Fighting Back Against The MPAA
It looks like the MPAA has picked the wrong guy to sue… and it could REALLY hurt them in the long run. Here’s the skinny from the good folks over at FilmFodder:
Shawn Hogan is taking the download battle to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Wired says Hogan, CEO of Digital Point Solutions, is challenging a lawsuit filed by the MPAA. The suit says Hogan illegally downloaded the film “Meet the Fockers” through the BitTorrent peer-to-peer system. Hogan denies the claim and is vowing to take the case to court.So why is this a big deal? In most cases the downloading lawsuits filed by the MPAA and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) never reach the courtroom. According to Wired, many of these lawsuits go unchallenged because defendants feel the legal defense costs are too high. Defendents usually settle before the lawsuits can be formally addressed in court.
Hogan, who is well funded thanks to his success with Digital Point, is adamant about seeing the case through. “I would spend well into the millions on this,” Hogan tells Wired.
Ok… so here’s why this is so important…
Some people may think, “Big deal… if the MPAA loses this one, it’s just one. They can continue going on fighting and sueing everyone else”. Well… that’s not really true.
You see, the vast vast vast majority of the lawsuits brought by the MPAA never see the court room because most people would rather settle with them than fight it in court… because it’s cheaper that way. Here’s the rub…
In North America (except for in Quebec) we have a legal system that heavily relies on Precident. Everytime a Judge makes a decision in a case… his decision basically becomes law. Any future case that revolves around the same issues, have to take the previous Judge’s decisions into account, just as much as the law itself. So basically, everytime a Judge makes a decision… new law is made that all other judges must follow. That’s the short explanation.
So here’s the thing… now the MPAA is sueing a guy who has more than enough money to fight them in court… which means a Judge COULD find in his favor and against the MPAA. If that happens… then the Judges decision becomes material to any other MPAA lawsuits in the future. Long story short… the MPAA should really drop this and fast… but I hope they don’t drop it! I hope this guy kicks their asses in court and put a stop to this insanity of bully tactics and “he with the most money wins” culture.
1. alfie replies at 26th July 2006, 4:23 pm :
but if he did illegally download it he should be punished for it shouldn’t he???
2. bret replies at 26th July 2006, 4:28 pm :
Yes he should be punished, but in the U.S. you get more time for downloading copyrighted material than you do when you rape a small child. Its a messed up policy
3. John Campea replies at 26th July 2006, 4:29 pm :
Sure… IF he did it.
But even if he did… what the MPAA is doing is FAR BEYOND reasonable. Ok… so the guy downloaded (if he did it at all) a movie. What did his actions actually do to harm the MPAA?
And in law, you’re not supposed to be able to sue someone on what MIGHT happen later. You can’t argue “Well… if he downloaded it… 4000 other people MIGHT get it from him later”
It’s immoral and illegal.
If you stole my $300 TV, and I sued you… all i could get is $300 and maybe a little little bit more.
So what did this guy downloading a movie actually sot the MPAA? Not MIGHT have cost them… what actually was the cost to the MPAA?
That should go before a court of law and let a Judge decide.
4. uxking replies at 26th July 2006, 4:32 pm :
I’m still not sure I get the point. I know about the precedent stuff, but what precedent will a judge actually set here? The guy didn’t do what they are claiming. He claims he never downloaded the movie in the first place. If he had downloaded it, and the judge decided it was perfectly legal and acceptable – then we got something here. I’m guessing the MPAA will get a slap on the wrist for filing a bogus lawsuit.
Now if the MPAA proves that he did in fact download the movie while he is strongly denying it, then this Hogan guy might be in a bit of trouble.
5. John Campea replies at 26th July 2006, 4:37 pm :
Heythere uxKing…
much bigger ramifications could come out of this… such as…
What consitutes “proof” that someone downloaded. If a judge rules that the MPAA’s current means of tracking people isn’t leagal, or substantial enough that it consitutes “proof”, then the whole MPAA methology could be screwed.
It could litterally throw out every single MPAA case in court today.
~John
6. mediamelt replies at 26th July 2006, 4:46 pm :
Mark my words: If this guy continues to fight their accusations, the MPAA will drop the case long before a judgment is made. Why? Because any risk of a non-MPAA favorable judgment is unacceptable. At this point Internet downloading is such a grey area with the public that Hollywood is not willing to take the risk of an unfavorable precedent being set, and face the ensuing public backlash over years of threatened lawsuits.
It’s a form of consumer-bullying the RIAA perfected years back and now the MPAA is adopting. All this while Pirates 2 makes money hand over fist at the same time that the movie tops P2P download charts. Sad and narrow minded, but what’s new? Lawyers (which most executives are or were) tend to be that way.
7. uxking replies at 26th July 2006, 5:08 pm :
Not that I like the MPAA or RIA, but let me play devil’s advocate here.
Say the guy wins, and the MPAA/RIA can no longer sue anyone for downloading a movie/song. So now we have a free for all since you can’t get busted for illegal downloads. Thousand of folks start putting 100s of songs/movies posted on their websites and no one is being forced to take them down since you can’t prove anybody is downloading them (but you know they are).
What will this do for piracy?
Or
It is just Bittorent style downloads that are affected by the precedent and now we have just confused the world on what is downloadable and what isn’t. I can download “White Chicks” but it has to be via Bittorent?
I agree with mediamelt, the MPAA won’t let this go very far.
8. truenorth replies at 26th July 2006, 5:09 pm :
It’s “precedent”, not “precident”.
9. Brian replies at 26th July 2006, 6:08 pm :
How does everyone view bittorrant programs, for example azurues, how wrong do eveyrone else think it is to download these films online??? Also how do complanyies get away surly they are using a loop hole in the law???
