence. That is what will win this case (or more likely get it dropped...) for Mr. Hogan.

2526.7.2006 13:09

t hope he counter sues...totally agree with him BUT, he downloaded the movie over the internet>>> thats why i say DO not ever download any movies over the net, even if you own it.... be careful people,,,do not ever download any movie over the net.......your just asking for trouble................. gday

2626.7.2006 14:03

It's a 100000$ in legal fees? That's insane, now I know why they haven't been challenged, if anything it's a scheme devised by MPAA to rob further money from the people. Good for you Mr Hogan, I hope you win.

2726.7.2006 14:30
xhardc0re
Inactive

here's a ? for AD people: Would you donate $5 to Mr. Hogan if it meant the MPAA/RIAA may lose. Note I didn't say will...they might lose.

2826.7.2006 14:45
flyingv
Inactive

Yea, I'd kick in a 5 spot to see these MPAA FOCKERS go down. I'm glad to see someone with the resources to stand up against them. Most of the people they "catch" doing this are average "Joes" who wouldn't be able to stand on one leg against this machine. Go Hogan!!!

2926.7.2006 14:54

Are you joking I would give like 20 dollars.

3026.7.2006 15:18
s3a
Inactive

My parents say that in life, you always have to fight for your rights...and that rich guy IS right!!

3126.7.2006 16:40

all i can say is finally

3226.7.2006 16:40

all i can say is finally

3326.7.2006 17:22

This guy sounds like a real stand up guy. I hope he wins some cash.......2 make him richer. =)

3426.7.2006 19:22

yes! finally, this is great, i can't wait to see this go all the way through, it is about time that someone did this... I read that interview, and i can't believe that people are allowing this to go on.... It's hilarious how that lady in oregon is using hte old gangster laws.... ManuZ

3527.7.2006 0:42
xhardc0re
Inactive

I hope EFF.org gets involved. The MPAA/RIAA are not going down easily. This would set a major precedent, i could see the legal bills going into six figures or more. Hope he wins, and slams their a$$e$ to the ground. Bunch of greedy snakes, they are.


if you're a college student, do NOT settle with the RIAA http://tinyurl.com/37oz2z


~ SlimPS2 v15US, PSP v3.60FW, TaiyoYuden DVD-R, SwapMagic_v3.6 & BreakerPro 1.1 (No mod)
Writer: HL-DT-ST DVD-RW GWA-4080N 0G03 SW: DVDDecrypt*r,
lastest Nero Ultra 7 & Alcohol 120% ~

3627.7.2006 8:49
gogochar
Inactive

Let's see... Poor people, middle class people, young people, old people, dead people now rich people...

3727.7.2006 10:55

Everyone should read this article in depth. The other case of note, where Ms. Anderson is being sued, is full of MAFIAA bull as well. A number of people from the collection company in charge of extorting the settlement from her have basically acknowledged that they think she's done nothing wrong and should be off the hook. But that would encourage other people to fight, so we can't have that can we?!! Yep, the dead, the people with Mac's who can't use the software, the old people who don't own a computer, now this... I don't think there's a lot more missing from the RIAA's resume of reasons why they can't be allowed to continue.

3827.7.2006 14:27

Yeah i agree... There needs to be sites or somethign that are anti riaa/mpaa petitions for all of their illagitimate cases, i do hope that they just get shut down. This is just an underpublicized tyranny that goes on in our own country...

3928.7.2006 10:17
xhardc0re
Inactive

check out http://www.eff.org & find out ways you can help fight the MPAA/RIAA. It only takes a few hundred people to stir up $**t, and maybe the tide can be turned against all these lawsuits.


if you're a college student, do NOT settle with the RIAA http://tinyurl.com/37oz2z


~ SlimPS2 v15US, PSP v3.60FW, TaiyoYuden DVD-R, SwapMagic_v3.6 & BreakerPro 1.1 (No mod)
Writer: HL-DT-ST DVD-RW GWA-4080N 0G03 SW: DVDDecrypt*r,
lastest Nero Ultra 7 & Alcohol 120% ~

4028.7.2006 12:31

Quote:
lecsiy (Member) 26 July 2006 14:23 Although i agree with you edit out your language. Changing a U to an O doesnt count.
WTF? You a telemarketer? Kindergarden teacher? what the fock?

4128.7.2006 13:59

Poeple who commnet on splleing in fuormus jsut have to much time on der hadns. With noithing mcuh better to say. Anyways, I would love to see him win. Though I have a feeling that It wont stop the MPAA.

4228.7.2006 16:32
xhardc0re
Inactive

just another grammar troll. Ignore it.

4328.7.2006 21:13

mmmmmmm grammar trolls... i eat them.... haha btw thanks for the eff site, it's a really cool site... ManuZ

4429.7.2006 13:22

Haven't the MPAA & RIAA argued that it's illegal to dl a copyrighted work since you haven't licensed the right to a copy? Doesn't this demonstrate how hypocritical they are, since he DOES have the right to a copy AND to "fair use" of the copyrighted work? According to MY (uninformed & unprofessional) understanding of the law, once you legally buy a copy of a song/film, you should NEVER have to pay again for the right to enjoy it. That means that concerts which include songs you own on CD should cost less, and going to the theater to watch a movie you've paid to watch already (either VHS, DVD, Beta, LD, or in any theater) should only cost you the price of the overhead at that building - NOTHING more should be paid to MPAA for you to watch it again. So the same would apply to downloading - once you own a copy, you should be able to dl it as often as you like.

4529.7.2006 13:43

You don't own the song or the movie. You just own the media it sits on.

4629.7.2006 13:49

I know what would slow the mpaa/riaa down. All the 'average joe's' who can afford the time. Accept the suit. Demand a full court case. Act as your own lawyer. Counter sue them under RICO. Serve as your own laywer again. Tie them up with such court nonsense that they would buckle under sheer frustration. If just 1000 out of the 20,000 could do that, it would have an impact. Rock on, Shawn!!

4729.7.2006 13:50
palovalve
Inactive

As I said,five years ago when this whole mess came about, we might as well get rid of our vcr's and tape decks and all othe recording equipment...the is insane so what! He may or may not have downloaded a movie big f!$&*%# deal so what money money money thats what it is all about screw the movie industrie and screw all those big crying babies. we are the people and we can make or break them boycott their movies with all the media out there today we dont need it.

4829.7.2006 14:55

How's it goin" I hope Mr. Hogan kicks the snot out of the MPAA and the RIAA. Once you paid there high prices you should have the right do handle your media as seen fit, not under the extreme rules of groups getting wealthy off others work.

4929.7.2006 15:08

ChiefBrdy Good good point, if we could just get a movement, of roughly 1000 or so people to just make the **aa's to get buckled down in paperwork.... it would be amazing... the effect would be in essence that they are LOSING money for however many court cases they win due to losing money and time on other court cases... most likely making htem stop. hopefully.

