The Hurt Locker Producers Sue First 5,000 File-Sharers 861
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the tilting-at-windmills dept.
from the tilting-at-windmills dept.
Voltage Pictures, the production company behind 2008's Oscar-winning Iraq war film The Hurt Locker, today sued 5,000 people who illegally downloaded the movie over BitTorrent. Quoting CNET:
"Attorneys for Voltage wrote in the complaint that unless the court stops the people who pirate The Hurt Locker then Voltage will suffer 'great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.' Voltage has asked the court to prevent those who downloaded the movie without paying for it from downloading its movies ever again, and order them to destroy all copies of The Hurt Locker from their computers and any other electronic devices they may have transferred the film to. As for monetary damages, the movie's producers want those found to have pilfered the movie to pay actual or statutory damages and cover the costs that went into filing the suits."
According to the complaint (PDF), the 5,000 infringers are known only by their IP addresses at this time.
Not this again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?
The onion-based darknets seem to be empty because it hasn't been as necessary yet there hasn't been anything other then torrents it seems..?
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?
1. See it in the theater.
2. Buy the DVD/Blu-Ray
3. Rent the DVD/Blu-Ray
4. Watch on Pay Per View Cable/DBS
5. Watch on HBO/Showtime pay cable
6. Wait until it's rerun on basic cable.
Re:Not this again... (Score:4, Insightful)
He said good.
All of the above lack either quality or user control. Some have quirks like needing to break encryption and being careful about your hardware locking up due to changing region codes. None can replace BitTorrent, even when not taking price into consideration.
Re:Not this again... (Score:4, Insightful)
He said good.
All of the above lack either quality or user control. Some have quirks like needing to break encryption and being careful about your hardware locking up due to changing region codes. None can replace BitTorrent, even when not taking price into consideration.
Essentially, broke teenage kids want free stuff.
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially, broke teenage kids want free stuff.
That, too, but once these kids grow up, they are already accustomed to being able to get movies quickly, conveniently, and in a format that gives them full control over how they watch them and what they do with them. A large fraction of these kids will probably gladly pay a small price for each download in a similar service, but will stick to BitTorrent if you try to take their freedom, convenience and inexpensive cost away from them.
Re:Not this again... (Score:4, Interesting)
Essentially, broke teenage kids want free stuff.
That, too, but once these kids grow up, they are already accustomed to being able to get movies quickly, conveniently, and in a format that gives them full control over how they watch them and what they do with them. A large fraction of these kids will probably gladly pay a small price for each download in a similar service, but will stick to BitTorrent if you try to take their freedom, convenience and inexpensive cost away from them.
I'm not sure I qualify as a broke teenage kid anymore since I've rounded 30 and make $100k+/year, but otherwise... discs are so 20th century, I tend to buy the movies I like and the shelf behind me is filling up with BluRays - but I don't watch them. Every movie on that shelf, except maybe some really, really old ones I've seen before I bought and even if I want to watch them again it's a double-click away. Might as well have been a paypal link for all I care and I'm not about to change my ways until there's a bluray-quality drm-free online store. Nothing that they have done or can do will stop the fact that bandwidth goes up, storage goes up, software gets better and every year one year's worth of the old generation dies and is replaced by the young generation. For all their little victories they shout about they lose ground every year.
How does DRM make pirating harder? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you own the disc, DRM has an (negative) impact on you.
If you don't own the disc, DRM does not prevent you from using BitTorrent, since there is no DRM on thepiratebay.org..
Re:How does DRM make pirating harder? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of DRM makes it easy to get the movie onto TPB in the first place.
The point is flying over your head.
1. Disc with DRM -> will end up on TPB.
2. Disc without DRM -> will end up on TPB.
So what's the point in ruining discs with DRM in the first place when by this time (and for a long time now) it has been a proven failure as a technique to curb piracy. It's so bad of a solution that the only people who complain about DRM are people who do buy the discs. Anyone with a brain should be pirating everything nowadays.
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you being intentionally ignorant?
