MPAA ramps up p2p attacks
p2p news / p2pnet: The new chief enforcer for the major movie studios appears to be switching emphasis away from BitTorrent sites to individuals.
He also seems to be focusing on people alleged to have used iMesh, the new, RIAA backed corporate ‘p2p’ site, for downloads.
Bob ‘Boba Fett’ Pisano recently replaced Dan ‘Jedi’ Glickman as the man responsible for MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) anti-p2p efforts.
With a case against an ex-US Marine who served in both Desert Storm and Somalia under his belt, the MPAA’s new president and operations boss has now sicced his pseudo-cops onto a 67-year-old grandfather.
He’s also going after Chastity McCarthy of Dallas, Texas, who, says the MPAA, used iMesh to illegally download four movies”.
In this new travesty, “The Motion Picture Association of America filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Fred Lawrence of Racine, seeking as much as $600,000 in damages for downloading four movies over the Internet file-sharing service iMesh,” says the Associated Press.
“The suit was filed after Lawrence refused a March offer to settle the matter by paying $4,000,” says AP. Not at all coincidentally, it’s the same amount the studios are trying to extort from the ex-marine.
“I personally didn’t do it, and I wouldn’t do it,” AP has Lawrence saying. “But I don’t think it was anything but an innocent mistake my grandson made.”
He said his grandson, 12 at the time, downloaded the movies out of curiosity, and without knowing it was illegal, and deleted the files immediately.
“The family already owned three of the four titles on DVD,” says AP, quoting Lawrence who added, “I can see where they wouldn’t want this to happen, but when you get up around $4,000 … I don’t have that kind of money. I never was and never will be a wealthy person.”
MPAA mouthperson Kori Bernards said illegal downloading costs the movie industry an estimated $5.4 billion a year, adds AP.
However, MPAA statements about alleged losses down to p2p file sharing are scarcely to be taken seriously, having been discredited on a number of occasions.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local political representatives. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance.
See:-
iMesh – iMesh corporate p2p, October 25, 2005
anti-p2p efforts – Glickman ousted in anti-p2p role, September 23, 2005
ex-US Marine – Interview with a movie ‘pirate’, October 31, 2005
used iMesh – MPAA gets tough on China, October 29, 2005
Associated Press – Grandpa is sued over grandson’s downloads, November 2, 2005
taken seriously – Hollywood lies, corporate bull, November 1, 2005
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:55 pm
I will be posting their information here so that people can complain to them about their harrassment of innocent people.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:45 pm
“seeking as much as $600,000 in damages for downloading four movies over the Internet file-sharing service iMesh,” says the Associated Press.”
Let me repeat what I stated in another posting:
Peermusic, a big music publisher infringed the rights of song my family owns, passign themselves as owners, licensing the song for television, a video and to many radio stations. Peermusi even tried to license the song for a television ad. Peermusic earned over 30,000 from the song and destroyed our credibility when we rightfully claimed to be the owners. Peermusic said it was a technical mistake on their part and that we did not deserve windfall profits. As a result we have not been able to license the song. The judge gave us $5,000 in “actual” damages for the described infringements and theft. In essence the judge said we lost $5,000
It is incredible that some lawyer in some branch of the same federal court want $600.000 for four copied DVDs. Now, this is a real windfall, when at best the DVD producer is entitled to the profits they would have made with the sale of 4 DVDs, or about $40.
Separately on the same case, another publisher, we proved, stole 500 or so our songs and claimed them as their own, for seven years, making us bankrupt in the process. The judge found no infringement and awarded us $0.000 in damages. Mind you, this was an American court judge.
$600,000 for four dvds? Just how ridiculous, how dierty can the legal system be? Is it a huge scam the legal system?
A tip to the victim in this case: Settle by offering $40 to the judge. Maybe he will take the offer (on the DVD producer’s behalf, of course).