5029.7.2006 16:50

They're gonna get done. This is gonna be great!

5129.7.2006 16:52

Oh man they should put the trial on payperview then one of us can get it through a tv card and upload it to everyone lol

5229.7.2006 18:49

If downloading or copying a movie is literally the same as stealing as the MPAA says it is. The warnings on videos state that one is liable for $250,000.00 in fines and 5 years in prison for un-authorized viewing, copying, renting, or showing for profit...wouldn't a person that shoplifts a DVD or video tape be doing the same thing, according to the MPAA, as downloaders?? I have yet to hear of a shoplifter getting a $250,000.00 fine or 5 years in jail. Come to think of it, there are some murderers that get lighter sentences...... If one really analyses the MPAA's thought process then logic says that if you invite someone to your home to view a video that you have just bought, you or that person you invited must pay the studio for the right to view the video.... Oh well, In a country that one is guilty until proven whatever, one can expect this kind of situation....

5329.7.2006 20:19

All I have to say is, why, why, why are people even downloading movies off of the internet when you can get a blockbuster membership for $17 and rent all the movies you want, and burn them in the privacy of your home and not get into trouble.

5429.7.2006 21:04
Ballpyhon
Inactive

Quote:
lecsiy (Member) 26 July 2006 14:23 Although i agree with you edit out your language. Changing a U to an O doesnt count.
Please grow up. if you have an issue with the substitution of the letter u talk to the movie company that produced meet the fOckers. As for Mr. Hogan, way to go!!!!!! kick those MPAA jerk offs butts. Maybe he can set a precident on this issue.
Quote:
Mofomac (Newbie) 30 July 2006 0:19 _ All I have to say is, why, why, why are people even downloading movies off of the internet when you can get a blockbuster membership for $17 and rent all the movies you want, and burn them in the privacy of your home and not get into trouble.
I agree, although I pay $27 not $17 a month. although you cant always get what you want from the video store. DOWN WITH THE MPAA!!!!! DIE YOU GREEDY fOcks.

5529.7.2006 22:24

Mofomac, to your post: All I have to say is, why, why, why are people even downloading movies off of the internet when you can get a blockbuster membership for $17 and rent all the movies you want, and burn them in the privacy of your home and not get into trouble. Another good idea, Netflix. Then for only 31.64 a month, you can have 5 movies at home at a time, with no limit on the number a month. And with free, easy to find software, rip/burn your own copy. Another plus over blockbuster, you dont have to spend money for gas to get the movie or take back, it only takes a day or two for your next movie on your list to arrive. If your fast, you can get a group of movies on monday, send them back on tuesday, and have more on thursday. Thats 5 movies in 4-5 days, over and over for a month. Oh, they do have a big list of other options, if you dont want 5 at a time. netflix.com for movies, and afterdawn.com for software =)

5630.7.2006 1:24

True. I have the Blockbuster one, but it's only $17 for 3 movies out at a time, plus you get a free in store rental coupon you print up on your computer every week! I was like wow! thats alot of movies. I cycle it so that just about every day I receive a movie. I have about 75 movies, I bought like maybe 10. Although, I only burn for myself. I don't burn to sell like some people do.

5730.7.2006 10:21

"...31.64 a month, you can have 5 movies at home at a time, with no limit on the number a month." Not exactly... I've been a NetFlix, BlockBuster, & WM member for several years (until just recently when WM stopped & BB ran out of titles I wanted) and I can tell you from THOROUGH testing & contact with them that you DO have limits. Not only is their "one-day delivery to most locations" complete BS; it neglects the return & inprocessing time, which is at least double the delivery time. So if you get a complete batch of DVDs on the same day, and you put them all back in the mail the following day, it'll be at LEAST 6 days from the arrival of the 1st batch to the arrival of the 2nd batch. So you're limited that way to 5 batches at most per month. The other way they limit you is: If you have a high turnover rate (like I do), you go to the BOTTOM of the list for out-of-stock titles. That means, if they have 40 copies of Pirates... - Dead Man's Chest, and it's at the top of 41 people's lists including mine, I'll be the LAST person to get it, even though I'm their best customer. So that also limits my rental activity. There was a class-action lawsuit against them for making that "unlimited" claim.

5830.7.2006 10:40

Hmmm. Strange. I haven't had any problem yet. Maybe it has to do with that fact that the send the dvd's from rochester, which is like 45 min away from me. Sorry to hear about your misfortune. But we both agree this is much better than downloading them =0).

5931.7.2006 3:15

Quote:
downloading "Meet the Fockers" over the BitTorrent network
BitTorrent isn't a network.
Quote:
One cannot say that since he is a millionare...."Why would he do it". Maybe he is just a rebel in disguise.
Maybe he's a rebel, or maybe he just has not-so common sense. You can download things that you can't buy. MPAA members should start selling High definition x264 video in MKV on DVD for $10 each, BAM!

6031.7.2006 9:27

finaly a hero has appered in this war,hopefuly ge will surivve the demonic onslought 0_o


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

6131.7.2006 9:35
Ballpyhon
Inactive

Quote:
Steve83 (Member) 30 July 2006 14:21 Send private message to this user "...31.64 a month, you can have 5 movies at home at a time, with no limit on the number a month." Not exactly... I've been a NetFlix, BlockBuster, & WM member for several years (until just recently when WM stopped & BB ran out of titles I wanted) and I can tell you from THOROUGH testing & contact with them that you DO have limits. Not only is their "one-day delivery to most locations" complete BS; it neglects the return & inprocessing time, which is at least double the delivery time. So if you get a complete batch of DVDs on the same day, and you put them all back in the mail the following day, it'll be at LEAST 6 days from the arrival of the 1st batch to the arrival of the 2nd batch. So you're limited that way to 5 batches at most per month. The other way they limit you is: If you have a high turnover rate (like I do), you go to the BOTTOM of the list for out-of-stock titles. That means, if they have 40 copies of Pirates... - Dead Man's Chest, and it's at the top of 41 people's lists including mine, I'll be the LAST person to get it, even though I'm their best customer. So that also limits my rental activity. There was a class-action lawsuit against them for making that "unlimited" claim.
that is why i spend the extra .50 cents on gas to and from blockbuster. that way i can watch 5 movies a day if i choose. one month i rented 80+ movies.