DRM hasn't ever made a difference in piracy, the only people that are ever impeded by it are the ones that actually legitimately purchased the product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because DRM only harms those who buy it. Those who steal it end up with a superior product. This pushes people like myself to steal because I'm getting a product superior to the one they offer for sale.
Once they sell a product that's superior to the pirated version, I'll buy it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. I decided to get a TV after all, and figured that the HDTV via IP package of the largest German ISP would be a good companion. This comes with a so-called online video rental shop which they currently advertise heavily, and I'd be fully willing to pay reasonable money for its supposed conveniences. Well, guess what, it sucks:
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
A large fraction of these kids will probably gladly pay a small price for each download in a similar service, but will stick to BitTorrent if you try to take their freedom, convenience and inexpensive cost away from them.
Or even a large fraction of the population. I really cannot comprehend why I can't readily pay to download a movie to my computer in a format I am guaranteed to be able to play. I'd gladly pay a few bucks (my limit is probably around $5 and that'd have to be 1080P and a fast DL), but I'd do it often. I'd give up cable if I could pay to download the shows I actually watch for the same price as I pay per month in cable and the show producers would make more money (my local cable provider would still make money as they provide my internet service).
I really don't get it. Make downloads cheap enough and fast enough that it's more convenient to pay for a DL and there goes the majority of your pirating problem. Hell, even continue the posting of fakes etc to make the free DLs less attractive.. just offer me a legal alternative that isn't DRM encumbered. There are potential customers waiting, someone just has to offer the service.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Essentially, broke teenage kids want free stuff.
That, too, but once these kids grow up, they are already accustomed to being able to get movies quickly, conveniently, and in a format that gives them full control over how they watch them and what they do with them. A large fraction of these kids will probably gladly pay a small price for each download in a similar service, but will stick to BitTorrent if you try to take their freedom, convenience and inexpensive cost away from them.
I think that more than any of that they're accustomed to being able to get things for free; while a few people might genuinely want control, a certain format or whatever the majority of them just want more stuff without paying for it and won't ever pay while the free option is around. I'll explain why (I've posted this before but I think it's relevant here):
Last year I was working for a small, independent record company. We sold relaxing music and music to meditate to - not exactly the prime target for pira
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel that I disagree with you. I, and most people I know, stopped downloading everything except the songs we might listen to once and forget the instant you could just buy MP3s in a web store. We stopped downloading all but the most questionable games the instant you could log into Steam and install on as many computers as you need to. Why do you feel movies would be different?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When my downloading a file from you leaves you unable to access that file any longer, I'll call it stealing.
Until then, shut the god damned fuck up already.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure I could wait many months for things to air in somewhere-other-than-the-US, I could buy a DVD/Blu-Ray (an even bigger delay), or hope to hell our cable would actually show something I want or even one day offer something like video on demand.
Or I could download it, enjoy it, decide it's a movie I want to buy when it does finally come out.
And don't give me that broke teenage crap. I have a single high income with no kids, and I have no problem throwing money out for my
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
the people who make record years at the box offices happen... year after year after year.
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It would be much easier to download them rather than visiting my house though - I already give them away for free on the Internet at my own expense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Piracy may be common place, but not everybody does it. Luckily, a significant amount of people still have some morals left. Your goal is to make piracy acceptable, both morally and legally. If you succeed, do you really think said people will still exist? If there's no moral or legal reason not to pirate? No, if you make it acceptable, there WON'T BE those "record years". And hence no money for movies to be made.
That's true, I don't want to make piracy fully acceptable for exactly that reason. But I'm fine with the status quo and I don't think it will change drastically provided that media companies keep up with the times. Online music is doing well, for example.
On the other hand, maybe you don't really want piracy to be legal and/or moral, you just want those who do pirate to be left alone. On the one hand, you want one group of people to pay for content so it can still be made. On the other hand, you want to be part of this privileged group that gets to do what they want, enjoying the works that others have paid for.
