digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

MPAA Screwing The Wrong Guy - One Who Won't Be Extorted

digitalpoint.com — The MPAA has been offering people to settle for a few grand (and many took the bait) but they now chose the wrong guy to mess with; one who sticks to his principles and who has a lot of money to cover the legal fees to fight these lying morons. Interesting case to follow!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • anonymoustroll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51Generally speaking, you should at least get through the disclosure and discovery phase of the litigation before you even *THINK* about settling.

    That said, civil court is a complete and total crap shoot. Its sole purpose in life is to force people into settlements.
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38FYI Text Only Cache here:

      http://postsimple.com/7zjca

      (Missing some stats diagrams...)
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11How much do the legal fees for those phases cost? More than $3000?
    • dggeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Not only that, but the MPAA usually makes a lower offer for you to take before those phases. They tell you if you want to wait you will have to pay more to settle. It's pure extortion.
  • rockingrhino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33This guy as stood up to be being screwed over before. See www.winn-and-sims.com. I wish him the best of luck.
    • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I say good for him, but hasn't every case that's been presented against the RIAA been shot down time and again? What would make this dude any different?

      What we need is a case that would prove that false positives make it through the system, then, if they won, everyone thereafter could win on the legal principle of precedence.
    • recursive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It depends what you mean by "shot down". If you mean settled, then yes, the vast majority have settled because they were threatened with legal bills that were greater than their settlement if they didn't. Very few, if any, have gone to trial. This is great news.
    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3No, he means the DOZENS of stories you see on Digg about people taking it to court with the RIAA/MPAA, and, well, no follow ups, BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS LOST. Just search for them, or if you're lazy, my comment history, because I know I commented on how stupid their counter arguments were on at least 7 of them. This is not the first person to not settle with them, and he won't be the last person to lose even more.
    • XR22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Funny
      --
      http://3couleurs.blogspot.com
  • fahrvergnuugen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I hope he sets a precedent.
    • jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28IANAL (I am not a lawyer), yet. I am in law school. In my unprofessional opinion he could win this case and it would help defeat the extortion rackets these firms are running.

      But if he loses, and they'll fight as hard as they can, it will be a HUGE blow to consumers. Now the MPAA/RIAA has no judicial precedent for these cases, they can just threaten for now. But if this goes to court, there WILL BE a precedent, good or bad.

      If he loses it will be much easier to defeat others (even those with better cases in the future). He fights for many of us, sued and not-sued-yet. And with that in mind, I hope he is more careful as to what he publishes on his blog. Calling the MPAA "loony" and "utter liars" (even if it is true) is very dangerous. It just lets them make you look like a pirating lunatic to a judge even if you aren't.

      He should talk to the EFF, they can give good counsel even if they can't represent everyone directly - and they may be able to (especially if you are a member).
    • skrapinov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I do too, but keep in mind it is uncommon for cases in civil court to be published. If it goes to appeals or superior court it would have a much better chance. You are not allowed to site unpublished cases if you are trying to establish stare decisis/precedent.

      Also he mentioned in his blog that RIAA/MPAA is a failed business model, but from what I hear they are making boatloads of money by suing people. I hope it stops soon.
    • Sheco, on 10/12/2007, -15/+14"IANAL (I am not a lawyer), yet. I am in law school. In my unprofessional opinion he could win this case and it would help defeat the extortion rackets these firms are running."

      GLITWUA (Gotta love it that when using abbreviations) IATMSTEI (it actually takes more space to explain it).
      If I am going to type the entire phrase, what's the point of writting the abbreviation too?

      Sorry I'm offtopic, mod me down, I have enough karma :P

      PS. I'm just teasing.
    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Um, people have not settled, and lost already, he isn't the first not to settle. This won't be precedent setting in any way other than proving people with blogs are retarded.
    • locojones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@jambarama

      I hope you aren't paying too much in tuition because your analysis pretty completely uninformed.

      First, without the complete facts of the case, much less any sort of discovery, venturing an opinion on the outcome of a case is nothing more than unfounded speculation.

      Second, surely you would've learned precedents in your civil procedure class, right?? Assuming this guy loses, and assuming this opinion is even published (which is a crapshoot at the District Court level), then its precedential value is only limited to the disctrict in which the court sits, and can, with skilled lawyering, be limited to the narrow facts presented. Should it then be appealed to the Ninth Circuit (the appellate court overseeing the California District Court in which the case was filed), and an adverse ruling upheld, then its precedential value would extend to the Western states and then perhaps pose a problem.
    • jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Locojones -
      I meant he COULD win - a lawsuit with the MPAA is winnable - not that he WOULD win. Obviously I don't know the surrounding facts, but it is possible.

      Of course I know about precedents. That is what I was talking about - he will create a preference. Depending on who wins, it is very likely the opinion will be published. Maybe in some districts it is a crapshoot, but I know in mine (and a few others) it is standard that, unless there is a good reason to not publish it, they will.

      The precedential value is limited to the district, but you can use decisions in other districts in your district - not as precedent, but as evidence.

      Depending on who wins this the ruling can extend as you say. But appelate courts can't make decisions, they can only overturn decisions if the wrong jurisprudence was applied. So appellate court decisions do have wider precedent, but it is a far weaker precedent (it just rules out a single type of jurisprudence).
  • anonymoustroll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17> I wish him the best of luck.