6231.7.2006 9:39

Ballpyhon well if blockbuster was not limited in type then I could stand going to a store..if I had a way to go to the store *L* all in all netflix is not bad. I think I am goign to stay at the 8 moives at a time thing and get 8 moives a week or so,its about al I can mental prosses at a tiem anyway *L* I like anime and netflix has a ton of it *L* I am supplmenting my lack of boardband with it ;_; its jsut a shame they dont ahve the newer stuff I was watching *L*

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 31 Jul 2006 @ 9:45

6331.7.2006 13:00

About the idea of representing yourself in Federal Court... The MPAA only has to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence which means you more likely did what they said you did, than did not. They don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial. If they win, they will ask for court costs and atty fees ($100,000), and whatever the judge/jury decides you should have to pay for copyright infringement. I don't believe you can bankrupt yourself out of the judgement/debt. If you don't pay the debt, it might go away after 7, 10, 14, or 20 years, depending on the state (USA) you live in. If you want to own property before then, do it in someone else's name, or else they can take that away if they find it. They can also ask you every so often what your assets are. If you lie, that becomes a crime (perjury). Unfortunately...the $2500 is a bargain considering the downside. If a person can't prove by 100% that they didn't do it, it doesn't seem to be worth taking the chance. Even if you can prove it, they will bury you in legal paperwork. If you fail to answer it by the deadlines set, they win anyway. The $100,000 Shawn Hogan expects to spend is what it costs to repond to the MPAA's legal paperwork blizzard. It ain't Judge Judy or small claims court. Whether Hogan wins or not means nothing unless the verdict is appealed. That would be when the Appeals court could look at how the law was applied, and would hopefully make a decision that would limit what the MPAA is doing, and how they get their information.

6431.7.2006 14:50

Ballpyhon That's great that your BB store stocks so many titles that you like - mine has squat. All of them near me suck. Doc Regardless of an appeal, it will become the only precedent establishing jurisprudence for all similar cases.

6531.7.2006 15:35

Doc409 SO even if you when agist the man he can call a do over....life suxs :P

6631.7.2006 15:36

Steve... That is a good point. But a follow-on case will still be a trial on the merits of the case. Under our federal common law system the jury can only be given existing law, not precedent. The law can only be changed by congress, or by further definition at the appeals level. The exception would be if the lower court found some kind of constitional violation, and hopefully that would come about from how the MPAA goes about getting its information to sue people. This whole thing has been on constitutional thin ice from the beginning.

6731.7.2006 15:42

ZIppy...well...an appeal doesn't always mean a do over unless there was a big mistake. The appeals court can deny the appeal if there is no basis. But since this group of laws is so new, there are usually a lot of reasons it could be appealed. A lot comes down to interpretation, or what the words mean that congress put together. These laws can't conflict with other laws, like constitutional rights, either. That would be a good basis for appeal.

6831.7.2006 15:48

Doc409 heheh I was beign silly for the most part :P

6931.7.2006 15:55

Steve...I left out the real value of a precedent...it serves as a guide on how to win a similar case in the future. If Hogan wins, it could end up discouraging other lawsuits by the MPAA.

7031.7.2006 16:22

Doc. You should be on Hogan's team!!! :=O)

7131.7.2006 16:56

tranquash...Thanks. I am certainly in his corner. :) I hope he kicks butt. He has the money to afford the best lawyers around...and I hope he makes a lot of headway.

721.8.2006 4:04
mark5hs
Inactive

they want $2500 to drop a case over a $10 movie? Theyre just suing him because hes rich and want to steel his money. If he owns the DVD, its perfectly legal to download it. Its called "backing up". The MPAA and RIAA are complete a$$es and deserve to be pirated from.

731.8.2006 4:04
mark5hs
Inactive

they want $2500 to drop a case over a $10 movie? Theyre just suing him because hes rich and want to steel his money. If he owns the DVD, its perfectly legal to download it. Its called "backing up". The MPAA and RIAA are complete a$$es and deserve to be pirated from.

741.8.2006 9:29
Sheariah
Inactive

Am I the only one who thinks what the MPAA is doing is extortion? They get all the money they want from threatening to sue people knowing that most cannot afford a proper defense against them. It reminds me of the Salem witch trials. All they have to do is point a finger. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? How is an average person to prove anything. What if malware has been secretly installed on their computer that is using the computer as a proxy or zombie or whatever they call it? Or, if someone was camping on your wireless network, they could download stuff and it would only show the IP address that was assigned to your gateway. Furthermore, I think anything MPAA or RIAA could use as evidence, would actually be an invasion of privacy. Where are the search warrants? Where is the evidence to allow them to get a search warrant. They just pick on any average peson with an internet connection and said they could have done it, therefore they did. This whole thing has gotten way out of hand.

751.8.2006 10:17

I agree with you 100%; and that's why in Oregon "...RIAA victim Tanya Andersen has just counter-sued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices..." see here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6445 So at least we can count two heros in this crusade against these crooks. :p

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Aug 2006 @ 10:19

Chuck

"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)

761.8.2006 13:06

tranquash...that was a very good link you gave, and it gives a lot of insight into what is really going on... It is no longer the RIAA or MPAA that is going after people...they just get the publicity. What it seems you have are companies that have sprung up offering snoop services, lawsuit services, and collection services to the RIAA and MPAA. These new companies are a whole sub-industry that don't even involve the record or movie companies anymore. These companies are a sub-industry that has a life of its own now. (And once you get down to the scum suckers you find at collection companies, watch out. By then, it is often too late to do anything.) These snoop services are liken to a street drug informant. They get paid when they turn over info on illegal activity, whether true or not. And, it is becoming clear that snoop services aren't penalized for lying, just rewarded for supplying names. I can see now how RICO laws would apply, because the sub-industry is nothing more than a criminal enterprise at this point.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Aug 2006 @ 13:06

771.8.2006 16:23

Sheariah...I would also agree with you that it is extortion...or worse. And most people don't know enough about the system, nor have enough money, to challenge it. Notice the article said Hogan got a call from an attorney representing the MPAA. It didn't say the MPAA's attorney, which would be different. It looks like any attorney can represent the MPAA. So...it looks like the MPAA isn't the one out there trying to find people illegally downloading movies...it is the entreprenuerial lawyers that hire freelance snoopers who take the snooper's info, run it through the legal system to get a judgement, and then turn it over to the collections side of their atty business to get money. No wonder there are so many sleazy lawyer jokes. It also appears that the way things are set up, any hungry attorney could set up an MPAA or RIAA backed business. ...Just hire some high school kid as a snooper, and you are off to the races. And the MPAA or RIAA won't turn you away, because it makes them look like they are doing something for the movie companies that pay their salaries. What a racket! This needs to be exposed in a big way.

781.8.2006 17:01

Scumbags working for leeches... or the other way around... lol

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 01 Aug 2006 @ 17:02

Chuck

"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)

791.8.2006 17:43

Each time there are gross excesses of profit, a crime is bound to be behind it, I am not surprised the MPAA, or other significants, all delve in questionable practices. I hope they are humiliated in the courts time and time again, until they decidely change their less than honorable practices.

