What is Digg?69 Comments
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+77The RIAA has done this in the past with bands that they have no legal control over. Considering they all think they're being wronged and get all self-righteous, they sure have no problem wronging others.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61The RIAA and the MPAA are slime. But sadly they are slime backed by a lot of money and powerful bought-and-paid-for U.S. Congress Critters.
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33nonono. You all have it wrong. The proper use for a colon is just before a parenthesis, the letter D, or the letter P.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Slavery used to be one of those pesky laws. As we all know, laws define what's right and wrong in all situations all the time and they always do it well.
...or people with money buy politicians and get laws put into effect regardless of how illogical or immoral they are. either or. - brbubba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29"Shawn Hogan has received plenty of attention in the last year for his decision to fight the MPAA over the lawsuit they filed against him, claiming he had shared the movie Meet the Fockers via a file sharing program. The problem? Hogan didn't actually share the movie, has never downloaded it, and actually owns the DVD of the movie in question. The MPAA made it clear that if he just paid them $2,500, they would forget the whole thing -- which certainly has the feel of extortion. So, Hogan decided to fight the case in court to prove they were wrong, and said he wouldn't let them back out and run like they've done in other cases. All this, despite the fact that it would probably cost him over $100,000 in legal fees. Hogan decided it was worth it on principle. However, in preparing for the case, it looks like Hogan and his lawyer discovered that the studio might not actually have the rights to the movie. The explanation is a little confusing, but it appears that there are two separate organizations involved: Universal City Studios Productions LLLP and Universal City Studios LLLP (you can see why this gets confusing). The first (we'll call them "Productions") is the one who sued Hogan. However, it was the other ("plain old Studios") who filed the copyright registration. So, in preparing for the case, Hogan and his lawyers went looking for proof that plain old Studios had transferred the copyright to Productions -- which they got. The problem, however, is that the notice transferring the rights happens to occur two months before plain old Studios actually registered the copyright. In other words, they handed over the rights before they even got them -- making the whole thing a bit of a mess. Apparently, it's messy enough that Hogan and his lawyer hope to have the whole case dismissed. Unfortunately, having such a case dismissed on what appears to be a (stupid and careless) technicality won't help much in dealing with other cases where people are falsely accused (assuming this thing isn't that common) -- but it should save Hogan a lot in legal fees. Either way, it's yet another example of the somewhat reckless abandon with which the industry seems to file these lawsuits. Why bother making sure (a) the person did it or (b) you own the copyright before suing? That takes all the challenge out of suing your customers."
- idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Duggmirror has helpfully cached their "Error 404" page.
- digimoat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25I hate to say this but I hope they don't get the case thrown on these grounds. A clerical error isn't what we need to stop the MPAA; it's got to be on investigation standards, lawsuit methods, or something else. For him personally, this is good, but for everyone else this is just going to cause them to make sure they get the paperwork in earlier and build a concrete case.
- LOLDOORS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21http://www.shawnhogan.com is his website.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20The title is a bit misleading. This was a technical legal issue with regard to how the suit was filed and how the copyright was transferred between legal entities. The studio will resue when the technicality is resolved.
- kankerfist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I'm going to improperly use the colon of the next grammar nazi I see in this thread
- xs650, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Nope, they will move on to an easier target.
- --alex--, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Yes, copyright is automatic AndyD.
That's why it needs to be transferred between entities. The MPAA have no right to sue because they do not represent the company that owned the copyright, however they could pressure the production company to do so. I see this as a real shame as had it gone to court properly it would certainly have raised the bar for comglomerate lawsuit bombing raids. - reedsr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12What are they going to sue him for, owning the DVD?
- wundie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Wrong wrong wrong: The proper use of a colon is for poop!
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@david76:
You cant sue past discrepancies with new actions that would have made the suit work if they existed when the original suit was placed. Because at the time of the infraction the MPAA had no control over the copyright. The only way they could sue now is if he currently in copyright violation. - straxus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"You guys were all right, except for Straxus."
:P - trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Futurama:
Level 1 bureaucrat: Technically your right, and that's the best kind of right. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14By the way...Chaser...you are not using the colon properly. Your title implies that the MPAA is telling us that if you sue people, to make sure you own the copyright.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And I think that you need to pay attention the the reply button.