    Oh, I do too! ...just remember that it is very important that you have the means to fight if you're going to fight and that not everyone has this luxury (and the civil court system thrives on that fact).

    Personally, I would be interested in seeing a demographic break-down of the settlements that the RIAA does execute... and the compairing them to the demographics of the cases that go to court. I bet there would be some extremely revealing numbers.... (I wonder if the settlement centers could be subject to a class action for economic profiling).
  • konrad8ha, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19'Settle with us, or else...' - stupid MPAA.
  • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28They cleverly picked the guy who ranked first page Google (com) for the word eBay for quite some time. He has the means to get a LOT of publicity if he can be asked to put in the effort. The MPAA have done nothing but getting themselves into deep trouble with this. They can expect a lot of awareness about their scummy operations. This is going to be very funny.
  • Pile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23This is even more ironic considering the MPAA has been caught pirating themselves:

    http://www.bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=1050&dt=1

  • phlll, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12Dead site.
  • beneddt, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2site has been dugg
  • GeonRebirth, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Less then 2 hours and we already got the digg effect.....either that or its just dead.
  • fohat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I tried coral cache, results in Wordpress page displaying error. Can't locate a cache on goggle. Wish I could read this, if anyone hits the site maybe they can put up a mirror or something.
  • thotpoizn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Wish I could Digg this, from the summary it looks like it might be a neat story. You know what would be super? Automatically caching content when a site makes it to the front page, and substituting the cache link for the original...
  • rlutterb, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7How is this story continuing to get diggs when the site is hosed? I like the READ the article BEFORE I digg! How neat!
    • krusbjorn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Perhaps people got to the site before it went down, read the article, then the site went down and then they dugg it?
    • AeroGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Bingo. It only went down a few minutes ago. I guess if you actually read it, it takes a few minutes, then you read the existing posts, which takes a few minutes, so those of us who had it load will get here several minutes at least after those who try to access it right after it goes down and therefore have nothing to read.
    • warrenfalk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@rlutterb
      "like [to] READ... BEFORE... digg..."
      You must be new here
    • Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Perhaps they read the text-only cache mentioned in the second post?
    • splammo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Nevermind... Angostura beat me to it. Bury me...
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's what I did, but the person asking why people were continuing to Digg did so before the reply with the link was posted, so I dunno about the ones in the interim.
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Some people use Digg as a bookmarking tool.
    • thotpoizn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agnostura - have a look at the timestamp on the posts... Not trying to show my ass or anything, but the posts are not necessarily displayed in chronological order... :)
    • rlutterb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Not new, just frustrated... and I know what a cache is. Was trying all the usual tricks to get in, but meanwhile the digg count was skyrocketing. I appreciate that people use this as a bookmarking utility, but that doesn't do the rest of us any good that users are seeming to endorse the content while they are only bookmarking without reading. Use another utility for that.

      Anyway, I think I'll go write a sensational fake headline, point the link to a dead site, and watch the diggs roll in. :/
    • Sgeo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*guiltily* I personally tend to do that... :(
  • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Got it from my cache:

    http://postsimple.com/7zjca

    Some links now missing, read back later if you want to see the post before this one, leading up to this etc.
    • fohat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thanks T0P. I'll have to bookmark the site because this blog post doesn't give many details. If this is all true, I wish him luck.
    • v4m21, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1thanks.
    • deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Full text

      "MPAA Offers To Settle (Again)
      by Shawn @ 4:17 pm ยท filed under Movies, Law

      There is an "Early Neutral Evaluation Conference" on May 23, 2006 to determine if this matter can be settled. Personally, it seems like an utter waste of time because at this point about the only thing I would settle for is if they dropped the case, paid my attorney fees and then dissolve their whole organization.

      They offered me an initial settlement of $2,500 (before they decided to take it to court), which was rejected on the basis of principal. Then today I talked to my attorney and they are offering a settlement of $3,500.

      Bahahahahahaaha! So if I refused your $2,500 out of principal, what exactly makes you think I'm going to give you $3,500 now? That's comedy. :)

      From everything I've read online, the MPAA (and RIAA) has been pretty much extorting everyone simply because they can't afford to fight it. This certainly will give me something interesting to blog about. I just pray it goes to a full trial, where they will loose and then give everyone else that is being sued a nice lawsuit they lost as a reference for their lawsuit... "MPAA vs. Shawn Hogan" That has a nice ring to it. Maybe this loss will be the start of their demise. (Hmmm... I seem to have quite the aspirations, eh? haha)

      From a purely business standpoint, I think all the lawsuits that the MPAA and RIAA are throwing out are only hurting them in the long-run. From everything I've read, it does not curb piracy at ALL. I would even argue it increases it because all of a sudden people that weren't aware you could download music/movies now realize you can (and some will start). Then you are going to compound this by everyone talking about it and reading other's blogs. I'm a perfect example... from talking my attorney and then researching stuff online as a result of that, I now know that if you have the proper software installed, you can download pretty much any movie (or anything else) you want.

      Not only that, but you would think they would be wiser about who they choose to extort.

      For as big of an organization they are, my website gets roughly 10,000 times more traffic than theirs (then again, I get more traffic than buy.com or adobe.com.. hehe)

      So what just happened? Well now a few hundred thousands people per day were just educated about 1. about their general extortion and 2. they also now know that you can download whatever you want. I'm starting to think maybe the MPAA might actually kill the movie industry (which this dude shares my viewpoint). If they were smart, they certainly would choose their racketeering targets a little wiser (like maybe someone without the resources to fight and a captive audience of 80 million people per month that will read my viewpoint). This could turn out to be some good/interesting reading though. Reminds me a bit of the Winn and Sims fiasco.

