« WordPress Makes You Blog More
Can A Laptop Be TOO Nice? »

Wednesday, November 1st, 2006Wednesday, November 1st, 2006

Oh Wait… We Don’t Own The Copyright

by Shawn @ 10:07 pm · filed under MPAA

This is something I've known about for a few months (obviously), but now that I ran across the information on other sites, I don't see any issue with posting about it now...

Universal City Studios Productions (the entity suing me [more or less] on behalf of the MPAA) doesn't actually have a legal right to sue because they didn't own the copyright. {lol}

You can read the motion to dismiss over here if you are bored.

It is of course a technicality, and assuming the whole case is indeed thrown out, I'm sure once they get their heads screwed on straight they will probably start the whole process again with the correct entity (you know, one that actually owns a valid copyright). :)

Regardless if they do (or don't) want to come after me again (again, assuming it is thrown out), it opens up a whole new can of worms. For the hundreds of people that "settled" for $2,500, are those settlements even legal/valid? If they turn out to be invalid, what can I do to help everyone get their settlement money back from Universal/MPAA? They're legal right to make settlements with people would be along the same lines as me settling with you for downloading Star Wars. I'm thinking if people were paying me because I told them I owned the copyright to Star Wars (but I didn't really) may be illegal in itself.

RequestI never received a copy of the proposed settlement agreement (I didn't request one since it wasn't an option in my mind), but if anyone happens to have one or know anyone who has a settlement agreement for allegedly downloading Meet The Fockers, could you leave a comment here on this post (I'll contact you to coordinate getting a copy). That way my lawyers can go over it and see if it's legally binding if Universal City Studios Productions never owned the copyright to begin with.

I saw it on Tech Dirt, but I knew about it first (I swear!).. hah

http://techdirt.com/articles/20061031/192204.shtml

28 Responses to “Oh Wait… We Don’t Own The Copyright”

  1. Robert Allen Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 am

    I believe you. I dont think you did anything wrong. I think it is just the company being oversensitive.

    Rob

  2. cldnails Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 4:30 am

    Not that I’m on the side of greedy bastids, but can’t they authorize a company to represent them? Wouldn’t this fall under representation…

    I hope your right and I hope that everyone gets their money back along with a class action lawsuit settlement. :)

  3. Bulbboy Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 7:13 am

    Wow, has it been almost a year already?
    I think you should give some thought to opening a DP legal branch,
    go underdogs, go! :)

  4. aerialla Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 8:04 am

    Shawn this is great news. I am a huge Firefly fan and someone is being sued by Universal over some copyright infringements that they at first gave the fans permission to use to help support the making of the movie Serenity. I sent this article to her and told her that it would definitely be worth looking into. It could be just enough to get the action stopped for her since she has complied with all their demands.

    Your fight is really helping more people than you realize. Thank you.

  5. David Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 8:56 am

    Your face doesn’t own the copyright.

  6. Shawn Hogan Files Motion to Dismiss MPAA Case Based on Faulty Copyright Registration at iMedia Law Blog Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 8:58 am

    […] Dale’s Comment: If the court does dismiss the claim on this basis, however, the plaintiff could correct the copyright registration problem and institute the action a new.  We’ll see. Sources: Text of Motion to Dismiss | Recording Industry v. The People | Shawn Hogan’s Blog | TechDirt Related Posts: […]

  7. RisingShadow Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 9:21 am

    Now, while I”m totally for you, I hope that the motion to dismiss doesn’t go through. Really, getting a dismissal at this point in the game won’t help too much with other people who are getting hit by these horrid charges. Legal fees aside, I really do hope you can go to court and set some precident to put these bastages in their place.

  8. monks Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 10:25 am

    the saga continues

  9. Shawn Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 11:19 am

    cldnails - I don’t think they can at this point. If the suit gets thrown out, I think they would have to pay my attorney fees and start the whole process over with the right entity making the claim. I don’t think you can file a lawsuit and then halfway through it say, “Oh, we aren’t really the plaintiff, these people are.”

    Obviously it’s just a technicality, but a technicality that sets them back a year, and also has the *possibility* of getting everyone else’s money back that did “settle”.

  10. Wendy Michele Says:
    November 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    Wait! I thought you owned the copyright to Star Wars. You don’t? I want my money back bastard.

  11. cldnails Says:
    November 3rd, 2006 at 6:01 am

    I see what your saying Shawn…just sucks.

  12. alek Says:
    November 3rd, 2006 at 9:37 am

    If nothing else, this whole sordid saga is entertaining - I smell a class-action against Universal “something” representing those people that did settle.

  13. Shawn Says:
    November 3rd, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Actually, just got off the phone with my lawyer… there *is* no valid copyright registration. So if it’s thrown out they could sue again, but they would have to sue for ACTUAL damages instead of statutory damages (which they would never do).

  14. ENGadget Says:
    November 3rd, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    Does this therefore mean that for the moment, “Meet the Fockers” is fair game (Public Domain), for public posting?

  15. Shawn Says:
    November 3rd, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    No, copyright exists automatically… but they would be limited to sue for actual damages, instead of statutory damages since there is no valid copyright registration with the government.