I'm one of the people who pays. I'm the guy who says, "If you want it, you'll have to buy it" when asked for a copy of a game I'm showing off. Just last week I got a friend to buy Master of Orion 2 from GOG when I could've put the DRM-free installer on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was young we used to make analog copies of records or catch our favorite song on the radio and record it. So it wouldn't be appropriate for me to complain about kids downloading digital copies today.
But we never deluded ourselves into thinking that we were owed a copy or even more deluded to believe that what we were doing was in any way noble.
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Informative)
"Doing the right thing" and not stealing isn't moral relativism.
And pirating movies isn't stealing. Stealing means I deprive someone else of their property. Copying said property is a different matter entirely.
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking something without paying is stealing.
Then hollywood and all the other publishers are the biggest thieves in the world.
Why? Because of retroactive copyright extensions.
Because of those extensions the publishers have stolen millions of works from the public domain.
Works that were created and released under very specific copyright terms that guaranteed their release into the public domain.
If they didn't agree to those terms, they should never have published in the first place.
But instead, they hired lobbyists to steal all of those works from every single citizen.
That is theft on a scale hundreds of thousands of times greater than 'internet piracy' could ever achieve, even if every single citizen pirated everything they ever watched.
So if you want to talk about stealing you should be focusing on the biggest thieves in the world bar none not these piddly little downloaders.
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called netflix, they even send you a disc you can easily copy if you so desire.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
it's called the library.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps not unencrypted, but trivially broken formats.
Re:Not this again... (Score:4, Interesting)
I skip the copying part, put a movie in my queue then download it from pirate by. I'm just cutting out the middle (mail) man and I have the right to watch the movie.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?
Yes, IRC and USENET.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shhhh! First rule of usenet!
Sued by your IP... (Score:3, Funny)
...that hurts.
Re: (Score:2)
IPConfig /release
You buy a wireless router. You hook it up. Leave it insecure.
You take the movie off your computer, put it in an external hard drive and hide that somewhere not at home.
Tell the feds it wasn't you, could have been anyone nearby. That's only illegal in Germany, right?
Re:Sued by your IP... (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if you were telling the truth, you'd still be put in the real hurt locker by the legal costs. Innocence in a court of law isn't free.
Hell, I run a computer repair business. What's one of the first things these asshats would do? Confiscate every computer here, mine and my customers, to sit on a shelf somewhere until they get around to "examining" them. And in this rural area, my name would make the front page, "local business raided in connection with piracy!"
Hello bankruptcy.
Re:Sued by your IP... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Eh, civil cases don't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. The bar is a little lower, and besides, you'd still bankrupt yourself on lawyer fees fighting the good fight.
maybe the people who (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the people who are in the real thing should sue him
Um, asking kindly is one thing, suing is another. I don't know what grounds you would sue on but let me tell you there would be no faster way to get people to stop making films about war than to make it known that vets will sue your profit away. The story is based on a writer's experience as an embedded journalist in a IED unit in Iraq. It's fictitious. It's art. It's not a real story.
In short, soldiers suing movie makers so that we can copy their licensed material illegally is a really bad idea.
alright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative?
Maybe...gee, I don't know, pay for the movie?
Re:alright (Score:5, Insightful)
I think everyone is ok with them stopping distribution of their films, just not with them suing folks for millions for downloading 1 film.
Re:alright (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my alternative: Offer me a service that will allow me to download the movie, at a good rate of speed, at a resolution of my choice, and include all the extras that would be on the DVD release, and make it available the same day the DVD releases, and in my country. No staggered release bullshit, no "in the US first, then elsewhere."