      Wanna see something else funny? Check Google's top 10 results for "MPAA"... It seems I'm not the only one that thinks the MPAA is looney. :)

      http://www.google.com/search?q=mpaa

      Oh, and just as a side note, they are utter liars... They told me they identified the specific computer that did whatever they claimed and they traced it back to me (of course I knew that was a lie since it never happened). But now they are saying they don't have any such information (MAC address basically). {rolls eyes}"
  • Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1The word is spreading fast. Too fast for his site, it would seem. =P
  • mcaaronice, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I lose (proper usage!) a little respect for the guy when he says the MPAA will "loose" the trial. That doesn't sound so intimidating. Good luck to him, though.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I've known some very intelligent people who were poor spellers, and everyone makes the occasional typo.
    • actionjackson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Maybe loss of respect is a bit harsh? I would say he diminishes his credibility slightly by such grammatical errors (there are more than one on the post), but doesn't necessarily deserve less respect.

      What I want to know is what's this guy's website. 10,000 times more traffic than adobe.com and buy.com. Yikes. If this is true, they really did ***** with the wrong dude this time.
    • liquidoc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Wait....if he gets more traffic than buy.com and adobe.com and digg shut him down, doesn't that make him.....a liar?
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11No, he's got integrity, no liar. Just a server problem. All his webmaster tools are getting too popular and the pretty beefy server (Cost 20 grand 2 years ago) can't handle it anymore. So he started a fundraiser 2 months ago to raise 100K worth of blades to support this growth. This far he raised 32K+ from his webmaster community.

      No liar, just capacity problems which actually proves his point, rather than the opposite you are assuming.
    • dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2 It's no time to shrug off poor spelling, it doesn't matter so much if you use "loose" for "lose" on your blog blabbering about your boring life, but considering how precise legal documents are it may change the meaning of a sentence!
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I've known some very intelligent people who were poor spellers, and everyone makes the occasional typo."

      I never make tpyos!!
    • oldhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think a good cliche would be "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

      "Not seeing the forest through the trees?"

      Meaning, stop ***** all over a guy for a typo or two. Plus always keep in mind that it might not be the person's native language. You try to communicate in someone else's language and get everything perfect. Damn elitist!
  • Mantarii, on 11/12/2007, -0/+47STEPS TO SUCCESSFULLY DEALING WITH RIAA:
    (If you plan on doing anything but settling with them.)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO STATEMENT TO THEM OR THEIR "SETTLEMENT AGENCY". Do not even deny anything. Do not explain anything, thinking you can convince them that you or someone didn't do it. Give them no statements or explanations to work with.

    Without your possible explanation of, "Well, I think my grand daughter did this" and such, they don't have anyone else to go after. Actually, they don't have any proof to begin with that YOU did anything, only that it was done with your computer. They need _you_ to help fill in those blanks in order to get a judgement against you. Why help them?

    At best, they can say that a download happening from _X_ IP address at _X_ time. They can't say _you_ did anything. They can't, in some cases, even say it was done with your home computers, since it could have happened over your WiFi connection.

    If you are confused whatsoever, but are sure to don't want to settle, see rule #1. DON'T SAY A THING. Your lawyer will thank you for not creating problems for you.
    • joshv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16It's not quite that simple. These are civil cases, and and such, the burden of proof is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". It is "preponderance of the evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preponderance_of_the_evidence . What this means is that a plaintiff's claim must be merely more likely than not of being true. If it's more than 50% likely (in the mind of the jury) then they can find you guilty. That's a low bar. If I were sitting on a jury, and was presented with ISP logs showing this guy's machine was sharing file, well - that's not absolute proof he did it, but it sure is pretty likely he was responsible for installing the software and actively sharing files.

      Another phase which you overlook is "discovery" - in which the plaintiff can compell the defendant to divulge relevant information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29 For example, a dump of the registry - which would show if the defendant's user account had the software installed. So you can refuse to talk to the MPAA all you want before the trial, but if it goes to trial, you will be forced to answer questions, under penalty of imprisonment if you refuse.

      You might thinks that a smart cookie would merely wipe his computer before discovery. Nope, if you know of a possible lawsuit, you can find yourself in hot water if you knowingly destroyed evidence that was relevant to the case. One might be able to arrange a coincidental donation of your hardware to charity, but I still think a judge might not look kindly on such an action.
    • Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Actually, they don't have any proof to begin with that YOU did anything, only that it was done with your computer."

      Actually, they only know someone with your IP address did it. And it is possible that someone was spoofing. :)
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Good point. Maybe I should switch back to WEP, just so that last one might hold water ;)

      EDIT: Good comment by joshv. Nevermind what I just said, I guess. Oh well, I'm Canadian anyway.
    • CritCol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or maybe a power surge toasted your computer. Like the power surge that is created through static electricity by walking around a room in socks for a few hours and touching any metal part of your computer...
    • flood6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3joshv: "beyond a shadow of a doubt" isn't right anyway, it's "beyond reasonable doubt"

      I'm not trying to be an ass, just figured it was worth clarifying.
    • boran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That kind of legal system is seriously f*cked up.
      what happened to innocent until prooven guilty ?
    • rv8ch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Better switch *off* WEP on the wireless router. That way, one of your evil neighbors could be to blame, or a wardriver.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You can argue that either way - your evil neighbor could easily get around WEP.
    • joshv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thanks flood6, is it indeed "beyond a reasonable doubt". I should not post in a hurry, but that's no excuse.

