|
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
6. August 2006 @ 22:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
like they have not started doign that with fake fiels and tracking software on "real" files *L*
oy vay it never ends.
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/ |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
6. August 2006 @ 22:43 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
7. August 2006 @ 03:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
|
S2K
Member
|
7. August 2006 @ 17:18 |
Link to this message
|
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
|
|
S2K
Member
|
7. August 2006 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. August 2006 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
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...
|
Senior Member
|
7. August 2006 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
7. August 2006 @ 17:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
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 ^^
|
Senior Member
|
7. August 2006 @ 17:51 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. August 2006 @ 18:23
|
|
Ballpyhon
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
7. August 2006 @ 19:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 04:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Any way you put it, extortion...
|
|
S2K
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 13:33 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. August 2006 @ 13:49 |
Link to this message
|
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
|
Senior Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 15:50 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2006 @ 15:54
|
|
S2K
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 17:30 |
Link to this message
|
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."
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. August 2006 @ 18:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
S2K
focus on this and tell me hwere I am off
Distribution=Uploading its this not downaoding that gets people in trouble yes?
|
Senior Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 19:03 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2006 @ 19:14
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. August 2006 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 19:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. August 2006 @ 13:07
|
Senior Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 20:23 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2006 @ 21:57
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
8. August 2006 @ 20:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
DOc
thats pretty much it.
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/ |
Senior Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 21:47 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2006 @ 22:06
|
Senior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 12:36 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
Boberto96
Junior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 12:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
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!!!!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 12:44 |
Link to this message
|
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?
|
|