  16. Eric Says:
    November 4th, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    Interesting…
    hehe, obviously it would be at least tacitly admitting guilt which is what you don’t want to do(since you’re not guilty), but the evil side in me thinks it would be fun to offer to settle with them for ‘actual damages’ minus your attorney fees of course. So ~$20 actual(or heck just send them your copy of the DVD back) minus what..maybe $20-30k by now?
    I’d bet they’re actually too stubborn to pay $30k for a “win”.

    eric

  17. Derek Says:
    November 5th, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Something gives me the feeling if they DID sue for “actual” damages, they would try for a really big number, with the justification that your publicizing this case has caused so many people to not purchase the movie or watch it, so they’ve lost even more money, it’s all your fault, neener neener neener…

    Something like that, anyways. Dicks.

  18. Shawn Says:
    November 5th, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    I’m not publicizing anything (intentionally). I just write on my blog… {shrug} They brought it to me, not the other way around.

  19. Miguel Says:
    November 6th, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    I applaud you sir for your honesty, bravery, and commitment to fight greedy and thoughtless corporations like the MPAA and RIAA.

    I also applaud that you do your own research on things you find important instead of just taking the word of anyone.

    -Miguel

  20. Mike Says:
    November 17th, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    Since they pretty much know they’re suing you for something that they don’t have any rights over, can’t you countersue for extortion/wrongful prosecution/defamation of character/etc? They really need to be brought in to court to (in)validate their position. It kinda bums me out that your lawyers had to move to dismiss, but they coulda dodged the result if they went through the case with no juristiction.

  21. Gary Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    I too am really upset over the fact that this may not go to trial. The fact of the matter is that the courts need to have this case tried and the courts and our lawmakers need to be educated on just how bad the DMCA laws are written. They also need to be educated on how the internet works and just because an accuser has an IP address, it doesn’t mean the individual has done anything illegal. I too was recently falsely accused of downloading copyrighted material because the accuser, who, by the way, doesn’t seem to be required identify himself to the accused, says that he tracked the file to my IP address. I’m a bit of a computer geek and I know that the only way of truely identifying a computer on the web is from it’s MAC. And if Windows XP’s Axtive X controls are turned off (hint for all P2P users), that information can’t be obtained by any packet sniffing application - especially in most builds of XP Pro SP2 (which won’t pass that information even with Active X on). I would hope that you will countersue for all the “little guys” like me to send a message to anyone that makes the accusation of copyright infringement had better have more substantial evidence than what IP address a packet of data has been sent to. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

  22. Shawn Hogan’s Motion to Dismiss RIAA Claim Denied at iMedia Law Blog Says:
    December 12th, 2006 at 11:30 am

    […] Sources: Text of Motion to Dismiss | Recording Industry v. The People | […]

  23. Ramses Says:
    January 14th, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    Thanks for standing up against the corporate bullies. I hate to say this, but I think the MPAA and RIAA are both making a mockery of the justice system. I’ve learned through the examples of both companies that I could sue a 12 year old or a really old lady with almost no evidence. An IP address is no evidence. I get hackers going up against my websites all the time with spoofed addresses and through compromised systems. You could even fight the lawsuit on those premises.

  24. Emperor Says:
    May 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    So how did all this turn out? Are they still threatening you or have they given up???

  25. Ray Says:
    May 24th, 2008 at 5:50 am

    I have been searching everywhere for the outcome to your case. While you obviously abandoned your blog last year, could you please post the final result?

  26. beojan Says:
    July 20th, 2008 at 6:41 am

    This may sound like pure advocacy, but

    If you were using Linux (or OS X, but then you would be supporting a company who supports/profits from the DMCA laws), you would have much less chance of malware that can get you into this position in the first place.

  27. Kriget mot fildelningen « PiratJanne Says:
    October 25th, 2008 at 2:11 am

    […] Miljonären Shawn Hogan blev anklagad för fildelning av en film som har redan ägde. Hur det gick till visar varför det handlar om utpressning. Först fick han ett samtal där han fick reda på att han hade fildelat (vilket han inte hade) och att han fick välja mellan att betala 2 500 dollar eller gå till rättegång. Han vägrade betala och fick då veta att det skulle kosta honom mer än 2 500 även om han vann och om han förlorade skulle det kosta hundratusentals dollar. Han sa ändå nej. Lite senare fick han ett brev hem som förklarade att han blivit stämd. Och lite efter det fick han ett erbjudande om att göra upp utanför domstol, men den här gången hade det stigit till 3 500 dollar. Det bästa var att de som drog honom inför rätta inte ens hade rätten att göra det. […]

  28. Woman fined $1.92 million - Page 2 - Net Builders Says:
    June 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    […] Originally Posted by DomainMagnate she looks depressed in that picture.. btw, any ideas how that Shawn Hogan case ended up? Oh Wait… We Don’t Own The Copyright I can’t find further stuff though. __________________ Help Fight Autism with Mr. sulumits retsambew […]

Leave a Reply