      A number of people have pointed out that the IP could be spoofed, or perhaps used by a Wi-Fi leecher next door. Sure, these are all possibilities. It is also possible that the guy who pays for the account attached to the IP had file sharing software installed and was sharing movies. The way we weigh these possibilities is with the evidence. The MPAA presents it's evidence, and the defendant presents his evidence. Whoever's story is just a hair over 50% likely, wins.

      So, if you want to claim that someone was using your access point, you'd better have some evidence of this fact. The mere possibility of such use isn't going to weigh very heavily against the MPAA's evidence. You will have to show that you have an access point, and that it was open at the time of the alleged file sharing traffic. You'd have to present your own logs as well. If you could show that someone, with a MAC address you do not own, was using your Wi-Fi access point on or around the times the MPAA recorded infringement, well then you might have something there. Someone who is actually guilty is unlikely to have such evidence, unless they run an access point shared by dozens and actively log DHCP requests.

      As for the spoofing claim, it would be very difficult to mount a positive defense, short of showing that spoofing is the only likely explanation, as your PC could not *possibly* have been the source of the file sharing traffic. This is certainly doable - you could present backup logs showing what software was installed when, for all of the computers you operate, or perhaps prove you did not have a computer at the time by showing a donation receipt before the alleged infringement, and a purchase receipt for your current computer after. How likely is even an innocent person to have any of this sort of documentation? Not very.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Turning off WEP/WPA and relying on the "evil and anonymous stranger did it" is dumb. If someone actually does use your WAP to download child porn, the cops aren't going to just go away because you babble something unintelligeble (to them) about "WEP" "WAP" and "MAC"... you're still going to court and paying legal fees out the ass, and you'll suffer loss of reputation just for being accused (sex crime = guilty until proven innocent in most people's minds).
  • lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This is what we have all been waiting for!
  • TheTankengine, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The site is down. Who is it? What website?
  • atstriker2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Take them down!!!

    Also, that "say nothing" advise applies to ANY lawsuit. (read RIAA vs. everyone)
  • hometoast, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2For all those complaining about digging before reading: You people do know you can also UNDIGG an article?
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And isn;t it also called 'social bookmarking'? So if the description seems promising but the link is dead, you 'bookmark' it so you can easily access it from your own profile page to read later... A convenient feature but probably not the way Digg was meant to be used. Works for me though. And indeed, if it was a false sense of interest you can always undigg...
  • podmedic, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7As a podcaster I basically hate the MPAA and RIAA. That said, I hope they keep their tactics up because it'll only force more people to podsafe music and video and when that becomes profitable, the content producers (artists and directors) will start realizing that reasonable people will pay reasonable prices for fair use. Which is where the recording industry was 20 years ago before the digital age.
    • anonynous2_, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6> As a podcaster I basically hate the MPAA and RIAA.

      So you're saying that you hate the RIAA because you're a podcaster? You're saying that if you didn't do podcasts, you wouldn't necessarily hate them, but since you do put out podcasts, you're obligated to hate the RIAA and MPAA because of some unofficially official podcaster credo? Was there a bylaw signing I missed somewhere? Some sort of cult sign up? If I'm missing out of free hot pockets here I think I have a right to know.

      Now don't get me wrong, I have no love for the RIAA and MPAA. In fact, I detest them. That said, disliking the right people is no excuse for abusing the English language, putting your foot in your mouth, or committing other acts of general asshattery.
    • UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2anonynous2_
      Are you really that angry that he decided to qualify his position? Giving an example of why he might be uniquely influenced by RIAA policies is _not_ abusing the English language. Learn to understand things in context and try not to be such an asshat yourself.
    • subscriber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The RIAA's policies are especially frustrating to podcasters. Imagine you are trying to spread the word about your new favorite band through your podcast, and you suppose that the exposure you give the band will only serve to help them out. But the RIAA doesn't see it that way, and they block your efforts. You even bought licenses from ASCAP and BMI so the artists would get their cut. You report what songs you played and the artists get their royalties, and the only people who don't get paid are the holders of "mechanical rights" -- the big record companies. That's right, folks, a podcaster can pay the composer and the performer for the right to play the music, but the RIAA won't allow it!

      Enter the Podsafe music movement. This is more than just a bunch of music by unsigned bands -- it's a movement to unseat the mega corporation labels from their death-grip on the business. It's an attempt to eliminate the controlling middle-man and let the artists and listeners decide what they want to listen to, and how. It will also ultimately mean more of the profits will go to the artists themselves, and less to the "owners" of mechanical rights that they may have bought second-hand (think Michael Jackson v. Paul McCartney).
  • sirgad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9With bad publicity like this, it's almost like the MPAA have Jack Thompson working for them.
  • outz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5my friend had to pay them 50k to settle, and in the end he is still getting criminally charged by the feds
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sounds like he was running a popular server.

