If You're Going To Sue For Copyright Infringement, First Make Sure You Own The Copyright
from the just-saying... dept
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.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow.
Lot of that going around, lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA lawsuit blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aren't baseless lawsuits cause for countersuits?
Maybe some lawyer may end up following this line of reasoning and nail the perpetrators for a new Ferrarri and a few extra bucks for gas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't baseless lawsuits cause for countersuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aren't baseless lawsuits cause for counter
There are provisions in the code of civil procedure that allow one to move the judge for 'sanctions' against the other side for a suit that violates certain parts of those rules (the list is below). One might read those and conclude that they are easily breached, and that sanctions were freely handed out (just like all the candy I handed out last night...), but one would be wrong in reaching that conclusion. Right or wrong, sanctions are threatened all the time, but are very rarely granted.
Under the federal rules of civil procedure (which are the relevant rules for any copyright infringement suit) at Rule 11, a lawyer who files the suit is promising the following things are true when he/she files the lawsuit (or for that matter any paper filed with the court in a litigated matter):
Now, I promise all of you that if you get all that excited about making Rule 11 motions for every RIAA or MPAA lawsuit and getting out scot-free (and your legal fees refunded to boot), that you are probably not going to do all that well! In a short summary of a very complex set of cases (which doesn't really do the cases justice, but this is the Internets after all...): If there is even a scintilla of a chance that the claim was a good claim, the court won't find that it was done for improper purposes. The bottom line is that courts don't want to be in the position of chilling peoples' rights to their day in court (and, remember, that's there to protect you just as much as it is there to protect others!).
So, after you read the above and analyze these cases under these words, chill. (That said, I don't want to discourage folks from trying!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA extortion and organized crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why the RIAA can commit the same mistake over and over and over again. They're basically immune - they paid the bribe monies already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GUY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GUY
Uhh...they did make the law. That's one of the biggest problems with Congress today. In the old days, you would get special interests and lobbyists spending millions of dollars wining, dining, and campaigning for congressmen so that they could put tremondous pressuse on them to get them to write laws favorable to their industry. Nowdays, it's far more efficient. They still spend the money trying to influence congressmen, but the lobbying groups write the proposed legislation themselves and hand a copy of it to the congressmen with the check. It saves a lot of time that way, and then the congressmen don't have to take the time to actually write it themselves. Since most congressmen rarely read the legislation all the way through before voting on it, it doesn't take much more than that to get the lobbyists' drafts made into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The New Golden Rule
That says it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greedy, indeed
Seriously, give me 10 years to grow up some more, and another 2 til the next election, and when you see a 31-year-old Democrat from Alabama running for congress with a ThinkGeek "Hacker Hat" on, vote for him. I'm not going to promise I'll do anything EXCEPT make a public list of everyone in congress who uses ANYTHING (including diners, golf trips, appartments, whatever) that they don't own themselves or that wasn't bought directly by them through their job (I mean, a government-owned car isn't going to count. a Benz bought by big tobacco will, though). Consider me your little spy into congress. I won't change any laws for ya, but I promise I'll change who makes them.
Yes folks, in 2018, vote...um...Me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greedy, indeed
If you don't think that someone making $250,000 a year (and thinks they are underpaid) isn't going to reach in the cookie jar when no one is looking, you need to open your eyes a little. They may not be directly "stealing" or embezzling money but I'm sure there are a lot of "shadow deals" that no one hears of. I think it is scary how power and money corrupts!
Just look at CEO/CFO etc, some steal as much as they can get away with, even when they are making $20mill + yearly!!
It is very rare when money and power don't breed corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greedy, indeed
They're brokering power.... and most don't need more money.
Consider that even if your favorite incumbent is thrown out of office, they face a lucrative career as a lobbyist, influence peddler, writer, speaker, governor, mayor, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greedy, indeed
Have you seen how close together his eyes are?!
Karl Rove is who you should be looking at. And he's a bona fide power hungry nut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Greedy, indeed
If the amount they've bloated their income wasn't bad enough; they also receive a fairly nice pension that includes the continuation of all of their health benefits once they've served at least 5 years. That's better than what we give our service members for protecting us without the drawback of live gun fire being too likely of a job hazard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greedy, indeed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Greedy, indeed
Folks, the problem is money. In Seattle the stations are full of ads, all negative. Who's paying for those ads? Certainly the candidates, but also party sponsors. From the information that I've read the Republican party has more money than it can spend. Where do you think they got all that money? It's doubtful that ordinary citizens donated it.