Make it tiered pricing based on resolution, and then maybe things like basic and special editions that include or exclude the special features. Sort of like how it's done in brick and mortar stores, with DVD vs. Blu-Ray and special editions. Also make the pricing realistic. It should not be the same price as going out and buying a physical disk at a store, due to not needing the distribution channels. I figure about a 25% discount over stores should cover it, and induce people to try it out, and encourage impulse buys.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are forcing people to purchase it on *their terms* however. Yes, I know, it's their product, they're free to do whatever they want with it, but ffs, the point of a business is to make money. That's exactly what the *AAs do. Make money. That's what everyone on /. bitches at them most about. "They're not necessary, they're money-grubbing bastards." So what in the FUCK is keeping them from seeing this clearly profitable sector and taking advantage of it like a drunk prom queen? It's because they're scared
Re:alright (Score:4, Insightful)
No. One more time. Please pay attention this time.
The alternative is to make your movies available for convenient download for a reasonable price.
If people can get your movie conveniently and cheaply the vast majority won't bother to 'pirate'
Re: (Score:2)
but what's their alternative? The most common solution offered on slashdot for the people who make these movies is basically to just allow piracy.
And why isn't that a viable alternative? Stats show that X-men Origins: Wolverine did better than expected after it leaked online.
Re:alright (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I don't know what the alternative is.
I just don't like the idea of the justice system being subverted in such a way that a corporation can sue someone anonymously, and I don't like the idea of a family being destroyed financially because their kid downloaded a movie, when otherwise shoplifting the movie would be a petty theft charge.
I would rather see them out of business if this is the only way they can make money. I'm a model mpaa customer. I have over 200 bluray movies purchased, but they would still label me a criminal because I have taken (at considerable effort) the evil step of digitizing all my movies (ripped and encoded to my fileserver in mkv). I have a live copy, and a backup, and the physical copy sits in a closet. They have never been shared. If I lived in America, they would undoubtedly sue me if they discovered what I have done.
Allowing me to rip movies harms their business plan of reselling the same movie every format change.
Fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
And the studios all have TV deals for the content they want to broadcast free. Disney = ABC... Time Warner = 1/2 of CW and a lot of cable outlets... Viacom = CBS and the other half of CW (even though they split, they still share a lot of common ownership)... Universal Studios = NBC, News Corp. = Fox.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cannot fully be compensated or measured in money? (Score:5, Funny)
Asking the courts to prevent them from downloading (Score:5, Insightful)
They're asking the courts to prevent them from downloading their stuff again... How would you implement that? Ban the people from the Internets entirely? (Including at the local coffee shop?) Short of stuffing them in jail, I don't see how you could actually do that. So what do you think they have in mind here?
And no doubt... (Score:2)
...that in the case of shared/allocated ISP addresses used by many possible subscribers, they'll just pick which ever poor sod happens to be using at the time. Rather than understanding or realising the severe flaws of ID via IP address
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... the classic Shaggy defense where A says it wasn't me, B says it wasn't me, C says it's wasn't me. Despite evidence that says it must be that A, B, or C did it, they all get off unless there's more specific evidence that says which one it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no - but I mean, as per usual, this means they'll end up making an example out of someone that is probably completely innocent rather than catching the real culprit. So it's a sham case really
Wasn't there that case with the woman tracked by IP (and sued) that had never even owned a computer? Or something stupid like that
I've never understood... (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, I feel that this is extortion. Their tactic is: pay me x dollars or else you'll have to pay to fight an expensive civil suit. That's not ok.
Of course, it's easier to blame pirates for the failure to properly monetize your film. Couldn't be Hollywood's fault, could it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to corporate America, where corporation's run the USA and screw the little guys any which way they can.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How? If they have a legitimate claim against each of these defendants, why should it matter that they filed an unusually large number of claims?
Basically, I feel that this is extortion. Their tactic is: pay me x dollar
Re:I've never understood... (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is they can sue you and make sure it costs $10,000+ to even go to court then offer to settle for $1,000. This means even an innocent man will be forced to pay if he cannot spare $10,000.
I suggest they sue for reasonable amounts and do it more often.
Re:I've never understood... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, a class action suit is meant to be tried jointly, with a decision against being binding on all. Every single one of these cases needs to be tried separately, because the circumstances are not all the same. A judgement against one would not be against all. This is blatantly *not* a class action lawsuit. They're only trying to treat it as one to make it economically viable.