    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yah, jeez, your friend was just a criminal dude, no denying it, sorry. Also, advise him to consult a lawyer next time before he just sends the MPAA a check, to make sure ALL proceedings against him are dropped, since the MPAA or RIAA rarely file criminal charges unless you're a hardcore pirate.
    • KrispyKringle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Er, jasqwerty, the RIAA don't file criminal charges, the feds do. The whole thing about "choosing not to press charges," well, it doesn't work that way. The victim doesn't choose; the prosecutor does. The RIAA can't give anyone a guarantee that they won't be charged in criminal court, since the RIAA aren't a part of the justice department (or the state/local authorities).
    • jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Um, yah, they do guy. A victim files criminal charges against someone, it's up to governement to PURSUE AND CONVICT someone on these charges. If the 'victim', the RIAA here, decides to not file criminal charges with the proper authorities, then NO ONE moves a case forward against you. Maybe that's where I failed to make a distinction. The RIAA doesn't file criminal charges against you with a court, but with the proper law enforcement agency. The few rare cases where this happens is where the victim is dead, or supposedly under duress to not pursue charges further.
  • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I'm not so sure why this will win, anybody care to eleborate? I'm pretty sure stealing stuff is illegal. But maybe I'm missing something.
    • AeroGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"But maybe I'm missing something."

      Yeah, the fact that he claims that it didn't happen. (whether you believe him is a different matter.)
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And he said he also owns the DVD with the movie on it they claim he downloaded illegally. Good motive hey? Nowadays it does seem easier to download as oppose to rip a DVD but this guy has better things to do with his time.
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2But if it didn't happen, why is he getting sued? I seriously doubt that the MPAA is drawing random names out of a hat and suing them.

      And I'm pretty sure that anytime somebody goes to trial for something as a defendent, they never publically admit that they did what they are being accused of.
    • fohat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18You think just because someone gets sued they are auto-guilty??

      bah
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Why? Because the MPAA are well documented crooked basterds. It's statistically a pretty save practice to randomly sue people under 35. Chances are significant enough they once downloaded something not entirely legal. Threaten to sue them, person freaks out and settles.
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3in the us it's innocent until proven guilty. the fact that they probably have some documentation that he obtained something of theirs illegally, how is he going to overcome that evidence? not sure why people seem to think it's an open and shut case in his favor.
    • databyss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"But if it didn't happen, why is he getting sued? I seriously doubt that the MPAA is drawing random names out of a hat and suing them."

      Just like the grandmas getting sued who never had a computer. She telepathically downloaded the movie to her brain!
    • Rozal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thier "proof" is that X person was sharing X file on xx.xx.xx.xxx IP. The IP doesn't point out exactly who was the person accused of sharing. Hey, if I had a wireless network and someone was leeching of my wireless internet getting free internet, and sharing illegal movies, the MPAA will come after me, the account holder. But they have no evidence that it was ME, just that it was off my network.
      What if someone shared files in a Wifi hotspot?
    • UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I'm pretty sure stealing stuff is illegal"
      That's a much more loaded and presumptuous statement than you might think. Now even if we assume he did download copyrighted material, that doesn't equate to stealing. Though it doesn't apply in this case, one example is that he might have the rights to movies or music simply because he owns them in another form and wants to keep them in a backup medium. The RIAA is _really_ stretching beyond the legal limits of copyright infringement and the whole copying=stealing argument will lead you into a whole world of contradictions and unrealistic presumptions both legally and philosophically.
    • evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So, if you get sued by the MPAA, go out and buy the DVD(s) they accuse you of infringing? ;-)
    • bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The networking leeching thing is a valid counter argument, be interesting to see if it's used and if so if that sets a standard.
  • djkritikal, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6So let me get this straight...he claims,

    "For as big of an organization they are, my website gets roughly 10,000 times more traffic than theirs (then again, I get more traffic than buy.com or adobe.com.. hehe)"

    And yet he gets hit with the digg effect?

    I also question whether this is even true, or was he just pumping traffic to his site?
    • anonynous2_, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Yeah, I liked that too.
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Read the rest of the comments, it has been explained. Server is maxing out due to the popularity of his network of sites and tools. New servers are on their way. This Digg will probably make him rush to the blade store in anger and splash that 100K he has planned to spend on new kit.
    • nOOBert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3search for his name in google. His tools are widly used. I think i use some of them... It isnt hard to get hit by the /. or digg effect. It takes a lot of servers to not be taken down by a burst of 1000s of people.
    • djkritikal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I just think "10,000 times" more traffic is a little embellished.
    • kensho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Have you ever tried to go to CircuitCity or Buy.com when a site like Fatwallet posts a hot deal? The sites slow to a crawl and often break completely.
    • austintxphil, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Never mind. Bury me.
    • seibed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It's pretty obvious that his personal blog is hosted differently than the main site (http://www.digitalpoint.com/) since it's still up and responsive. His priorities are his main site, not a personal blog running wordpress, is that really a bad thing? sound like a sensible practice to me.
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Most people only go to mpaa.com and riaa.com to see the defacements after their servers get pwned.... seriously, what information of value is on those sites? What hook do they have to keep people coming back? So, I believe the 10,000x more hits figure.
    • digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just to clarify, it's for digitalpoint.com as a whole, not just my personal blog. The domain itself generates 12-18GB of raw http logs per day and it's very light on graphics (not many hits per page view). Works out to 2.5-3M unique visitors per day across the domain.
    • Netquest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just did a search on http://USLINX.com RIAA/MPAA cam up with 1090002 Hits Then did one for Shawn Hogan and got 818003 hits..... This shows they are running pretty close.
  • positron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Just a quick reminder, because it seems alot of you never knew or perhaps forgot.