Brian
10. bullet in the head replies at 26th July 2006, 6:51 pm :
@Brian
Bittorrant programs in themselves are not doing anything wrong, the user makes the choice to download media illegally and ignore the copyright.
… The sites which list where you can download such media are on more shaky ground, but at the same time they are only telling you where it is, again it’s your choice to break the law.
11. BigMouth replies at 26th July 2006, 8:16 pm :
Assuming you are talking about US cases, only appellate cases have precedential value. So the initial trial will not have precedential value. Only if the case goes up on appeal will there be any possible precedent.
BUT, there is value in the case being fought in court even if there is no appeal. Depositions will presumably be performed which may reveal unsupported assumptions, bad science, patterns of intimidation, etc. If the case is successfully defended, it will likely become a blueprint for future defenses.
Just like many RIAA/MPAA defendants are willing to settle to avoid the expense of litigation, if the equation changes and the costs of prosecution increase, the amount of prosecution may also decrease.
12. griff replies at 27th July 2006, 6:05 am :
Over in the UK there is not so much of a stink made about file sharing, a) because most films are from america anyway(that appear in british cinemas) b) because as a small country the government doesn’t see such a problem, i expect. FINALLY. It’s good to see that those bastards who make billions of dollars for things that (hate to admit) aren’t the most important thigns in the world(ish), if it wasn’t for piracy, the money-men could charge us ridiculous amounts of money, completely unchallenged. I think we should be paying for entertainment sure. But only about £3.00 ($6 canadian) for going to the movies, equal pricing for dvds, at £5.00 ($10.00).
This equal playing and smaller cash point, will allow more movies to be seen, create an equal playing film, and ultimately, make these people a shitload more money.
13. Brian replies at 27th July 2006, 8:31 am :
Yea I agree with that. New release DVD’s cost in the region of £16.99 - £20.00 with these kind of prices they should be charging atleast half of this,otherwise they can do nothing but expect a large intrest in the pirate sociaty.
Brian
14. Cory replies at 27th July 2006, 8:45 am :
No good will ever come from judges that legislate from the bench. The whole U.S. legal system is so twisted and convoluted now that people think it’s ok for a judge to do this. NO WAY. Their job is to interpret the law not make it.
While many people will say “Yay!” about this, it is not a wise thing to do. Speaking of precedents, the only precedent this sets is for other judges to do the same thing in regards to other arms of the law. Not good “Citizen”.
15. Stuart @ Cinemablend replies at 27th July 2006, 12:15 pm :
mediamelt hit the nail on the head, the MPAA will bail rather than risk a precident. Not because they’re afraid of legalising piracy, that’s a ridiculous statement, no judge will ever side with someone that copyright theft was legal. This is about money.
It isn’t about the guy getting let off, skewing it like that is as typical of those on an anti-piracy soapbox - what this could do plain and simple is show in a court of law that the money demanded by the MPAA as out of court settlements is grossly disproportionate to the actual losses they incur from someone downloading a movie.
They’d have to PROVE conclusively that all those Joe Pants downloading movies on Bit Torrent really cost them $8,000,000,000 in lost revenue every year as they claim. They’d have to prove that $5000 a movie is proportionate to the money they lose from that one guy downloading one movie.
This means if they lost the MPAA would in effect have to dramatically curtail the “revenue” it’s generating by bullying people into paying $5000 a time for every download or face being fined by the courts themselves and probably having to pay money BACK to those they’ve sued as compensation for those disproportionate “fines”.
Will the MPAA really go as aggresively after Joe Pants who downloads 4 movies a year when they can only get $50 a time from them instead of $5000?
Will they really pursue getting Joe Pants locked up for it when jail doesn’t generate them any cash either?
That is why this case is important, it’s irritating to listen to people prattle on about this being a precident to legalise piracy.
It’s no such thing.
16. Jonesy replies at 27th July 2006, 6:16 pm :
Nobody has ever been sued for “downloading” a movie, have they? You have to offer it for “upload” to be sued by the MPAA. I know they always use the term downloading, but I think thats because most people (in the mainstream media) dont understand the difference, and because I think the MPAA wants people to think downloaders are being sued - but theyre not.
17. Darth_Xanther replies at 27th July 2006, 9:04 pm :
I wish him all the best. Personally, I don’t really like the idea of people who download those movies and make copies then sell them to make a profit on the black market. But as per people like myself who are in their 6th year of university and download a couple just because they don’t have the money to own them I don’t condone those actions. I can honestly say, that some day I WILL buy all the movies I have downloaded. However monetary restrictions prevent me to do it at this time. I can’t wait to have enough money to buy the extended and special feature filled movie sets of all the movies I have. We just do it since I don’t want to feel left out, so we can partake in these discussions. :) I know friends of mine who feel the same way and don’t feel guilty after downloading, just cause we are poor at the moment doesn’t mean we should miss out on the simple pleasures in life. Infact, it makes easy gifts for us at xmas or bday, just a special edition movie set of the complete blade, alien, starwars, back to the future, indiana jones, LOTR trilogies and the such makes us quite happy!!!
18. Nate replies at 14th January 2007, 9:16 pm :
I’m happy someone is standing up to these corporate bullies. While I don’t like the fact that people steal movies, I equally think it as bad to sue old women and 12 year olds. I also feel that the MPAA has gone way too far. If they are allowed to proceed, we won’t even be able to copy our own DVD’s that we have purchased. In fact, that’s almost already happened. All of us need to stand up against the MPAA and other criminal institutions like them.