MPAA Silently Drops Case Against BitTorrent Site
Written by Ben Jones on May 03, 2008In 2005, DVDr-core was the first BitTorrent site that was targeted by the MPAA outside the US. A classic story: Man runs site, man gets sued over site, nothing more is ever heard. Whilst in most cases, this means that the defendant bowed to pressure, paid an out of court settlement, and promised not to do it again, that is not the case here.
For those that don’t remember, lets recap. It was a little over three years ago that Hollywood took their first blast against a BitTorrent site in Europe with a lawsuit against DVDr-core. The notification (see end), served at the home address of the domain owner one Saturday morning in March 2005, led to more than a few anxious nights for fellow torrent site admins and users, wondering who would be next to get a knock at the door.
The site, which closed in December 04, after Hanff and the site’s administrators heard about raids in Holland, was not administered by Hanff, but by some online friends of his. Shortly after this dawn raid by a process server, Hanff -who had just started a new job- appeared on an episode of the BBC show “NewsNight”. The day after it aired, he was fired, for having views on copyright that the company felt were incompatible with its own, and for not disclosing the case.
That was the situation at the end of 2005 anyway. And now, more than two years have passed and he has heard nothing new. Despite the claims in the letters he has received, Hanff doesn’t think the case went any further, and was quietly dropped. “The last thing I had was a letter from the MPAA lawyers with a copy of a motion for a default [judgment]”, he told TorrentFreak. “That was November 2005 – had that motion been granted I should have heard from the courts.” The hearing in question would have been around the middle of December 2005. “I haven’t even received anything from the court about that hearing – which I should have done – so I am sceptical as to whether or not it actually went ahead”
Perhaps the MPAA felt they didn’t need to proceed any more, after all, thanks to the case, Mr Hanff lost his job, and they didn’t have to run the risk of an adverse judgment in court. As has been discussed in the past, the anti-filesharing litigation campaigns seems to be less about compensating the artists, and more about harassment, and manufacturing cases to boost lobbying efforts. It would appear that this is just more of the same – mudslinging in lieu of any actual case. The document received by Mr. Hanff is certainly full of accusations, threats, and exaggerations – something that recently cost a French Lawyer her ability to practice law.
It does bring into some doubt the ability or the desire for the MPAA to litigate outside the cozy confines of the US. It also seems to indicate the way the oink case will go, as it just had it’s bail date extended again, although it is a criminal case, whilst dvdr-core is a civil case. Nevertheless, the extension of the case with no action except the initial accusation does draw the similarities closer.
In the meantime, Mr Hanff has been spending his energies tacking Phorm, the illegal and widespread invasion of browsing privacy to target adverts via deep packet inspection in association with UK ISPs. His dissertation on the subject can be read here.
Previously: Warez Leader Is Chairman Of San Diego Republican Party
Next: Nine Inch Nails Give Away New Single on Facebook
44 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Typical of these people.
yay 2nd
what a gr8 story
like i really read it…
#2 You’re a douchebag. Why do you have to say “Second”? Is it that your penis is too small so you need to compensate by flapping your jaw? Why the hell are you commenting on something in which you didn’t read nor can you can’t even comprehend?
I for one am sick to death of these bully-boy tactics.
WHY WHY WHY WHY do so many fecking idots give a shit wether they are 1st 2nd third to comment and make a big thing about it, its just something thats do annoying and makes me cringe and feel embarresed for them.
Can somebody PLEASE explain why these n00bs do this?
Haven’t you heard?
Every time you post first or second your penis grows another inch, in order to become a ‘real man’.
Miracle!
5th your cluttering the board with your dumb question and for expecting a response which i wont give
but there was some guy in another story who posted first but he was actually 3rd(i think) what a douche
My posted got moderated for its explanation!
Its now been cleared.
We check the moderation queue every so often, so it can be an hour or two. Generaly, the system setup does a fairly good job at keeping spam off the comments, but when it’s not sure, it flags it for moderation. Better that than drowning in spam, I’d have thought, even if it does mean your comments can be delayed. nevertheless, when approved, it goes where it would have had it not been held up (hence the fool with his first post, actually being 3rd)
[quote comment="370632"]Typical of these people.[/quote]
Indeed.
Sad how these guys try to make it look like they have a case, when in reality, they have zip against these guys….
Quote from wikipedia
psychological warfare (PSYWAR) as:
“The planned use of propaganda and other psychological actions having the primary purpose of influencing the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of hostile foreign groups in such a way as to support the achievement of national objectives.”
They do this because it works. Now who would like to start the first rumour about them lol
Is this guy certain that the case was dropped and that the MPAA is unable to pursue the case any further?
It would have been wiser to lay low and just be thankful that they lost interest for whatever reason. Now that he is making waves again, the MPAA might pursue it just to prevent anyone from getting the idea that they are letting cases split through the cracks.
I don’t think it’s wise to let it “slip through the cracks”
The point is, they don’t have a case, and the MPAA should be publicly embarrassed for what they have done.
Maybe cause its a civil case, if the Admin is living in the UK then I suppose theres not much they can do. If he lost his job and declares himself bankrupt then I’d hazzard a guess that the Muppets from the US dont get anything. Niets nada natches.
Big hhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaa hhhhhhhhhaaaaa up yours jimmy and all that.
ha, near the end of page 2 has a typo, “you or our attorney should contact me…”. Don’t these losers proofread?
Those who make a game of getting a top spot think they are better than all those coming after somehow, because they are quicker or something. They are obviously little kids who feel the need to compete in everything, and so I wouldn’t worry about it. Nor would they care or have the ability to make a valid comment.
They also think we are peeved at getting a lower spot and that’s why we abuse them :)
Aahahahahah… uh what dickheads: “Case (un)closed”
In comment #21 (369617) to the Oink article yesterday someone already summarized this case here very nicely.
That’s why it is important that ISPs should not be allowed to pull the plug from file sharers. And privateers like Elizabeth Martin and their mercenaries like Logistep should not get away with extortion. Why? Because there is no case that could be successfully argued in court.
Personally, I think that Mr. Hanff should sue the people who sent him those letters. If they have now dropped the case (basically admitting that they did not have enough evidence to proceed), he should get SOME satisfaction out of them, considering that the case lead to him losing his job.
Personally, I thought that it was illegal in Europe (at least most countries) to dismiss someone without ‘good cause’, i.e. that they haven’t met your expectations on the job or have stolen something from you.
“That’s why it is important that ISPs should not be allowed to pull the plug from file sharers. And privateers like Elizabeth Martin and their mercenaries like Logistep should not get away with extortion. Why? Because there is no case that could be successfully argued in court.”
That is absolutely true. With the proliferation of wireless networks, IP-changing tools, etc…… even with an IP address you CANNOT deem that someone has been sharing something illegally! It just impossible to prove, unless you find something on the person’s computer like child pornography that cannot be downloaded legally ANYWHERE.
Alexander Hanff is a hero of mine. Not for breaking the law but for his reaction to the MPAA threats.
He did not hide but instead put his case to the public.
His case motivated me to try to do something different in p2p.
I developed a web based p2p where you connect to a few friends but can download from everyone.
It is called Dargens try it http://www.Dargens.com .
I think is is legal. If you read this Mr Hanff - tell me your opinion.
As it is friend to friend it is like the sneeker net, private not public.
It is natural to share and I think eventually the law will agree.
3 references to this post
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Add your response