    Nobody has ever been busted for downloading. It's the sharing that gets you in trouble.
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not easy to download without sharing though. The main thing seems to be when you are the original distirbutor.
    • loneBoat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 "Nobody has ever been busted for downloading. It's the
      sharing that gets you in trouble."

      Is that really true? I've never heard it. Anyone else? (I'm not saying I don't believe it, I just never heard it before)
    • databyss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's the making available for sharing. Which most P2P programs do automatically share any downloaded programs.

      And who download's movies without bittorrent anyway? Which ALMOST always means you're sharing as you download.
    • Criterion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"It's not easy to download without sharing though."

      It is if you don't use the crappy p2p tools that most use nowdays.

      "And who download's movies without bittorrent anyway?"

      Pretty much everybody I know. We stay away from it like the plague.. other than legal downloads like linux distros where they would like to save their bandwidth.
  • HiddenForce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I hope he not only wins the case they wanted to "settle" out-of-court, but he also counter-sues them for harassment, attempted extortion, and anything else for which he can sue them.
  • hspr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3From the article : "I'm a perfect example... from talking my attorney and then researching stuff online as a result of that, I now know that if you have the proper software installed, you can download pretty much any movie (or anything else) you want."

    He has got to be joking ! He runs a major website and is a software developer and he didn't know about P2P/bittorrent/usenet ? Playing dumb, methinks . . .
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just generalizing the situation as an example on how it backfires, that's how I read it.
    • funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry to burst your all-knowing bubble, but I've been on the Internet since '95 or so, and know very little of torrents and P2P outside of Napster.
  • Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6These shotgun style lawsuits need to stop. One of these days a federal judge is going to put to an end these mass suage. Extortion is extortion, no matter how many times you put "IP Protection or copyright infringement" in the title.
  • BasouKazuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://img110.imageshack.us/my.php?image=graph2jn.png

    I took that graph from the linked site. How does that graph work? What exactly is it graphing? On top it says 100 and on the bottom is says 100,000. Is it counting hits/day?
    • T0PS3O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's alexa traffic rank. It's a league table based on traffic. It's showing the position in the table, not the traffic. So it's relative, not absolute.
  • djdole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6When it comes to these RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. I'm not totally against them.
    BUT that is only to say that I believe an artist SHOULD have the right to protect their intellectual property.

    What I AM against BIG TIME, is the settlements the RIAA and MPAA are demanding.
    Sharing content has never conclusively been shown to result in the loss of the extreme profits that the industry claims. Neither can or should the industry be able to claim damages for any POSSIBLE loss in profits that MAY result from a file being shared. (You can't sue a city because you COULD HAVE been hit by a car while standing on a street corner.)
    More likely the 'loss of profits the industry claims they experience from on-line piracy' are in actuality eclipsed by the loss of profits due to the way in which the industry is acting towards consumers. Additionally I'm convinced that much of the decrease in sales of retail CDs, the industry equates to on-line piracy are in actuality due in part to consumers switching to LEGAL on-line sales.
    No handful of songs are worth a settlement/lawsuit for THOUSANDS or HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars in irreparable damages as the industry claims.

    I'd be perfectly fine with the industry suing people, IF they provided FULL PROOF of the illegal download, and not just circumstantial evidence (a police officer can't arrest a person without probable cause).
    AND if the industry's settlements were for the cost of the material downloaded. (ie. 'You downloaded these 12 songs, here's the proof. We won't take you to court if you pay for the on-line market price of the electronic version, or if you purchase the physical CD single of each song.')
    That is the scenario I wouldn't have a problem with. It'd be a scare/slap on the wrist for the consumer, the industry would get their profit form the downloaded material and save face, and the industry would still have many other consumers out there that it could 'harvest' it's piddly cash from.
    In addition, no lives would be ruined by the industry's lawsuit/settlement due to severe monetary damages.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Sharing content has never conclusively been shown to result in the loss of the extreme profits that the industry claims. "

      You can't take something from a store and then claim you never would have bought it anyway...
      If its near closing time and the store has some fruit they are going to destroy and dump (no loss to the company) do you have a right to steal it and then claim you never would have bought that fruit anyway?

    • Tamdrik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, demanding more than the retail cost of the songs/movies is, at least in one respect, justifiable. If their policy was to merely demand that the infringers actually pay for the titles they illegally possess, then there wouldn't be any reason to go out and buy it legally until you were caught. (This isn't to say that it should be thousands of dollars without strong proof.)

      That said, I do despise the RIAA/MPAA and their tactics. Shotgun extortion suits, paying Congress to pass legislation for their benefit, using DRM to punish paying customers without curtailing piracy... I don't think I can come up with a more despicable "legitimate" organization.
    • djdole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Otherland
      What point are you trying to make?
      I never even mentioned anything about the "never would have bought it anyway" argument.

      To answer your question; No, you wouldn't have the right to steal it.
      Then again, I never said anyone WOULD have that right. When I said "Sharing content" i meant sharing on-line content.
      Additionally, "Sharing content" is not the same as "Downloading content". Me making it available for you to copy, is not the same as you copying it from me. Don't get them confused.