Re:I've never understood... (Score:4, Insightful)
*sigh* So when they went after file sharing sites, people whined that they were just facilitators, not themselves guilty of anything. Fair enough. "Punish the actual infringers!" slashdot cried.
Then they went after the programs and tools themselves, and people whined that they were just tools, and had perfectly legitimate uses. Very reasonable. "Punish the actual infringers!" slashdot cried.
Now they're flat-out targeting people who actively infringe copyrights. These people are BREAKING THE LAW, and more importantly, doing something immoral: they are taking someone else's work and not merely using it without due compensation, but helping others to do the same.
I'm sorry, I'm out of excuses; I'm out of pity. We won the important war. BitTorrent thrives as a legitimate tool, and merely linking to something bad is usually not itself cause for litigation. My moral outrage stops at those caught red-handed, hands thoroughly lodged in the cookie jar (and no, "someone else could have being using their personal IP or broke into their house and used their computer" is a flimsy argument at best.)
Re:I've never understood... (Score:5, Informative)
Punish the infringers, yes, but the punishment should fit the actual crime. In the Far Cry case, they're asking for $1,500 from each infringer to settle out of court. That's with no hearings, nothing. Just "pay us $1,500 and we'll drop it." That's extortion, since it'd cost well over that to fight it.
So, we have a case where they're charging people with infringement, without having compelling evidence (simply obtaining an IP doesn't even come close), and setting the bar far in excess of actual damages, but well below what would be incurred defending oneself.
And yes, I said the Far Cry case, but it's being handled the exact same way as this one, since it's by the same law firm.
Re:I've never understood... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Man, where do you burger flip? At my last minimum wage job, we got about $500 bi-weekly, after taxes, and a judgement like this would absolutely have ruined any one of my co-workers, since they had no opportunity to save with wages like that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
$1500 would sink a lot of families that are getting by but don't have significant savings. That $1500 would force them to miss a lot of bills which would cascade in fees and reduced credit rating which causes further expense for items like insurance with rates based on credit ratings. Once you get that far behind then you and your family are screwed.
Before anyone pipes in with "they should not have done the crime then!", remember that this is the extortion p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You sound like you're astrotrufing for the plaintiff.
for someone flipping burgers, that would be an incredible burden.
Most North Americans do not save a lot of money. They live pay check to pay check, especially those at the lower end flipping burgers. I don't know many places that pay around $11-12/hour to flip burgers. Which is what you'd need to be paid to clear $1500/month (after you take out taxes and such)
Unless the company can prove actual damage from their copy that they downloaded, this isn't remot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$1500 is a reasonable punishiment. Asking people to pay them the $1500 or spend $10,000 on court to discover if they are guilty is more like extorsion. Well, I guess it is not extorsion by the letter of the law, because for the Law, everybody have access to the Justice. The problem is that it isn't true.
So, we have to fix the Justice. Still, it is easy to blame the ones exploiting the flaw, instead to the ones possessing the flaw.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>> These people are BREAKING THE LAW, ... Prove me wrong.
> The rationalizations given will be
You missed one:
I don't agree with bad laws.
Maybe the film industry needs to learn that you DON'T need copyright at ALL to make large amounts of money:
Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion's free culture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 [youtube.com]
--
Dark Matter/Energy by another other name is still the Aether
Re:I've never understood... (Score:4, Insightful)
it's like stealing the movie, making a hundred copies, and then getting all your friends together to stand on every street corner and hand out free copies.
Most people upload about 1.0x, that means they downloaded 1,0x and then uploaded the same back and the one extra copy created by these events is the one they kept themselves. That each person in the swarm made 100 copies is obvious nonsense, the numbers don't add up. If there's 10000 people in a swarm, there's roughly 10000 copies and 1 copy/person. The rest is just legal baloney to make a person guilty not just of his copyright infringement, but of his peers' copyright infringement and his peers' peers' copyright infringement and so on without end.
I've been wondering about this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if that would hold up in court, but you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... right?