- sputza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7MPAA and RIAA are a bunch of tools.
- h3smith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It is NOT capitalism, it is the farthest thing from capitalism. this is what occurs when you have a gov't that is too big. industry and individuals can buy protection. the only solution is smaller gov't that controls less.
and Corneliusm, it isn't socialism either. It is more towards fascism where the gov't lets private individuals own companys, but the gov't controls them. - Guard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And i always thought Techdirt could handle the Digg effect. I've been proven wrong.
And kudos to the MPAA, who show that legally buying a DVD will open yourself up to file-sharing lawsuits. Great business model in scare away the legit buyers now too. No longer do you have to share files to be accused of file-sharing! Welcome to the future, a world of fun and extortion! - DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The colon is used to hide stuff when you go to prison, or to be filled with stuff once you're there.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4> actorboy wrote: "Oh, and those pesky laws."
Based upon what the RIAA and the MPAA would have us believe, sometimes I think I'm one of only eight or nine people on the planet who can claim that I have NEVER downloaded or shared music or movies illegally. I believe in the rights of content creators to protect their property.
What I'm against is this...
1) the seemingly pervasive idea that if the RIAA or the MPAA file a lawsuit against someone, they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.
2) the RIAA and the MPAA have managed to control every aspect of the investigation including evaluating the hard drive of the accused.
3) The fact that they can successfully file a lawsuit with only an IP address. Would we think it fair if the police had nothing more than the home address of a burglary suspect so they arrest the owner/renter of that house? It doesn't matter how many others might live at that address, the person who's name is on the purchase/rental agreement is guilty. And this doesn't even take into consideration that with open or improperly secured WiFi access points it is all but impossible to know who is using your IP address.
4) The frequency that these groups will "settle" for whatever the accused has in their bank account smacks of extortion. - salinemist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Have it, we're all behind you 100% dude!
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Oh, so the article is actually kind of stupid then. I'd be more interested in hearing why they thought he was sharing the movie when he claims he wasn't, not that he plans to win on some dumb legal trip-up.
- swoopdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3how is this kinda stuff still allowed? Are they permitted to do this.
- moofree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This reminds me of when Universal sued nintendo in the 80s over Donkey Kong...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.%2C_Ltd. - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Apparently there are 4 majors colon usages and 5 minor usages of colon. You guys were all right, except for Straxus.
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/punct/colon.html - socket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Like I said the system is BROKE. The only way to stop them is changing the laws. But guess what? We can't! Anyone who cares enough is too busy on torrent sites to get out and vote (or maybe too young). So in the mean while guess who wins? That's right, the entertainment industry and their fat cat lobbyists win.
- dslemons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That broke in no time at all.
- Buddhist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3HULKAMANIA IS GONNA RUN WILD ON YOUR ASS, MPAA!
- Corneliusm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is not 'pure' capitalism. Not even close.
They're using government to protect their monopoly from competition. That's hardly capitalism.
Socialism on the other hand... - spikeb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3damn it, i thought this was hulk hogan versus the MPAA :( I was gonna say the MPAA will be down for the count after the big boot and legdrop
- agash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No!!! This is not good!
This is the guy that was going to win fight and set precedent!
This guy had the cash to fight the MPAA's war of attrition, don't you guys remember!
I know nothing about law, but I'm assuming that this will cause the case to get dropped, requiring Universal to file a new suit against Hogan. I'm sure that they will conveniently not file now that they realize they had a terrible case and a strong opponent. It's a great way for them to get out and maintain their extortion without running with their tail tucked.
If Shawn Hogan really was a hero he would have let that detail slip and go ahead and beat the ***** already. :p
It's also odd that he hasn't commented on his blog yet, considering the news has hit. I'm anxious to see what he says. - dty1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hey.. I'm dennis from techdirt.. sorry about the server sluggishness this morning... we changed something that broke stuff, but we fixed it, so we should be able to handle getting dugg, as usual.. apologies all around..
- socket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's sad that this situation is so hopeless a small victory for ONE person is big news. Our legal system is broke. Our copyright system is broke. Whats worse is out of control big business will keep it that way for a long time to come.
- stray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are you listening, SCO Group?
- rfunches, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"That's not true in any practical sense.