That's the problem, isn't it. Our representatives need money to run. There is a cap on how much an individual can donate, set at $2500 (I think). Lobbyists donate to the candidate's party which in turn buys time on the airwaves supporting the candidate.
The US needs campaign reform very badly. I frankly don't care to know about a candidate's sex life and I certainly don't want hear about the opposition candidate. I do want to know what you, the candidate, will do while in Congress. If you're a shill for some corporation you're not getting my vote in the next election. If you undermine the confidence of the people in the state or district you represent, you better have damn good reason for doing so.
The entertainment industry needs to wake up. The more that they try to control their content, the more that it is going to slip through their fingers.
Here's a thought: Regain the trust of your customers. Make your content better. There are thousands of books that are just crying to be made into movies. There are independant artists that are dying to be heard, if they are just given some respect. Respect your audience and they'll reward you also. Concentrate on those points and piracy will be less of an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One good thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stock up on guns and Ammo
The only way we will get change is at gunpoint. The corruption is far too deep and the system will never change itself.
Arm up and get ready to hunt some government critters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stock up on guns and Ammo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stock up on guns and Ammo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People in the US maybe extremely naive and stupid at times, especially from the people we elect, but the one thing I have faith in is that they will only take so much before they finally start seeing the big picture. Afterall, you can only zap the lab rat a few times before it stops trying to eat the electrified cheese - let's hope Americans are at least this smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the last presidential election pretty much confirmed that they are not that smart. Apparently, the majority of Americans would rather wait until they're on their last dying breath to change their minds and by then, its too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous
Now that the wheel has been spun and they have lost, i.e., digital music is dog-simple to distribute independently of their control, they refuse to accept reality. These lawsuits are their last, desperate, and nefarious attempts to hold onto something that is long gone.
Given the obviously corrupt nature of US lawmaking entities, this could go on for quite some time. Perhaps it will become horrific, it may become background noise, but be assured that it will continue to be ridiculous.
Like the old joke about the monkey who removed the cork from the pig's anus at the county fair: The last eyewitness to testify confirmed that the monkey did remove the cork, that feces were flying everywhere, "...but y'all should have seen that monkey a-tryin' to get that cork back in there!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about speeders? that's a crime. a bad one at that. speeding could kill someone. i see police on the road checking sppeds, but people are passing left/right and the cop just sits there. they are breaking the law, why not go after them?
oh...it's coz everybody does it and only a select few are made examples of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anyone who downloads should be tried
That is, law enforcement doesn't enforce the law for its own sake, but for the sake of revenue.
What these two "industries" have in common is their insistence on claiming the revenue as rightly theirs, with nothing more than assumptions and forecasts to justify their claims that they are losing something that they don't have yet.
BTW, when the cop says, "Sign here, it's not an admission of guilt, just a promise to appear," the word "appear" has a distinct legal meaning: Your promise to appear in court implies that you agree to obey the bailiff and to abide by the judge's decision. Neither of them have that right until you give it up with your signature on a legally binding document (the citation). Of course, the alternative is jail.
Both are rigged games, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I assume that's the intent of the RIAA and MPAA - if you can't profit by innovation and a good product, just sue.
I doubt they even care how they fill their wallets, just as long as they are filled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ONE NEUTRINO from the FIRST POST is an idiot himse
http://factualmaterial.com/sfarcs.htm halfway downish,
GET SMACKED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ONE NEUTRINO from the FIRST POST is an idiot h
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ONE NEUTRINO from the FIRST POST is an idiot h
The first place you encounter something is not necessarily the place where that thing originated.
factualmaterial.com simply stole that turn of phrase from somewhere else, so that they could put it to use themselves, in a manner that is equally (if not more) idiotic than ONE NEUTRINO's usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missing something
Tort reform!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably not a problem
Which is not to say, of course, that the current jihad by RIAA and MPAA against entertainment consumers makes public policy sense. I don't think it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Probably not a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, to look at this site, and similar ones, it looks like the RIAA and MPAA are evil. But it's so totally one-sided it's unbelievable. If you had articles about each time someone downloaded something illegally, or set up a server to provide illegal downloads it would thoroughly and totally swamp the RIAA and MPAA coverage.
Is it balanced reporting when you only report on one side?
