Grandpa Is Sued Over Grandson's Downloads

[toopers]

MILWAUKEE - A 67-year-old man who says he doesn't even like watching movies has been sued by the film industry for copyright infringement after a grandson of his downloaded four movies on their home computer.

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.

"I personally didn't do it, and I wouldn't do it. But I don't think it was anything but an innocent mistake my grandson made."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_en_mo/movie_downloads;_ylt=AmR.mwVbWpF84bSJlg6wDE5xFb8C;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

I am not sure what I think about this.

[Eric J in MN]

1. How about that the movie industry didn't suffer $600,000

in losses?

[indepat]

57. Extremely punitive fines when corporations are harmed very little if any

all the while corporations are being given immunity with impunity: welcome to Bushworld, the exciting corporatist (F-word) world.

[Miss Chybil]

2. I'm an artist, so I'm all for creative rights, BUT iMesh is the criminal

here not a minor, nor an unsuspecting guardian.

[toopers]

4. I don't think iMesh is the criminal.

They just provided a platform to trade files -- similar to the gun company. The criminal is the underage kid, but why go after the grandfather. I support creative rights, but this seems ridiculous. I do not think the Movie companies will make very many friends with this one. How are they going to prove damages? Also, if the child was able to get the movie off the internet, then the movie was already available, and not newly available like the movie exec implies.

[brokensymmetry]

6. You say "The criminal is the underage kid"?

It's a civil case, not a criminal case.

But here we have a 12 year old child...who downloaded some movies that were, apparently, already available on the internet. And I see him labeled as a criminal.

On a progressive site.

I think I've lived too long.

[toopers]

8. I realize that this is a civil case.

However, it appears that he did do something illegal. If he did something illegal, it makes him a criminal. Besides, my point was more to the fact that the movie studio was going after the person who didn't download the movies.

[Duer 157099]

12. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

or have the repubs completely co-opted this one too?

[northzax]

17. the facts have been stipulated

by both sides. so there's no question of that.

[brokensymmetry]

19. The fact of downloading only.

Please tell me what law (please, be specific) prohibits downloading.

[northzax]

23. since it's not a criminal case

there is not relevance to criminal law. however, the DCMA, section 1203 provides the ability to file a lawsuit, under section 1201 or 1202 against an individual who actively pursues or possesses copyrighted material that has been electronically decoded or had copyright protections removed. If the company in question did not put the film on the internet, going to get a copy involves you in the act of willfully breaking the copyright.

conversely, willfully providing copyrighted material to others, with an intention of profiting in any way, is a criminal offence.

the reason they are suing the grandfather is that there is also an exception allowing judges to remit or reduce damages if the offender is a minor.

so, there's your law.

[brokensymmetry]

27. Um-hmm.

Here's a link to the relevant section of the Act:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001203----000-.html

Note that it permits civil action. It does not enable criminal prosecution.

So...neither the grandfather nor the grandson are criminals under section 1203 of the DMCA.

[northzax]

33. well, I never used the word criminal

but the laws specifically call for the option of civil action, which is what the company is doing.

[toopers]

34. Thanks for the clarification.

For my education, and remember, I am not a lawyer so be gentle with me, is the copyright law one law with a bunch of individual laws that have varying remedies? Does the copyright law separate the actions of individuals into degrees of severity and the recourse for the type of infraction. IE. if someone downloads one song they are in violation of the copyright law, but the only recourse is through civil action by the copyright owner (not the state). However, if someone distributes with intent to profit they still have violated the law, but recourse now involves the state in a criminal action and civil action by the owner of the material?

Thanks for answering this question?

[northzax]

35. there are a multitude of copyright laws

I am not a lawyer, full disclosure.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in 1996 to attempt to deal with electronic piracy and bring the US into compliance with several WTO agreements we are party to. Is does not address the issue of what is, or what is not copyrighted, beyond a recognition that it only applies if a copyright is registered. What it does deal with is violations of copyright law using computers. Basically, it splits people into two sections, accessers and providers. The way it gets you, basically, is that music comes to you encoded in a certain way, with a certain license. Using a computer to violate or change the encoding or violate the terms of agreement that came with the digital media violated DMCA, whether that is by breaking encryption or emailing the file. doing this for profit in any way is a criminal violation, pursued by the government in criminal court; doing it for any non-commercial purposes is a civil violation, which is pursued by the company in court.

[toopers]

36. Disclosure is noted.

Thanks for the info.