802.8.2006 12:09
goodswipe
Inactive

Hulk Hogan RoX...I just shoplift all my dvd's from walmart and bestbuy...paying for a membership that allows you to rent movies is for the birds. ()()==========D`

812.8.2006 12:10
goodswipe
Inactive

OH NO...not you again hot ice...

822.8.2006 12:47

Hahah goodswipe...lol...and yes I agree: not Hot Ice AGAIN!! This whole thing seems to me like it is an unjust, unprecedented, extortionist plan. The only reason that this si being allowed to continue is because, like people have been saying, there are soooo many people that have their hands in each others pockets just digging that no one wants to give up secrets or dispose information (negative to the company snooping, lawyers, or record industry) that would collapse the whole framework. This Hogan guy seems like he is a hero in his own right for sure, but i think he needs to direct his attention elsewhere. The real battle should be fought against the internet provider that allowed said information to be illegaly disclosed. Not only would this battle keep your online information safe and free from peering eyes it would also prevent any further incidences, regardless of whether it is for pirating or illegaly downloading movies, child pornography charges etc. This is a difficult problem to adress, and many of the aspects have been well explained, in terms of stipulations. Address campers, malware, spyware etc.. And to think for a second that by allowing people to pump wireless broadband across the city, you aren't going to attract a huge crowd of freeloaders you must be insane... These freeloaders use up bandwidth, snoop files, DOWNLOAD ILLEGAL FILES etc.. I would be very interested in watching this thing progress and see where it ends up in the long-run. I personally have a pessimistic outlook for this case, but thats not important. it is the cases in the future, after the ground has been broken that will be important. Once someone stirs the pot, it usually keeps on swirling long after you take the spoon out.

832.8.2006 12:49

Boberto96 bah Hotice adds good comentary to what is most of the time boreing mindless posts. and yes..I am talking abotu my posts >>

842.8.2006 12:57

Hahah, I was kidding... and pending Hot Ice reading my last and final post in the PSP racism thread, i hope SHE will understand ;) Let's not get our panties in a bunch. "..He had a sphincter that could crack a Diamond." let's not get that uptight about things. Cheers, Hot Ice Let the debate begin :)

852.8.2006 14:03

From Boberto96

Quote:
The real battle should be fought against the internet provider that allowed said information to be illegaly disclosed.
Unfortunately, this battle has already been fought a few years ago. It was lost in the US federal courts when the first RIAA lawsuits were launched. The ISP's spent a lot of money opposing the subpoenas. The court ruled that when an ISP got a subpoena listing addresses, the ISP had to turn over the names and contact info that went with them. The court was told names and IP addresses were always a 100% match. In a key case, this was true of some college students using the universities' network. The court did not foresee wireless hackers.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Aug 2006 @ 14:12

863.8.2006 7:07
Ballpyhon
Inactive

Quote:
tranquash (Junior Member) 1 August 2006 14:17 Send private message to this user I agree with you 100%; and that's why in Oregon "...RIAA victim Tanya Andersen has just counter-sued the RIAA for Oregon RICO violations, fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices..." see here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6445 So at least we can count two heros in this crusade against these crooks. :p
In response to this article, in my opinion it is no different then getting info about customers who purchase guns from the the FBI (since they have to be contacted EVERYTIME any firearm is purchased), and having their homes raided in search of evidence of murder. or people who own video cameras having their homes raided and searched for evidence of taking the video camera with them to the movies to bootleg a movie before it is released to DVD. as Sheariah stated before it is possible for someone to use another persons pc as a proxy for the purposes of pirating electronic data. what would happen to the artists and movie companies if we boycotted their products and services in protest? they wouldn't continue to make their billions of $$. I say we band together and boycott them all. STOP FEEDING THE MACHINE, AND LET IT RUN OUT OF GAS!!!!!!!!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Aug 2006 @ 7:12

There's no right, there's no wrong, there is only popular opinion.

873.8.2006 14:37

Ballpyhon...boycott them? Never happen. These companies have a right to make money, and it seems a lot of people are willing to pay for what they offer. The problem comes down to how these companies have gone about enforcing their rights to their income. Their system of thinking that if they track IP addresses that they will catch illegal downloaders is not foolproof, and so innocent people are getting accused, and often financially damaged. This is clearly wrong. Boycotting would do nothing to solve this very real problem of people being falsely accused of piracy.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Aug 2006 @ 15:08

883.8.2006 15:53
Ballpyhon
Inactive

doc409 my point is that its the people that pay them by buying the products they sell. you said yourself that innocent people are being accused, which we all know is true. from a certain standpoint that is like taking money from whoever walks into a store, whether they buy something or not. just because people surf the net does not mean they are downloading data/music illegally. just as people who walk into a store are not always going to buy or steal something. when these unlucky individuals get sued for copyright infringement do the companies who are prosecuting them seize their computers and provide the proof of theft? sometimes they do, but most of the time they don't even let them know they are being sued until after a final judgement has been made. a prime example is a family got sued for piracy without even having a computer or Internet connection. as seen here>> http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7495.cfm.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 03 Aug 2006 @ 15:56

There's no right, there's no wrong, there is only popular opinion.

894.8.2006 3:08

haha, the way I see things... There has to be at least 100 people i know that have downloaded more than $2500 worth of music to their PC's....so I mean, the way I see, the out of court settlement is not really all too bad :). Just my opinion... At least if you're gonna download one song, download 1000, it's still just as illegal. Cheers to all the pirateer's out there :) keep up the good work.

904.8.2006 14:21

Well, if you can't handle my opinions goodswipe, I regret to inform you the office of complaints is permanently closed at this time.

915.8.2006 22:44

Dont battle amounst yourselves, do it against the leeches

925.8.2006 22:50

FredBun can I still battle the voices in my head? :P


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

936.8.2006 7:46

The ISP should be the one to blame, won't hold water. ISP's give you access to download child pornography, go to illegal gambling sites, purchase illegal drugs over the internet, etc. Also, Purchasing a DVD only gives you the right to view it and maintain legal possession of the media. You don't own the movie. "Because the music or movie is expensive and or crap" is completely irrelevant. The choice not to buy it is there. The industry has us by the b..ls based on these arguments. The best and IMO, only defense is I DIDN'T DO IT. There are hundreds of arguments for that. One is that it's POSSIBLE that two DNS resource records or CNAME's on the ISP’s server were pointing to the same IP. If that's true, the download could have been in a completely different house or in a different state for that matter. There are ways to prove exactly which path the download took but I doubt if the ISP's are keeping records like that. I believe if the courts look at the fact that the same (IP address) can be held by more than one location, it will set a precedent that will end the lawsuits. Another one. If someone goes into a gun store. Breaks the glass, loads the gun and shoots someone. Is the store owner going to be held liable? I doubt it, if the case was properly locked. Well, I have large parties all the time. It could have been a guest a friend or the fairy God mother who hacked into my computer and downloaded the movie. The idea here is to put enough doubt in the court's mind that ISP identification is NOT 100% right all the time.


