|
|
|
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.
|
|
Boberto96
Junior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 12:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Doc409
Perhaps a class-action suit is needed?
Sorry :S my last post hardly answered the relevant question.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 13:05 |
Link to this message
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. August 2006 @ 13:08
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. August 2006 @ 14:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Doc409
dose'nt the Mafiaa use frims and teams of attorneys?
the more you use the more papperyou can burrie unsuspecting victems 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/ |
Senior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 16:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. August 2006 @ 17:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
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
|
9. August 2006 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 17:51 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 18:06 |
Link to this message
|
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)
|
Senior Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 18:06 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
Ballpyhon
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. August 2006 @ 18:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
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 posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. August 2006 @ 18:57
|
Senior Member
|
10. August 2006 @ 14:56 |
Link to this message
|
I've been wondering about this issue, are there significant cases similar to MPAA suits in Canada?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
10. August 2006 @ 17:31 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
|