[toopers]

25. Here is a link that will answer questions regarding . . .

copyright infringement. Right from the horses mouth, so to speak.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#p2p

[MidwestTransplant]

45. Is his name Libby? Didn't think so....doesn't apply here!

[brokensymmetry]

15. Let's just cut to the chase.

However, it appears that he did do something illegal.

Such as? I'm not aware of any law that prohibits downloading movies, or, for that matter, making copies of movies. There are laws against distributing those copies, and also against distributing copyrighted works. Note that the distribution of the works is not alleged; rather, it is stipulated that the child (yes, a child of 12) downloaded the materials.

If that is in truth and in fact a crime, I would very much appreciate a pointer or link to the law, statute, or regulation having the force of law that states that downloading the material is a crime.

----Extreme sarcasm follows.------------

Since the 12 year old child is a criminal, why resort to half-measures? Why not just crucify him, has grandfather, and the surrounding neighbors? :sarcasm:

----End of extreme sarcasm.--------------

----Absolute, sincere truth follows.--------


I've quit buying Cd's. It's well past time I did the same for movies.

And no, I don't download the stuff. I just don't bother to listen to music. I have enough books that I can skip movies too.

----End of absolute, sincere truth.---------

[toopers]

20. Hey, I think you just need to put down the coffee for a little while.

While I do not have access to a link (I am looking for one) that details the law, and I am not an attorney, others have already been sued in civil court by RIAA for downloading songs.

My point that you seemed to have missed is that the movie company was going after the grandfather when in fact it was the grandson who admittedly downloaded the movies (3 of the 4 he downloaded he owns DVDs of anyway). If anyone is a criminal, it is the grandson, not the grandfather. Why are they going after the grandfather.

Just out of interest, if a 12 year old kills your spouse, is that 12-year old a criminal?

[brokensymmetry]

24. Sigh....

Murder is a crime. There is a law against it. I can find the law. I can post a link to the law.

Civil cases are not the same as criminal cases. Let us suppose that I get a mailing from a catalog company. In my eagerness to buy more crap, I open the catalog with excessive enthusiasm, and get a paper cut. I can now sue the catalog company for damages. Such a suit would be silly, and would be thrown out of court - but note that the suit can be filed, even though no criminal act occurred.

The reason they are not going after the grandson is that:

1) The jury would feel sympathy for the child.

2) The child is judgement proof.

3) The child may well be too young to be held responsible in a legal sense.

But we return to the central problem with calling any of these people a criminal, don't we?

If there isn't a statute, how can it be stated that a crime has been committed?

Call the child a tortfeasor if you will. Call his grandfather the same, if you so desire. But that is not the same as a criminal, now, is it?

[toopers]

26. Just answer the question

Here is your link detailing that downloading is a crime.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#p2p

I guess Bush isn't a liar since he hasn't been convicted in court!

[toopers]

28. Further info . . .

from Dictionary.com

One definition of criminal: "n : someone who has committed (or been legally convicted of) a crime"

Apparently, just committing a crime is good enough to get you the "criminal" moniker.

[brokensymmetry]

29. Lovely.

Please take a look at the actual law. I posted a link earlier.

[Rich Hunt]

31. also...

The grandfather is probably the one with the money.
Well, he won't when he gets through with this, on top
of whatever medical bills and red tape he might be dealing
with.

I mean, there are bootleggers all over the place. They just hide better, and apparently a bunch of sleazy attorneys don't have
a problem with that.

I've dealt with shady DVD sellers in the past - how come they
get away with their shit, while someone sues a grandfather
because his kid downloaded things he already owned? Oh yeah,
that's right - that sort of thing is the province of the REAL
authorities, and if I've learned anything, it's that sleazy
lawyers don't want to rub shoulders with the authorities.

Wonder why.

I'd like to see what the pattern is with this harassment
and these lawsuits, because there is always a pattern.
That's their subtle way of 'sending a message'.
But it's really a racket, and it's terrorism.

I guess it's time for me to hit the books on something
else.

[kestrel91316]

53. This is a civil, not a criminal, matter. No minor can be held civilly

liable for anything. It is the adult who has legal control over that child that is liable.

[TiredTexan]

50. by that definition, Jesus was a criminal,

as was Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc..........