"Is that 3 thousand dollar bounty on the shark in cash or check?"

"We can do it the easy way...Or we can do it the REAL easy way."

946.8.2006 9:26

Except that their bet is precisely that people won't get back at them for many reasons, money being a comon denominator, so they ask for a settlement of nothing less than $2,500 a piece. For me is just a bunch of crooks extorting people. Like Doc409 has perfectly described as a "sub-industry" where scumbags and leeches are making their living.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Aug 2006 @ 9:26

Chuck

"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)

956.8.2006 9:28

ChiefBrdy So I guess you are saying if you dont want to spend 50 on a game that you is worth almost half that,dont copy it dont download it dont paly it *L* ah well I guess that works to,I check out games from tiem to tiem to see if they are worth buying soemtiems they are even if I have finished it befor,but most of the time they are not worth it. I guess I should pickup a new hobby sicne I seem to finish games befor ever buying them >>


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

966.8.2006 10:45

ChiefBrdy...that is some good info about ISP's. Also, the majority of all IP addresses are dynamic...thus change frequently. My ISP changes my address every week. I am then assigned an address that someone else had earlier. This system makes for a lot of uncertainty over who downloaded what and when. What many don't remember is the first of the RIAA lawsuits. They went after dedicated networks that assigned static addresses to students. It was very clear who had been downloading MP3's. That is why the Federal appeals court allowed the RIAA to serve its subpoenas for the names. This decision set into motion the present witch hunt which now involves dynamic addresses. Perhaps Hogan's defense will cause the courts to take another look at ISP technology. Fortunately the USA courts frown on shotgun approaches that end up accusing innocent people, and will make decisions that protect them. As another note...ISP's are not legally required to keep records of IP addresses tied to users. It is in their best interest if they don't keep these records at all...because it is these very records and their accuracy that gets them called into court as a witness (for any kind of illegal activity). This costs them a lot of time and money they don't get back. I suspect they try to avoid these costs as much as possible...as it has been the ISP's that constantly object to subpoenas for customer names, etc.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Aug 2006 @ 10:47

976.8.2006 13:12

ZIppyDSM, I'm not saying do or don't do anything. You can download a billion gigs for all I care. If you ever find yourself in court. Try telling the judge you did it because you don't think the media is worth the asking price. See how far that gets you.


"Is that 3 thousand dollar bounty on the shark in cash or check?"

"We can do it the easy way...Or we can do it the REAL easy way."

986.8.2006 13:41

I would like to point out that the Afterdawn forum does not support piracy. See #5 of the rules: http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487 Clearly some people that visit AD engage in piracy, but there has always been a strong AD policy against anyone promoting it...that is, telling people they do it, telling how to do it, encouraging it, etc. There are legal reasons for this policy, and they should be respected. Many countries allow fair use, which can involve backing up owned media. This is not piracy, and a lot of the forum is devoted to this activity.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Aug 2006 @ 13:43

996.8.2006 14:48

ChiefBrdy about the same as gettign in a hookers pants without money :P Doc409 And the main leagle reasons is the man will come swooping down with his black boots and close the place down *L* I rent games to, most arent worth keeping much less copying or keeping. reminds me of getting baned from the raven forums becuse I couldnt shut up about Quake 4 suxing and sinces it so bad copying it dosent seem like such a "bad" thing,since they have the ID password thing on the severs no one is getting free MP paly. god I am so glad I was able to get my 50 back...Q4 is bad.....


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1006.8.2006 21:43
Ballpyhon
Inactive

I just thought of something. hypothetically speaking is being in possession of copied/pirated software illegal? who is to say the IRAA and MPAA aren't just going around sticking burned copies of DVDs, MP3s and software in peoples mail slots. it would be a hell of a way to make a quick buck. 10 cents for the cost of the CD/DVD, then sue for thousands of dollars. that is one hell of a profit. better yet, say Joe Blow pisses you off, just burn a CD and drop it in his mail box, call the CD police and watch him get carted off to jail. are they going to go door to door now and check everyones computer?


There's no right, there's no wrong, there is only popular opinion.

1016.8.2006 22:42

like they have not started doign that with fake fiels and tracking software on "real" files *L* oy vay it never ends.


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1026.8.2006 22:43

Ballpyhon...laws differ internationally...but in the USA possession of bootlegged material is illegal, and falls under the criminal code...which also provides for civil action. The Feds, being very busy with criminal matters like drugs, won't even consider going after someone unless they are selling bootlegs and grossing over $50k a year. I got this straight from the FBI. There has yet to be a downloader that faced criminal charges in the USA. The MPAA and RIAA tried to get legislation passed that made it mandatory that the FBI went after everyone criminally, but congress didn't pass the bill. This left the MPAA and RIAA to go after people on their own...under civil law. So, the FBI and local police don't get involved at all with this. Now, to answer your question, the RIAA or MPAA would have no way to prove you got a CD in the mail without breaking a bunch of criminal laws. They aren't going to do this. And, the local police aren't interested, because the local district/prosecuting attorney is busy enough with drug and murder cases. What it really comes down to is that the RIAA and MPAA want to discourage illegal downloading by creating a climate of fear. Its that simple. And, they have to keep suing people to perpetuate this, and innocents are being hurt. This is done by the "sub-industry" I mentioned earlier. They have crossed the line, and I'm thinking it is possible the courts could turn against them in the near future.

1037.8.2006 3:17

ballp, doc is mainly right, the movie and music moguls do want to put the fear of God into everyone, but of course they cant and won't go after anybody that makes a copy for thier personel use and here's why, One of the biggest debates between the public and the recorded music industry is whether or not creating backup copies of personal CDs and DVDs is legal. Manufacturers state that making copies for any purpose is illegal because to do so is a copyright infringement, but the public is in favor of the Fair Use Act and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. These are open to interpretation, but in a nutshell – you may legally make a copy of your CD for personal backup if you were the one who bought (and still own) the original. Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 states that copyright holders can't sue the average user for making home copies of their music. But the studios' lawyers say that the recording companies are not required to make available the technology to do so – that means the recording industry will try to make their disks as challenging as possible to copy. This is not something I just made up in my head, this comes out of the American law books, they finally passed this after because the music industry wanted to act like a nazi regime and decided to put an end to thier crying and also added this same law to the movie industry as well. These people just do not want to stop with all thier different type of tacticts to try any manuever to stop anybody to copy anything, I still can't believe they made a deal with people like Gates, meaning when windows vista comes out you know you wont be able to copy hardly anything (store bought cd's and dvd's), so enjoy your windows xp as long as you can. Also a fact, by the mogels own words, because of pirating they lose a 7% revenue yearly because of it, so in other words, instead of Spielburg or MotlyCrew or whatever thier name is will make 100 mil a year they will only get 97 mil, wow, don't you feel bad for them. And here's the real kicker that gets me, I also do not approve pirating, I don't think anybody has that right for profit, but that 7% mainly consists by the profit piraters, we as the personal users in no way make any kind of dent in thier profits but who do you think will suffer the most, (US), we the regular people, I learned a while ago to make a copy of my store bought whatever for my own personel use for different kind of reasons, mainly for me if anybody else here has kids in the house your store bought cd's or dvd's doesnt last to long, after carefully handling your media and than miraculously you find scratches and splits and you ask your 3 kids any of you have anything to do with this, oh no Dad we didn't touch anything, YEAH RIGHT, but back to point, with all the new crap they will be throwing at us like vista etc. its us again that will suffer, Iv'e asked experts about this and they say oh well just switch to linux, oh really, does anybody here know how limited and complicated linux is, 95% of people use windows, not because its great because thats whats mostly available and it's ease of use so after vista were screwed, and do you think the real pirates care about vista, hell no, whatever the music and movie moguls throw out there the pirates have enough time and revenue to beat anything that they throw at us. So again, that 7% that they keep crying about will change absolutly nothing except that again us the little guy will suffer.