      I don't know if you were just inquiring on my opinion about another subject altogether, or if you missed one of the side-points I made.
      All of the lawsuits the RIAA & MPAA throw around are not filed because the person downloaded copyrighted material, but RATHER because (the person (according to the RIAA) used peer 2 peer software that by default re-shares downloaded content, and so) the downloaded content was made available to hundreds if not thousands of other users. It's this REDISTRIBUTION of the copyrighted material that (according to the RIAA & MPAA) constitutes breaking of the copyright law, not actual act of downloading the file (which FYI would just be considered petty theft and wouldn't be worth the RIAA's or MPAA's time).
    • djdole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Tamdrik
      Good point.
      I should have said they should make them pay for the content, and then get a nominal fine (like the file incurred from a parking ticket).
    • subscriber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2..."I believe an artist SHOULD have the right to protect their intellectual property." Just to clarify -- the artists are not involved at all here. The artists are represented by ASCAP and BMI, not the RIAA.

      Because of the Internet, artists can make money without any help from big studios, and that scares the hell out of the RIAA. The RIAA represents the "Recording Industry", not performers and composers!
  • funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the headline should read:
    MPAA Screwing The Wrong Guy - One Of The Few Who Can Afford to Not Be Extorted
  • ViciousSummer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The MPAA need to come up with better "proof" then an IP address (if they even have that). My office runs a wireless network that is not password protected. So if, unknown to me, my neighbors downloaded a movie using my network would that make ME guilty of piracy? Nope. It would be pretty funny if the MPAA tried to sue me too since I don't have a TV or DVD player...
    • Criterion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It would be pretty funny if the MPAA tried to sue me too since I don't have a TV or DVD player..."

      What, exactly, does having a TV or DVD player have to do with whether or not you download a movie? You obviously have a computer (else you would have said that too, along with the obligatory "I'm using the school/library/friends computer."), and you can watch movies/listen to music quite handily on that.
  • shirashi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hopefully, his lawyer is better than his ISP.
    • ViciousSummer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, I would say that his lawyer is better then has ISP...since he doesn't own an ISP...
  • modestmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The real issue that the lawsuits highlight are the weakness in our justice system that the MPAA and RIAA are exploiting: one's economic resources are a central factor to one's access to justice.
  • digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Okay... hopefully I got the servers settled down (WordPress just bites the big one under load). A little Apache trickery to serve up a static page instead seems to be holding it down (for now).

    Regarding the lawsuit itself... the suit is for allegedly "downloading a movie", not running a server that lets people do it. Hopefully I'm able to fight it successfully... but when it actually comes down to it, win or loose, I'll just be happy to annoy MPAA at least as much as they have annoyed me.
    • dangerz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yaa, just do what's right.. that, or take down the MPAA.
  • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This guy isnt' defending piracy. In fact he seems to acknowledge that it's wrong. Look how he denies uploading, downloading or anything else the MPAA accused him of.

    His whole defense is that the MPAA has the wrong guy.

    People get found to be innocent all the time. People are released from prison under wrongful convictions all the time. The court and prison system are not going to just shut down because of a few mistaken identity examples.

    The MPAA has nothing to lose from this case except when they pay his lawyer fees (because they charged 'the wrong guy'...)
    So this can't hardly be considered a victory for IP pirates.
  • sygyzy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It'd be cool if he actually posted better information about his background or the story leading up to it. I checked ou this other site and he boasts about having a no limit Visa, paying for everything in cash, and having a 950 point credit score. That is not a typo.
    • tower31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why have a visa if you pay for everything in cash?
    • digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Convenience and sky miles.
  • StackOberon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0So, I read the article and I have no idea what the case is about (except in a VERY general way), or why he is "the wrong guy."
    What a waste of time.
    • digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I want to give them as little info as possible, because I don't want them to drop it. I want them to follow through with the case fully in court.
  • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i remember in the day... it was nearly impossible to nail a malicious hack simply because the only way you could be sure it was a particular person was to be standing over their shoulder when they did it. and then somehow have evidence... like a video of them doing it... the burden of proof for about anything has been reduced to who has the most money... who can afford to go to court.
    • joshv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Copyright infringement is a Civil offense, with a different standard of proof than that required to convict a hack(crack)er of a criminal offense. Thus your confusion.
    • trialofmiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@joshv
      Copyright infringement can be a criminal offense. Read my explanation: http://innovationlost.org/free-the-lyrics/2006/04/23/copyright-infringement-is-a-criminal-offense/
    • digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Just to clarify, this is a civil (not criminal) case. There definitely is a different standard of proof.
    • joshv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great trialofmiles, if the MPAA ever files a criminal suit against a file sharer, for those charges, there will be a higher standard of evidence. Maybe this is why they have yet to file such a case. It's hard to collect the evidence required without the involvement of law enforcement and almost iron-clad proof that you've got the right person. For example, a better example of criminal prosecution would be the arrest of a person who was making DVD copies of copyrighted movies and selling them out of their home. The police run a sting, and catch the person red handed with thousands of DVDs, and have the target on film selling illegal DVDs.
    • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>copyright infringement is a Civil offense, with a different standard of proof than that required to convict a hack
      >(crack)er of a criminal offense. Thus your confusion.

      well... i have no confusion. i have experience. and just to straighten out your confusion... civil court is full of lawyers plugging away at people for things they haven't done. its the money that makes a difference. if you don't have the money to throw at a lawyer then you loose regardless of whether you did it. that is secondary to proving anything.
  • greenvortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There are definitely ways to download without sharing. You could hack your BitTorrent client(see the slashdot article: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/18/1321204&from=rss). Or better yet, you could Google "how to use newsgroups" and subscribe to alt.binaries.dvdr and alt.binaries.movies.divx. Then you could check newzbin.com and see that today you can literally download "Everything You Want (2005)".Of course, only do so if you already own the DVD of the movie you're getting.
  • King21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As Aaron Wall learned, getting sued = good publicity.
  • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Shawn, you really need to learn your legal terminology.

