“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 earlier demanded $4,000 from Fred Lawrence of Racine, Wisc. and is now suing him for as much as $600,000 in damages. Lawrence says the grandson, who was 12 at the time, downloaded the files out of curiosity and deleted them immediately; the family already owned three of the four films on DVD. (AP/Business Week, Nov. 2).
“Grandpa is sued over grandson’s downloads”
“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 earlier demanded $4,000 from Fred Lawrence of Racine, Wisc. and is now suing him for as […]
8 Comments
Of course he claims it wasn’t him and the files were deleted immediately.
Being 67 years old doesn’t matter, his computer was used to commit a crime.
So at the very least he’s an accessory by providing the means to commit that crime, and then not reporting the crime after it was comitted.
If he’s really innocent he should be able to recover the money from the kid’s parents (as the kid himself would not have been legally responsible for his acts at the time, his parents were).
I know they’re within their rights to sue, and I agree that folks shouldn’t steal movies. But like it or not, as technology improves, the current business model for movies will become less and less practical. I doubt the movie studios would voluntaril change their business model because that’s, well, hard, but something’s gotta give.
Ha! That’s a laugh. This web site is called Overlawyered.com, and commenter J.T. Wenting sounds just like a lawyer! In the words of the movie industry executives, “We keep suing the bums, and they still won’t buy our movies.” Sue somebody … sue anybody!
How many of you out there use a wireless laptop or have a wireless router in your home?
If it is not password protected to the point someone who doesn’t know the password can’t access the net, then you could be in this same situation. The MPAA and RIAA sue the owner of the IP at the time, not neccesarily who is doing the download.
Imagine: You are a upright citizen, believe strongly in copyright and don’t download music or movies from the net. You have a wireless router in your house but not password protected, and the 16 year old next door is using your wireless connection to download the latest movies and music from the web. Then one day you receive notice from your ISP that they have turned over your information to the RIAA or MPAA. You’ve never downloaded a thing right? You’re safe right? WRONG.
You will be contacted and told you have to pay $7000 or so but they will usually settle for $3500 to $4000. That is less than the legal fees you would pay, but still a form of extortion.
There is a presumption of guilt here and at that point the burden of proof shifts to you. You have no idea who or when your connection was used, but you know it wasn’t you. Do you pay? or Do you fight? (a loss here can bring statutory damages of $750 to $150,000 per song or movie offered to “share”) So the kid next door had 1000 songs in his shared folder. Fight and lose, you could be on the hook for a much as $150,000,000. The “settlement office” wields these these numbers about like a samurai sword, intimidating a number of people into settling. A few are starting to fight these cases.
Thus far in America, not one of these cases have gone to court. And from the numbers that have been released only about 1/3 have settled.
Oh and one more thing here. The money that is collected doesn’t go to the artist or songwriter it goes to support sending out more letters and filing lawsuits.
Bill: You mean the money goes to the …?
Correct. The lawyers.
This is a criminal offense comitted using the man’s property, quite different from someone sueing his neigbour for having a radio tuned to a station playing music he doesn’t like…
I’m all for protecting intellectual property to the fullest extent of the law. The attitude among the general population that piracy and theft are justified and even recommended (with ISPs even advertising their services as being ideally suited to the practice) a strong response is the only thing that may turn the tide of lawlessness.
Of course the result wherein the money goes to lawyers instead of those who lost because of that piracy (the content creators) is a bad result, but one that is preferable to letting crime go unpunnished.
Ah but he wasn’t charged with a crime, he is being sued. Big difference.
J.T.Wenting:
You apparently cleave to the notion that the law itself determines what is right and wrong, rather than the other way around.
The law is supposed to be an attempt at making legal what is right and making illegal what is wrong. In some areas, it has failed rather badly.
“Intellectual property” is one of them. The “tide of lawlessness” is the public reposne to such a law (or set of laws).
Also, in the specific case mentioned, the incredible “crime” that was committed was, in 3 of the 4 instances, NOT a crime at all (or even wrong by intellectual property laws), as the people in question had already paid for the right to see that material.
In fact, even in downloading it, there is not necessarily any wrong-doing, even by the most stringent standard, as the person has not yet actually made use of the content (intent matters – even the law recognizes this).