1047.8.2006 17:18

once again wired (some suprise) and afterdawn (very suprising, got the story WRONG. Hogan is being sued not for downloading but according to the filing "for making available for downloading." For crying out loud no one has EVER been sued in the US for "illegal downlaodnng." there is no such concept. Once again 99% of the resulting comments here are jibberish not based on any fact. Fact: the MPAA and RIAA in public statements like to imply and fuzzily state people are being sued for "downloading". Yet if you look a the filings -- NO ONE EVER been sued for downloading. the only use of the term "downloading" in any filed document is within the phrase "made available for downloading," EG UPLOADING. again, NOT a single person has been sued for dowloading songs or films. Suits are for DISTRIBUTION, aka uploading. More laugable is the comment a few comments above which says the govenrmen doesnt bother. Fromt he timing and method it is a 99% probability that Hogan was banged by the D-Elite program of the FBI. here is one of the few decent stories on the hogan case: http://www.slate.com/id/2146883/?nav=fix

1057.8.2006 17:20

look at this comment from "Doc409" above: "laws differ internationally...but in the USA possession of bootlegged material is illegal, and falls under the criminal code...which also provides for civil action. The Feds, being very busy with criminal matters like drugs, won't even consider going after someone unless they are selling bootlegs and grossing over $50k a year. I got this straight from the FBI." Straight from the FBI? bullcrap. the FBI has been involved in hudreds of cases and in fact published press releases on specifically going after uploaders and torrents that are not grossing a nickel.

1067.8.2006 17:25

S2K now now dont be ahrd on the noobs for being mislead by the miffias propaganda,with that said if I make a backup of my moive/cd by downlaoding it thats the same as haveign a "bootleged" copy? Just to be clear here...

1077.8.2006 17:36

s2k, when you say 99% here is jiberish, that just about includes everybody, I,m not gonna go back and forth here, I'm to old for that, but beleive me what I said, nothing of which was made up, the laws anyway, the rest is just about personel experience and personel feelings.

1087.8.2006 17:51

FredBun I think Sk2s point is that its not the downlaoding that they get you on tis the uploading/shareing,even with that said you both are right a ALOT of thigns ^^

1097.8.2006 17:51

S2k...I stand corrected about the FBI...sort of. I didn't expect that someone would sharpshoot my choice of words. I was told by an FBI agent that they have a $50,000 threshhold due to the costs of prosecuting copyright infringement. The value of the movie files being shared on the elite torrents network substantially exceeded this $50,000 threshhold. Concerning your comment that there isn't a concept such as "illegal downloading" you might want to check the US Criminal Code. Here is a link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_000023... . It would appear that one could indeed be found guilty of criminal illegal downloading if the value exceeds the amounts stated. The US Copyright Act provides for civil penalties. Here is that link: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/index.html#CHAPTER%205%20-%20C... . So, from what I read, a person can be hauled into court for "illegally" downloading copyrighted works. The article you provided was appreciated, and lent more insight into what is happening. So were the links that appeared within the article. Clearly the reporter did their research.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 07 Aug 2006 @ 18:23

1107.8.2006 19:28
Ballpyhon
Inactive

as i agree with most of what you guys are saying, it still boils down to the fact that the movie/recording industries are not suffering great losses due to "copyright infringement", yet they still insist on targeting the little guy because most are not financially able to defend them selves. if anything i have said regarding all the issues of piracy and what not remember this: if it was not for the consumer purchasing the goods these tyrants sell, they would not have an industry to defend. let one guy buy all the products we so desire, and the rest of us can copy it from him.

1118.8.2006 4:45

Any way you put it, extortion...

1128.8.2006 13:33

doc409, there is indeed no such thing as illegal downloading. the code is meaningless in the situation I don't know why you are citing it when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand or downloading. a more pertenant question would be why has no one ever once been convicted of "illegal downlaoding" under what you think is a relevent title 18,2319 cite? please consult findlaw or lexis. please post an actual prosecution for non distribution http, pop3, FTP, nntp activity under title 18,2319. you are falling for the MPAA RIAA line. there is no such thing. any given day of the week workers and members OF MPAA and RIAA would be committing illegal downloading just by websurfing or openign spam through which thousands of copyright material, text, images etc are distrubted without permission daily.

1138.8.2006 13:49

SK2 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html you have a point to a ..point,the law still has phonorecrods in it and thus badly needs to be updated but even with that said there are key words " with fraudulent intent, possesses, sells, offers for sale, furnishes, offers to furnish, gives away, offers to give away, transports, offers to transport, imports, or offers to import any such seal or facsimile thereof, knowing the same to have been so falsely made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered," and distribution Not only can you be fined with just owening it you can be fined with distributing it,it dosent matter if you copied it or not,unless fair use adds on to this law. I wonder if the alw has cought up to make gameMODs turley leagle in the stren and vuge eyes of this law 0_o altho I think the point of the law is the modifaction and distro not just the modifcation...mmm

1148.8.2006 15:50

S2K...If the reason I cited Title 18 escapes you, there is little I can do about that. The law says copyrighted works belong to the author or their assignee. The law says they have an ownership right to these works, and the law protects that ownership interest in order to encourage more works. That's the system, like it or not. If someone knowingly downloads a copyrighted work without permission of the author, then this is defined as theft. Theft falls under the criminal code. The law views downloading things like copyrighted music the same as someone going into a store and stealing a CD that has the same music. This is because downloading without paying deprives the owner of income they would have received otherwise. This is a fairly simple concept. Penalties are greater for distribution than use, and this is why, as you point out, people are sued "for making available" copyrighted works. The fact that no one has yet been sued or charged with illegal downloading isn't because it doesn't exist...as you claim...it is because the illegal downloader is the smaller fish compared to the distributor. The same with drugs. Law enforcement desires to go after the pusher more so than the user. And yes, the RIAA and the MPAA do download copyrighted content. I'm sure they claim they do so with the permission of the copyright holders.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Aug 2006 @ 15:54