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Yes, that is exactly what the civil court system is – a scam. This is because judges and lawyers are not accountable for their actions. They screw the people who financially benefit them the least and protect the ones that help them the most. The U.S. Constitution is NOT a flawed document… It is a DEAD document because the governments and counrt system no longer respects or abides by it. In order for us to restore the protections of our rights, we have to campaign against the courts and the Republican-Democrats. Visit http://www.fija.org to learn how one may be able to strip a judge of the power he/she usurped.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Actually, there is only one file downloaded that was not paid for. The most a judge should award the plaintiff is the amount it would cost a person who lost the same CD from a rental store. I personally don’t see where the the plaintiff should be awarded anything, but I am giving the MPAA a generous benefit of doubt.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:25 pm
The $600,000 figure is derived from applying the maximum statutory damages ($150,000) for each item allegedly infringed.
The main problem with the copyright laws in the US is the statutory damages provisions. Instead of having to prove actual damages, the law specifies the maximum amount that can be awarded for each item infringed. If infringement is found during a judicial proceeding, then it’s up to the judge (or perhaps the jury, depending on the circumstances) to decide what the damages should be given the circumstances surrounding the entire case. The maximum would generally only be used in the most egregious case where the defendant was duplicating and selling copies of the allegedly infringed item and had profited greatly by it.
In other countries (like the UK), the plaintiff would have to present evidence of the actual damages incurred and any award would be based on this. This is likely why we have not seen a great many of these “sue them all” lawsuits being pressed in jurisdictions where actual damages must be proven, as this would required the cartels to allow critical scrutiny of their dubious claims concerning the alleged losses they are experiencing as a result of filesharing.
If the statutory damages provisions of Title 17 USC were changed to actual damages this would be likely to almost completely eliminate the rash of this kind of lawsuit.
In the case in question, the easiest path for the defendant would be to purchase the DVD of the 4th title allegedly infringed and then claim the downloading was fair use for the purposes of making a backup copy or for being able to view the content already paid for on the computer in addition to on the TV through the DVD player.
–TurboGeek
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:43 am
The legal system includes the laws.
The copyright is so badly written that if a kid that does not know absolutely nothing about the Copyright Act by “intentionally” copies a dvd with 10,000 mp3 song files, the kid could theoretically be sued for $150,000 for each of the 10,000 songs, or $1,500,000,000 (1.5 billion american dollars).
This ocurrs because those that passsed the act had no idea what they were putting on the laws. Worst, as the errors in the laws are seen bo action is taken because legislators are too busy rasing funds for their pockets, allegedly for reelection. Much of the monet comes from interest groups such as the music and movie cartels. That is the worst part of the scam.
Since in my case, a music publisher that was thoroughly knowledgeable obout the Copyright Act actually stole over 500 songs owned by my family and we were not awarded any damages for the theft, after struggling with the theft for several years, I can say that the legal system is a huge scam that is perpetrated against the American people.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:55 pm
This story sickens me to my stomach. My hate for lawyers grows.
November 4th, 2005 at 7:57 am
He should go to jury and then as he claims, point out that he deleted the file right away. That means there were little or no actual damages and any normal human jury will throw this crap out of court.
With his service record he will have good credibility in the eyes of the jury.
The MP** will look like the fools they are.
November 4th, 2005 at 10:19 am
$5.4 billion a year? What are they smoking.
rotflmfao… The whole point of people pulling movies on p2p (aka ‘trying’ a product to decide IF its worth paying for it) doesnt mean they would have bought the movie in the 1st place, just that they are considering it more seriously and downloading it is their 1st step toward purchasing.. basically the same concept of watching a movie on HBO and then going out and buying it…
*sighs* It’s ok, the MPAA types know their numbers are inflated.. they cant sue 120 million people (prolly much larger number now but thats a guess) using p2p in America at any given moment… and EVEN THEN it would be { 120000000×4000=48,000,000,000 } 48 BILLION dollars if they did and successfully got the 4000 from each person.. *rolls eyes*.. is this the only way they can earn those “eye popping” profits?? by suing their customers?
Bloody lamers.
Just my 10 cents.. _-Jile-_