To be successfully defended against infringement in United States courts, it MUST be registered."
True, you have to register a work to pursue an infringement case in the U.S., but it only has to be done within the life of the copyright (which varies depending on the creation and/or publication date) in order to defend a copyright. What you do lose by not registering within a reasonable amount of time is the right to sue for punitive damages (within 3 months of creation, or prior to an infringement) or the inability to use registration as prima facie evidence (within five years of publication). See circular 1: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2These lawyers should be killed.
Why don't people target them, or MPAA members? - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Everyone enjoys a nice, legal extortion racket.
- thedreaming1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's really strange about the whole piracy thing is that the copyright holders are the good guys and the pirates are the bad guys but everyone hates the good guys for their need to make a 1000% markup on crappy music and movies.
The best way to fight this isn't buy pirating their copyrighted works. We need to hit them buy simply not buying/renting/watching/listening to their crap. If it's music and it's crap, don't buy or listen to it. If it's a movie, don't watch or rent the movie. Above all, don't pirate it. Why? Simple. If a movie is pirated heavily, they think it's a good movie. The same goes for music. The more it's shared, the more they think it's popular and the more they think it's popular, the more they'll want to be paid for it!
So, let's review. If it's crap, don't buy it, rent it, listen to it, or pirate it. Let them know that we will only spend our hard earned money of something good! - aposter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But he won't win on the "trip-up". Studios owns copyrights. Studios transfers copyrights to Productions. Studios, rather than Productions files with copyright office for full protection status when they don't own the rights any more. What will happen is that Productions will continue with their lawsuit and file as the correct rights holder with the Office, but be limited to about a third of the maximum damages they could have gotten, but then the fines won't be anywhere near that anyway even if he loses so it's pretty much a moot point.
- digitalpoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First of all, let me say I'm not a lawyer, so my understanding of it may not be 100%. The copyright registration was never valid for either entity (if you assign all rights including copyright to another entity, you can't then later go and file for a [valid] copyright). That doesn't mean the movie isn't protected under copyright currently, it just means if they sue someone for copyright infringement, they will be limited to *actual* damages, and *not* statutory damages. So even if they refile the suit with the correct entity, they would be limited to about $20 in actual damages that they could collect.
If the case does get thrown out, it does open up some avenues we may be able to pursue. For example digging into what legal right they had to collect settlements from people (and maybe we can get people's money back somehow). Some blah, blah on that over here... http://www.shawnhogan.com/2006/11/oh-wait-we-dont-own-the-copyright.html
If this case does get thrown out, I'm pretty sure it won't be the end of the MPAA vs. me. I'm not at the top of their "love list" these days, so it's possible they will find some other suit to bring to me. If they don't, there's always the possibility of us helping in getting other people's cases through court. - coit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1** oops **
- justoman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I hate to say it, but I have to agree with you. This is a person that wants to teach those bastards a lesson and because of minor technicality he may not be able to. If the MPAA is looking for a way out I'm sure this will be the way they will take.
If its about the money situation, he could always put the good ole Paypal Donate button on his site. I'm sure a lot of people would love to support his effort. - coit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was a botched joke on the botched joke.
- aposter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The copyright is implicit in the creation of the work. The registration is only for the purposes of enforcing the copyright they already have. They can transfer rights at any time whether They have filed with the Copyright Office or not. The issue would be that if Studios transfered the rights to Productions, then Productions should have filed with the Copyright Office since they didn't own the rights any more.
- sancho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Except--wait, what?
Copyright is a concept that predates the United States. It was implemented in the United States well before we got into the federal-government-political-mess we're in right now, and unless this guy's pirating a movie that's more than 28 years old, the original copyright law would still hold up.
What changed was that anonymous distribution became easy because there's no way for anyone (other than the ISP) to correlate an IP address to a human. Since you can't file a suit against an IP address, legal evolution was required to maintain the status quo.
What the MPAA/RIAA are doing with these lawsuits has very little to do with buying laws. They are protecting copyrights, as has been done for years. The methods for protecting copyright had to change along with the changing social landscape.
The potential extortion angle is another issue entirely, as is the "cannot break copy protections" issue. However that's not what is being discussed here. - kevin_ou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://techdirt.com.nyud.net:8090/articles/20061031/192204.shtml
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is