1158.8.2006 17:30

doc409, why you cited it does indeed escape me as it does anyone familiar with the internet and copyright. there is no case law applied despite literaly thouands of opportunities, because prosecuters have all decided the code in this case doesn't apply. you personally think it does, but this is meaningless. You are relying on the assertion that a person has to knowingly download copyright material wihtout permission. You misss the point of my example of members of the RIAA adn MPAA DAILY downlaoding copyright material WITHOUT permission. Anyone who surfs the net or gets email (spam regularly contains copyright material used without permission) does. Portions of the text I am placing here could be held in copyright. Certainly tens of thousand sof web pages contain material used without full rights or if used wiht rights confiring no rights to cache the material by surfers!Would you be in violation of the code if your browser were caching right now? I hate to have to explain it but this is all elementary and why you cannot find a title 18,2319 prosecution for downlaoding ANYWHERE on findlaw or lexis. Look I can tell from your confusion between suits and prosecutions where the problem is in your understanding. You cannot be sued under a criminal statute yet you imply you can be. Downlaoding a copyrighted work does not IN ANY WAY consitute theft -- there are no prosecutions -- NOT ONE. Your claim that they want the big fish is absurd. they could and would easily go after one of the tens of thousands of people who have downloaded to chill use. The problem is there is no such thing as "illegal downloads." that is why they have ONLY gone after distributors (uploaders/sharers). Again I would guess that between half to 100% of computers of the RIAA and MPAA members contain UNAUTHORIZED caches of copyright text or images. The assertion of title 18,2319 to internet downloads is just silly. I could text you an SMS to your phone of copyright material. would you be prosecuted? If a file of a film that does not contain a copyright notice how am I to know f I download it? What if the filename is not precise? What if an image on afterdawn is not used with permission, are viewers such as you and I liable as your strangly broad reading of 18,2319 implies? The simple fact is there have been NO prosecutions or suits for downloading, because there is no path toward satisfying the probative burden of intent. you can keep adding to the confusion as is apparently your intent by broad interepretations NO COURT, PROSECUTER OR SEROUS SCHOLAR has held. Fine. But you CANNOT get around the simple fact that -- despite intentional fudging of use of the term downloading by the RIAA and MPAA and the use of the term by newsoutlets that have not seen the filings -- all filing and prosecutions are about DISTRIBUTING and the ONLY time the word download is even used in the legal filings is "make available for download."

1168.8.2006 18:02

S2K focus on this and tell me hwere I am off Distribution=Uploading its this not downaoding that gets people in trouble yes?

1178.8.2006 19:03

S2k...per your request... In the matter of the RIAA v. Foster, Case CIV-04-1569-W, Plaintiff RIAA claimed copyright infringement. In paragraph 15 the RIAA specifically claimed downloading: Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiffs, has used, and continues to use, an online media distribution system to download the Copyrighted Recordings, to distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others. In doing so, Defendant has violated Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution. Defendant’s actions constitute infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights and exclusive rights under copyright. The case has a nice twist. Ms. Foster retained an attorney and the RIAA withdrew the complaint. After a long battle, she was also awarded costs. The entire case history is posted at the "Recording Industry vs The People"...an internet blog established to fight the RIAA. S2k...I think that if you were to read through some of the material there you would get a better grasp of what is, and is not, copyright infringement.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Aug 2006 @ 19:14

1188.8.2006 19:50

Doc not to step in and its a reaity for my IQ to go abve 60 but jsut fr the hell of it have you read thru a few of these brifes to see if downloading is constantly metioned or if prehaps "distribute the Copyrighted Recordings to the public, and/or to make the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others." is more constent. a thought it is not a very good one.

1198.8.2006 19:50

Four days ago...Aug 4th...the RIAA filed suit against LimeWire. The complaint can be seen online at http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=arista_limewire... The basis of the complaint is that the LimeWire network facilitates copyright infringement by offering the means used to download and share copyrighted works.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Aug 2006 @ 13:07

1208.8.2006 20:23

Zippy...all comments and ideas are welcome. I have read through numerous copyright Complaints. The Complaint is the document that begins a lawsuit in the USA. It has to state what the person did wrong, and why the suing party is entitled to money damages. The Complaints claim "copyright infringement." Then they explain the method of copyright infringement. Downloading copyrighted material is often claimed first, followed by the sharing and distribution of this material. In agreement with S2k, I have never seen an RIAA or MPAA lawsuit just for downloading. The thing to remember is that these groups have gone after thousands of people now by accusing them of copyright infringement, and then offering to settle out of court. The only way we ever find out just what kind of copyright infringement a person is accused of is if someone decides to challenge them in court. In the RIAA v. Foster case above, Foster was accused of a wide range of infringement, none of which the RIAA had any chance of proving. Thus the RIAA withdrew the complaint. Anyway, most of the Complaints will state how many songs, etc., were found on a person's computer. A screenshot of the list along with the screen name might be attached as evidence. This is a typical complaint filed by the RIAA where they have attached screenshots: http://codewarriorz.clawz.com/atlantic_huggins_complaint.pdf Given this, a person that downloads MP3's without a screen name, and doesn't keep the MP3's in a file that can be seen by others, most likely will never be sued for downloading. I hope this answered your question.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Aug 2006 @ 21:57

1218.8.2006 20:33

DOc thats pretty much it.


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1228.8.2006 21:47

This may be of interest in this ongoing discussion. The following link is a Motion to Dismiss an RIAA lawsuit: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=arista_greubel_... The Motion has yet to be decided. Defendant Greubel makes some very good points. Too many to mention here. Some are very technical in terms of the law. Here are some interesting ones: He makes a good case that just because there are MP3's on his computer doesn't prove he downloaded them. In addition, there is a 3 year statute of limitations, which means the RIAA must also proved when they were downloaded. Good points. There is also no proof that the MP3 file is what it is labeled to be (they could all be bogus files). Another good point. Also, the fact that others can access his computer's "shared" folder does not prove he distributed anything. He made a lot of other points, and provided good legal cites to support them. If the Motion to Dismiss succeeds, it could serve to end a lot of the abusive practices the RIAA and MPAA are engaged in. While S2k and I have been having some healthy dialog, I believe this Motion to Dismiss explains the side of things that S2k has been discussing. In the end, it is not what is legal or illegal...but what can be proven...and what one should do to avoid legal trouble if they can.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Aug 2006 @ 22:06

1239.8.2006 12:36

I have been wondering for the past few days, why does it cost a 100000$ in legal fees potentially, when the settlement usually requested by the MPAA is around the 4-5000$ range? What would be interesting to see is how much of these people that paid the settlement were actually not guilty, but gave up and paid the settlement to avoid further costs...I am thinking probably the majority of them. Also, how many of them had unsecured routers? The MPAA should be investigated, that I know as much.