    Plaintiffs don't make offers. They make demands. Defendants make offers. So when you say that the MPAA made you an offer of $2500, it makes no sense. I presume that their last demand was $3500, up from $2500 and that you have still offered nothing.

    Sounds like a nitpik but without it, your post made no sense.

    That said, be careful what you post. Your posts may come back to haunt you at time of trial. Keep in mind that in federal court, Rule 11 (frivolous litigation) works both against plaintiffs and defendants. Let your lawyer do your talking for you. That's why you pay him/her.
  • gukid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3As this is a newer topic...

    Okay, so here's my idea. I've been sort of, germinating it for a while, but something has got to be done about this useless piracy accusation. That people who download music cost lost business. These people would have borrowed, or not bought, if they weren't able to get it for free. An easy way to solve this in a legal manner? I leave this idea to the public, completely free of copyright and patent. Maybe I should write it down in case someone DOES try to patent and charge for this type of serivce...

    (To be used on a fast LAN, or internet connection as the upload gets faster.)
    File sharing program, that basically when you share, it adds it to a general queue. Nothing is downloaded, because you don't have to download (and it's safer this way) everything is streamed. As an example, you put a share for a specific movie, and you run this share all the time while you are online. It could be lots of movies, lots of music. Someone else request that they want to watch this movie. Your share comes up, they queue it up, and it plays right away, putting your share into a "loan" status. Basically the electronic equivalent of lending what you already own. While the file is playing, you cannot watch it. (I was pondering a global queue, where if there is 10 copies shared, only 10 people can be watching the movie through this program. That way, it won't affect what you want to listen to/watch while someone else is watching the content, as long as there is a "share" available). Maybe it's hard to describe though... and it may be hard to implement, without standards in tagging/naming schemes and whatnot... but still, it's my one big idea to make everything nice and legal. Yay.
    • oldhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your idea is pie in the sky. As the old telco's position themselves to ruthlessly control the backbone of the internet as well as the last mile to your home, all kinds of great innovative ideas like this die a quick, quiet death.

      Capitalism is inherently flawed: as innovative and competitive companies become highly successful, beating down and eating up their competition, the industry becomes deadly to competition/innovation.

      And if there is no healthy competition in the market, what happens?

      The textbooks say that a successful company should become a monopoly, yet a monopoly is bad for the public, right?

      Long story short, someone needs to break the deadly grip of monopoly-like companies/groups of colluding companies in the interest of the country as a whole.

      That's supposed to be the job of an effective government, and when it does its job mankind makes mindblowing progress, but that's your cue to get depressed and change the channel to Apathy and Distraction Network.
  • Nighthawke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Shawn Hogan, the father of Optigold, going to turn over and let the ack-acks fleece him? I can hear him laughing his arse off right now. The boy's smart, if not brillant, knows what he is about and I seriously doubt that the ack-acks will let this go all the way into the courtroom for they know that the judges will laugh them right back out the door.
  • koshak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Baed on this guy's horrible writing skills, the part about him being "the wrong man" is inaccurate.

    He will lose. And the MPAA/RIAA will get stronger.


    You know what is really sad about this guy's life? Whre he says "This will certianly givce me something interesting to blog about." The guys goes through life looking for things to blog about!
    • iamSlightly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wow koshak - you'd think one would check their OWN spelling before pointing out the spelling flaws of others - I'm amazed you can't even spell "where", even w/ a built-in spell checker that digg provides. What a douche.
    • ViciousSummer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Baed on this guy's horrible writing skills, the part about him being "the wrong man" is inaccurate..."

      Wow, Koshak, you should be a lawyer, you obviously have it all figured out. Someone mispells a word and they are automatically guilty of piracy...yeaaahhhhhh.
    • oldhat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What the hell do you have against blogging? You are on Digg.com, right? What, do you go play at a video game arcade and tell everyone else that they're so stupid to be playing arcade games?
  • ev0l, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I hate the MPAA but I hope they own that guy just because he is an asshat, did you read that blog??,,,lol you silly bloggers.
  • jeb00d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I question the validity of anything involving this chap's blog. I need to see some facts before making any kind of judgement. Since he had been "expecting this" for weeks (speaking of being served) I doubt he is as innocent as other targets of these proceedings are.

    He should at the very minimum post PDF's of all court related papers before he can be taken seriosly.
  • digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Was "expecting" it only because of their initial call/threat about it...

    http://www.digitalpoint.com/~shawn/2005/11/loeb-and-loeb-mpaa-extortion.html
    • raindog469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't understand how statements like "You understand that defending this in court will cost you much more than $2,500 in attorney fees, right?" aren't actionable as extortion in this country.

      In any case, I'm glad they had the misfortune of choosing someone who's already won a case of mistaken identity. Give 'em hell.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.