[northzax]

14. are you saying that simply because something can be done

that it is ok to do it? I don't think that's your point. Frankly, it would not be hard to download kiddie porn, if you went looking for it, but it's still a crime to do so, even though it is avaliable already? obviously that's an extreme case, but it's relevant to demonstrate that just because something is avaliable, doesn't mean that it's acceptable to avail yourself of it.

stealing copyright is a crime, whether it should be or not, it is. Just because my library has books, and a photocopier, doesn't mean I can copy all the books I want, right?

this lawsuit is absurd on the face of it, it's a scare tactic by the company who is unwilling or unable to go after the people making the violation possible, but that doesn't mean the kid is not culpable on some level.

[brokensymmetry]

18. Oh, come now.

First of all, there are specific laws prohibiting the possession of child pornography.

I have questioned (and do, presently, question) whether there are criminal laws that prohibit possession or downloading of copyrighted materials. Note that possession is distinct from distribution.

The Federal copyright law, according to my understanding, is specific regarding distribution for compensation, and also distribution beyond certain specified limits for no compensation. That particular statute does not address possession.

Texas law (yes, I'm from Texas - may God forgive me) addresses a number of points regarding distribution, but - again - I am unaware of anything about mere possession.

So, as I asked before - if we're going to declare the child a criminal, please tell me where I can find the law that he supposedly violated.

[toopers]

21. I realize that you can't believe everything on the internet . .

so take it as you see fit. However, you asked for a link.

http://tigernet.obu.edu/copyright.asp

[toopers]

22. Apparently, the law now includes reproduction . . .

of copyrighted materials which is the right of the the owner of that material. Still looking for links to put you at ease.

[Solon]

30. I violated the DMCA...

In fact, I'm violating it on the computer I have right now. I have libDVDcss2 on this computer. Its a Open-source DVD decoder, so I can watch movies on Linux. There are no "approved" players for Linux, only Windows and MacOS, so I had to get circumvention program off the internet, in violation of the DMCA.

[Occulus]

38. You think that's bad?

Here's an illegal HAIKU.

Yes, an illegal HAIKU.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt

This haiku contains information which, if compiled and used, violates the DMCA. It is the very first absolutely illegal haiku ever, to my knowledge.

edited to add a snip:

Arrays' elements
start with zero and count up
from there, don't forget!

Integers are four
bytes long, or thirty-two bits,
which is the same thing.

To decode these discs,
you need a master key, as
hardware vendors get.

(This is a "player
key" and some folks other than
vendors know them now.

If they didn't, there
is also a way not to
need one, to start off.)

further edited to add: EVERY STANZA is a legitimate haiku, in the traditional 5/7/5 form. It is, to my knowledge, also the only set of haiku ever to actually DO something.

[Solon]

41. LOL, heres a DVD logo that's illegal...

Hint: hit select all on the webpage.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/Poosheebla-dvd.html

[Solon]

44. Humourous BBC Site about DeCSS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A642999

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. All poetry does something

Yours just happens to be most visibly functional.

[Solon]

55. You have the first illegal Haiku...

Here's the first illegal prime number, a rendition of DeCSS. :)

4856507896573978293098418946942861377074420873513579240196520736 6869851340104723744696879743992611751097377770102744752804905883 1384037549709987909653955227011712157025974666993240226834596619 6060348517424977358468518855674570257125474999648219418465571008 4119086259716947970799152004866709975923596061320725973797993618 8606316914473588300245336972781813914797955513399949394882899846 9178361001825978901031601961835034344895687053845208538045842415 6548248893338047475871128339598968522325446084089711197712769412 0795862440547161321005006459820176961771809478113622002723448272 2493232595472346880029277764979061481298404283457201463489685471 6908235473783566197218622496943162271666393905543024156473292485 5248991225739466548627140482117138124388217717602984125524464744 5055834628144883356319027253195904392838737640739168912579240550 1562088978716337599910788708490815909754801928576845198859630532 3823490558092032999603234471140776019847163531161713078576084862 2363702835701049612595681846785965333100770179916146744725492728 3348691600064758591746278121269007351830924153010630289329566584 3662000800476778967984382090797619859493646309380586336721469695 9750279687712057249966669805614533820741203159337703099491527469 1835659376210222006812679827344576093802030447912277498091795593 8387121000588766689258448700470772552497060444652127130404321182 610103591186476662963858495087448497373476861420880529443

I could have fun with this all night. :)

[northzax]

37. actually, DMCA specifically excludes

copying under fair use. The problem is that Fair Use is not an affirmative defense.

[pokercat999]

39. Not so sure.

I was handed a copy of the last "Starwars" film before it was even in the theaters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Shadows of ... NAPSTER

[leftofcool]

3. Let's see

He's 67, probably drawing social security.........which they can not garnish. I don't see grandpa having to come up with any money any time soon.