1249.8.2006 12:43

Yes, Hot Ice.. It would seem that people are just rolling over in the face of a corporate giant. If the FBI showed up at your house with a bunch of papers and warrants for your arrest for the illegal download of files what would you do? I'm thinking first response..LAY DOWN!! lol Secondly, I wouldn't doubt it if unsecured routers are the cause of this problem (squatting on wifi signals). I guess that until people take the proper precautionary methods to secure their networks and their data... and until they stand up for themselves... this problem will continue. No one will hear your voice if you never shout!!!!!

1259.8.2006 12:44

hot ice...big city attorneys charge as much as $400 per hour. With this they pay for support help, their rent, and themselves. The legal process is lengthy, and takes many hours of work, and it quickly adds up to $100,000 or more. If someone doesn't pay the RIAA (actually it's a collection agency they hired), they will be forced to pay an attorney at the rate of $400 an hour as the case progresses. Who has that kind of money?

1269.8.2006 12:46

Doc409 Perhaps a class-action suit is needed? Sorry :S my last post hardly answered the relevant question.

1279.8.2006 13:05

A class action is a good idea. I am thinking that might be coming sometime soon. Also... Another thing that seems to be happening of late is that people are challenging the RIAA, and going to court. In most cases the RIAA is unable to meet the initial burden of proof required by the copyright statutes. The RIAA then withdraws their complaint/lawsuit. It now looks like the RIAA is going to be paying for the attorney's fees of the party they sued...which could be substantial. Awarding costs is often at the court's discression. If judges find the RIAA is just trying to intimidate people, they will begin to slam them with the costs. Along these lines, if the RIAA lawsuits are being launched without proper evidence, which can fall into the frivolous category, they could be subject to punitive damages in some states. If this happens, we might find attorneys willing to take a RIAA lawsuit on a contingency basis...so that someone doesn't have to fork over $400 an hour.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Aug 2006 @ 13:08

1289.8.2006 14:12

Doc409 dose'nt the Mafiaa use frims and teams of attorneys? the more you use the more papperyou can burrie unsuspecting victems 0-o


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1299.8.2006 16:25

Here's a tought, let say somebody like myself is on social security, more often than not you are probably eligable for a court appointed attorney, and of course all people say they suck, probably rightfully so, but I would be willing to bet they would put there top guy on a case like that cause if they would win one there name would be highlighted, even probably get a better job in a big firm, do you guys see where I'm getting at. And as your defense it would be free. If I was a court appointed attorney I would try and jump on a case like that.

1309.8.2006 17:06

FredBun we had one,when the sewer backed up into our house,that was built with HUD money,lets jsut say we lost the house.


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1319.8.2006 17:13

FredBun...I don't know that much about social security, but in a civil case I don't think you can get assigned an attorney? Someone might take the case Pro Bono, which means for free, though. If it was a criminal charge, that would be another matter. You would be eligible for a state appointed attorney.

1329.8.2006 17:51

Well wait a minute, ok if these guys are coming after you aren't they coming after you cause they say you broke the law, which doesnt make it a civil case, aren't all these cases they are bringing against people called criminal acts, I don't think these guys are taking people to court to just sue them are they or maybe both I don't know. Also I din't neccesarally mean just social security, I mean anybody making money thats pretty much under the povery level can get a court appointed attorney, even if you are working but make a really minumum wage you still could be elegible, I've seen people do it, not trying to get into the welfare discussion, very touchy subject, like talking politics, the most hurtfull and the most truthfull is the extreme poor get all the benifits like healthcare etc free, the rich can afford there own, and the blue collar people get it up the gege. But here's my case senerio, ok lets say I'm one in the extreme poverty level, ok I downlaod all kinds of things, get cought, ok, so what are you gonna take from them, thier welfare check, there social security check, nope they cant do it, but, I might be eligible to get all the backup I need, meaning free attorneys, and let me tell you this, if this was the case no public defender would want to turn down something like this, they would go after this with a vengence, and these RIAA & MPAA or whatever the hell they call themselves if they would find out you are in the poverty level they probably want nothing to do with you. Case in point, would'nt it be grand if some welfare mother got nailed and got all the backup she needed as was able to defeat these moguls, wow, what a story, would definatly make my day.

1339.8.2006 18:06

Here's an interesting article brought by @ireland in another forum. As it is, about 19,000 people settling out of court at about $3,000 a piece... We're talking roughly $57 million of blood money going into these greedy bastards. Call it blackmail, extortion, whatever. This has to come back at them big time. (I'm talking about karma here) read here: http://p2pnet.net/story/9537


Chuck

"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)

1349.8.2006 18:06

FredBun...if the FBI or police go after someone, they do this under the criminal laws. If the RIAA or MPAA go after someone, it is under civil law. The difference is that under criminal law you can go to jail, and under civil law you just pay money...called a judgement. In the USA, the government will not pay for a civil attorney. So, no attorney for an RIAA lawsuit. If someone is charged with a crime and cannot afford an attorney, they will appoint one. There are poor people that the RIAA is going after, and they cannot afford an attorney. If they can't pay, there is nothing the RIAA can do about it. The judgement will stay on their credit record for 7 or 10 years, and the judgement can be renewed.

1359.8.2006 18:55
Ballpyhon
Inactive

fredbun court appointed attorneys are NOT FREE. I am sad to admit i had to get one when i was younger due to legal problems. I had to pay a reduced rate to the attorney. To the best of my knowledge court appointed attorneys are exactly that, court appointed, effectively they are forced to take the case, whether you pay for it or not. As far as the copyrighted material issue is concerned, I am confused to all hell. Some of you are saying that uploading/distribution content is illegal, and others are saying downloading content is illegal. I know that distribution of copyrighted material is defiantly illegal. as far as the downloading part goes, I can kind of see how it would be illegal, but just because you have it on your computer does not mean that you put it there. Like the spy ware/viruses that people get when surfing, they don't ask for it, but it still gets on their computers. there is no difference as far as i am concerned. now that i said that, watch all the hackers go out and copyright their viruses.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Aug 2006 @ 18:57

13610.8.2006 14:56

I've been wondering about this issue, are there significant cases similar to MPAA suits in Canada?

13710.8.2006 17:31

I recently read about a recent RIAA Canadian case, but haven't found it yet. I remember it because, unlike USA laws that only allow for criminal search warrants, Canada has a civil equivalent. It seems the RIAA got one of these "civil search warrants" and broke into a guy's home and seized his computers with MP3 files on it.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive