|
Millionaire vows to challenge MPAA suit
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 25 July, 2006
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 ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
malekite
Junior Member
|
29. July 2006 @ 16:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
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
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
dufas
Member
|
29. July 2006 @ 18:49 |
Link to this message
|
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....
|
|
Mofomac
Newbie
|
29. July 2006 @ 20:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
|
Ballpyhon
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. July 2006 @ 21:04 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Newbie
|
29. July 2006 @ 22:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
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 =)
|
|
Mofomac
Newbie
|
30. July 2006 @ 01:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
|
Steve83
Member
|
30. July 2006 @ 10:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
"...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.
|
|
Mofomac
Newbie
|
30. July 2006 @ 10:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
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).
|
Junior Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 03:15 |
Link to this message
|
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!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. July 2006 @ 09:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
finaly a hero has appered in this war,hopefuly ge will surivve the demonic onslought 0_o
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy!
Ah modern gaming its like modern film only the watering down of fiction and characters is replaced with shallow and watered down mechanics, gimmicks and shiny-er "people".
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/ |
|
Ballpyhon
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. July 2006 @ 09:35 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. July 2006 @ 09:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. July 2006 @ 09:45
|
Senior Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 13:00 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
Steve83
Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 14:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. July 2006 @ 15:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Doc409
SO even if you when agist the man he can call a do over....life suxs :P
|
Senior Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 15:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. July 2006 @ 15:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
Doc409
heheh I was beign silly for the most part :P
|
Senior Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 15:55 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 16:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Doc.
You should be on Hogan's team!!!
:=O)
|
Senior Member
|
31. July 2006 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
1. August 2006 @ 04:04 |
Link to this message
|
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$$es and deserve to be pirated from.
|
Senior Member
|
1. August 2006 @ 04:04 |
Link to this message
|
they want $2500 to drop a case over a $10 movie? Theyre just suing him because hes rich and want to steel his money. If he owns the DVD, its perfectly legal to download it. Its called "backing up". The MPAA and RIAA are complete a$$es and deserve to be pirated from.
|
|
Sheariah
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
1. August 2006 @ 09:29 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
1. August 2006 @ 10:17 |
Link to this message
|
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
Chuck
"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. August 2006 @ 10:19
|