I'm no fan of the MPAA/RIAA or their tactics, but, well, to make an analogy, if the public didn't need police there wouldn't BE any. The MPAA/RIAA didn't start their "bullying" until illegal downloading became a rampant problem. They didn't start treating everyone like criminals until everyone *became* criminals; don't forget that key fact. (Okay, not EVERYONE is a criminal, that's obviously a generalization, but so are the generalization that these organizations treat EVERYONE as a criminal.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#32 RIAA/MPAA TROLL
good job trolling for them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least if the guy can only be sued once for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least if the guy can only be sued once for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DAMN THE EMPIRE.........SAVE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Load up SUV with an arsenal of weaponry and inconspicuous flammables.
-Drive to the nearest Studio Corporate Facility (note, this is not the production lot, I respect these guys, I'm talking Suits here)
-Show up early AM to douse parking lot with flammables which trails directly into the building and around it
-Ignite the trail of flamables and shoot everyone who comes out of the building in a hail of automatic gunfire.
-Head to Tijuana and sip Corona's with Vincente Fox.
Sure it sounds drastic but so is suing individuals because you have still yet to harness any P2P or bit-torrent application to be used in professional manner. These apps have been around for what, 10 years now? If I wouldn't bet ass raped when I wanted to but a movie or cd, than I wouldn't burn. If my CD / DVD wouldn't break down with scratches for normal usage....I wouldnt' make backups of them.
Hell, I'd even sell them the rights to my movie after I shot everyone, for a fee. Or maybe I'll just kidnap a CEO's wife and daughter and extort the money out of them!
DAMN THE EMPIRE.........SAVE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DAMN THE EMPIRE.........SAVE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Load up SUV with an arsenal of weaponry and inconspicuous flammables.
-Drive to the nearest Studio Corporate Facility (note, this is not the production lot, I respect these guys, I'm talking Suits here)
-Show up early AM to douse parking lot with flammables which trails directly into the building and around it
-Ignite the trail of flamables and shoot everyone who comes out of the building in a hail of automatic gunfire.
-Head to Tijuana and sip Corona's with Vincente Fox.
Sure it sounds drastic but so is suing individuals because you have still yet to harness any P2P or bit-torrent application to be used in professional manner. These apps have been around for what, 10 years now? If I wouldn't bet ass raped when I wanted to but a movie or cd, than I wouldn't burn. If my CD / DVD wouldn't break down with scratches for normal usage....I wouldnt' make backups of them.
Hell, I'd even sell them the rights to my movie after I shot everyone, for a fee. Or maybe I'll just kidnap a CEO's wife and daughter and extort the money out of them!
DAMN THE EMPIRE.........SAVE THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technicalities
2. While the lack of a valid copyright registration might just be a "technicality", (a) it might require the case to be thrown out, which, last time I looked, is a WIN, (b) it might mean the people who think they own the copyright to the movie don't own it, which could have all kinds of ramifications for them, and (c) each little event like this helps all the other lawyers all across the country trying to help the victims of the RIAA/MPAA litigation onslaught, by giving them another arrow to add to their quivers in their fight against what I consider to be an evil empire. I'm sure every one of us is inspired by this to take a real long look at the bundle of papers the plaintiffs throw at us in an effort to prove their 'rights'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It took 28 comments to point out a critical fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call them Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am honestly suprised...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wouldn't be trademark or copyright, it would be patent. And the problem with that is that they actually have to invent it.
Despite what the public tends to think, a patent is actually fairly specific - it protects a specific method of doing something. If it's overly broad, they either won't get the patent in the first place or it won't survive prosecution.
In other words, even if they secured a patent on BitTorrent, there would still be room for someone to figure out a way around the language of the claims...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA-RIAA "legal organized crime"
To those that get sued and are innocent, the MPAA/RIAA should be made to pay court costs and personal/character damages to the individuals, not to exceed $250,000 for each infraction.
While piracy is wrong and the guilty should be held accountable, so should be the crime family of the MPAA/RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
**AA's "legal organized crime"
Problem is that we as tax payers are footing the bill from these BS cases. the **AAs have just gotten more attention is all.
The solution would be to strip away the rights of people from the corps. ie corps (as an entity) should not have the same rights as a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
**AA's "legal organized crime"
Problem is that we as tax payers are footing the bill from these BS cases. the **AAs have just gotten more attention is all.
The solution would be to strip away the rights of people from the corps. ie corps (as an entity) should not have the same rights as a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]