Left of Cool

[northzax]

5. scare tactics

instead of going after the downloader, why not go after the person who shared copywrited material with him? Which is worse, the buyer (downloader) or seller (uploader)?

The kid should write letters of apology to the copywrite owners for stealing from them, maybe do some chores for a community group and delete the files. This is punitive and unreasonable.

[cornermouse]

7. It really makes you think you don't want to go to the movies.

When I read what the Motion Picture Association was demanding, (and over something a 12 year old kid did?) I knew I didn't feel like seeing any movies any time soon. I think boycott is the answer.

[arcos]

9. Good! He should be given the death penalty!

Those evil bastards who download from peer to peer networks deserve the worst possible punishment!

:sarcasm:

[saigon68]

10. lol

[Mithras61]

11. Two thoughts...

1) If they already own three of the titles (as is claimed in the article), then downloading them as computer files is not a copyright violation, correct? They own licenses to the titles, and courts have held several times that license owners can time/place/format shift the licensed materials as long as any copies are for personal use.

2) Why would the MPAA sue for $600,000 damages for one license violation, unless they are simply trying to intimidate the target into a settlement?

[toopers]

13. How do you prove damages?

EOM

[northzax]

16. they don't want a settlement here

they don't care about this case. They want the press, the intimidation of other people that 'this could happen to you, too' it's the equivalent of putting people in stocks in the town square, you do it to warn other people of the consequences of their behaviour.

[Mithras61]

40. Another thought...

How can they get away with a suit for 4x the legal limit for a copyright violation?

[northzax]

43. you can file papers for anything

I could sue you for a billion dollars for looking at me funny, doesn't mean it's going to hang around very long.

If this goes to court, which I doubt, the numbers will be much lower. But courts almost never increase the amount, you always aim high.

[Mithras61]

46. Okay. Thanks.

I guess you can tell I don't have much exposure to the courts or to lawyers & lawsuits.

I support artists/authors copyrights, but I support fair use rights as well. I think the whole RIAA/MPAA reaction over he last several years is more than a little extreme, and tends to punish the very people they claim as their base. I just find it really difficult to believe that they are really suffering the level of damages and lost sales that they claim.

[guruoo]

32. I believe it's just a matter of time before...

the MPAA sues (extorts) the wrong person.

[guruoo]

48. Just like

"Before she could start counting her money, the bosses back home decided to settle the case out of court, so they sent me"
-Nicky Santoro, (Joe Pesi) Casino

[electricmonk]

54. The RIAA has

RIAA Victim Fights Back

[Javaman]

47. Here's a solution....

Rather than doing this "scapegoat make an example of" bullshit, just charge them the price of the movies as if they bought them from a video or retail store. If they don't, then threaten a lawsuit. Period, end of story, move on.

These outrageous lawsuits solve nothing, it just emboldens the people to fight against the system. The "screw the corps" mentality is alive and well in this nation and this lawsuits keep feeding into it. If I was the family, I would fight this tooth and nail as best as I could.

This to me reeks of corporate extortion under the guise of "protecting their copy-writes".

It's all bullshit.

[Chicago Democrat]

51. Any good lawyer will convince a jury and I hope he counter-sues

Hopefully he can afford the lawsuit or get help somehow

[Goldensilence]

52. you know..fuck the MPAA and RIAA

they've been ripping off artists for decades. If you want real crimianl acts. Look into the contracts they have artists sign. Look how much they give the artist for each cd sold. Look up how most artist work don't belong to themselves no matter if they wrote, remixed, did any studio work, etc etc the song still remains sole property of the studio.

So spare me the poor coporate studio and these poor artists who don't NEARLY get a fair cut of what they deserve. As for the MPAA...their business models have been just as horrible.

This is a case of supply side gone wrong for the MPAA the consumers understood the technology before they did or even tried to get onto the web via streaming or downloading.

BTW if they think these strong arm tactic will work they won't.There are a ton of peer to peer network that are evolving faster then they can knock them out. I would think some of the people here would be cheering for this.

www.EFF.org is working for our electronic rights.

[slay]

56. Exactly!

Stand up to these bastards! The movie industry needs to catch up with the times and offer an option to download. There are so many reason the MPAA will lose, and should lose that I won't even go into them - you covered the basics at any rate. :)

[I_am_Spartacus]

58. I can't wait for the day someone at Warner Bros copies someones

home movie from a website and that person sues Warner Bros under this law to recover $600,000.