That doesn't really apply in a civil case.
Re: (Score:2)
No thanks... (Score:2, Funny)
Nothing to see, move along (Score:2)
People violate copyright, copyright owner wants justice, sues...
breaking news ?
I haven't seen it yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
What do you say? Is it worth downloading the BluRay version?
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4748387/The.Hurt.Locker.2008.720p.BluRay.x264-CiRCLE [thepiratebay.org]
Or just go with the DVD version?
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5421482/The_Hurt_Locker_(2008)_DVDRip_XviD-MAX [thepiratebay.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony (Score:4, Funny)
One of the few times an anonymous coward wouldn't want to be first...
With apologies to Ms. Streisand... (Score:3, Funny)
"Well it wasn't that good anyway" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now this is just my observation and as such anecdotal evidence, but, I noticed that ever since Hurt Locker was released it was praised by everybody I spoke to. I hang out a lot on both movie forums and filesharing forums, and that opinion was nearly universally shared well after it won a bunch of Oscars and the hype naturally faded. There's an argument to be made that the sucess of the movie, and word of mouth was greatly helped by filesharing, but I'm not making that argument here. Its almost certain that a huge amount of people who liked the movie and spread the word, pirated it. However, almost every opinion I read was that it was an excellent film, until news came out that people were getting sued.
So I look at the file sharing forums, and torrent news blogs, etc and as expected, near universal derision for the producers, but, strangely, suddenly an awful lot of people seem to think "Well it wasn't that good anyway".
What's interesting to me is not just that there are suddenly a lot more negative comments about it than I've seen before, but they're automatically linked to this news story, like its justification. Obviously, the quality of the movie has nothing to do with the rights holders to sue for copyright infringement, so its strange that
Does it feel like a rationalisation to anyone else or just me? Could it be a form of cognitive dissonance, specifically Postdecision dissonance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Postdecision_dissonance [wikipedia.org]
1. "This is a good movie." 2. "Uh oh, this filmmaker has done something abhorrent to my beliefs." 3. This guy is an asshole. 4. Well maybe it wasn't that good a movie
The movie is done, and hasn't changed since released, but if I was to look at the various forums around the internet right now, the universal feeling seems to be it wasn't that great a movie after. The idea that the quality of
Re:"Well it wasn't that good anyway" (Score:4, Interesting)
you are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure most people saying the movie sucked are simply action movie buffs who felt the movie was slow and boring, and just forgot about it. You've also got people who've avoided criticizing the film for social reasons, like patriotism or the awards, but who'll now honestly say they disliked the film. In fact, I'm suspicious the films support largely comes from cognitive dissonance around patriotism and the awards in the first place.
I watched the beginning of the film, but I got bored fairly early and quit. And yes I've never told anyone that before, well I felt the movie was lame before. I mostly just never cared enough, but yeah I was reluctant to contradict the academy when I'd not even seen the film. I've only rarely admitted that I've never finished Foucault's Pendulum either.
That said, these producers are trying to ruin people's lives for watching their movie. So yes erasing the film from our cultural consciousness sounds like an appropriate response. In fact, one easy move would be helping thin down the wikipedia article.
Re:"Well it wasn't that good anyway" (Score:4, Funny)
I agreed with your post right up to the point where you replied to your own posting. Now I think your entire post if full of crap and not very good to begin with.
Time to lock and load (Score:4, Insightful)
Boycott Voltage Pictures (Score:3, Insightful)
I am of the opinion that the way to fight this insane "sue your customers" attitude is to simply avoid their movies. A list of these is available at https://thefilmcatalogue.com/catalog/CompanyDetail.php?id=279 - I perused the list and, honestly, saw no movies I've wanted to see on it, or seen. Won't be too hard for me.
What about Subpeona Fees? (Score:3, Insightful)
My view on piracy as a whole... (Score:4, Insightful)
Until law makers see this problem, and fairly solve it, it will continue. Probably the most fair way is:
* ban all DRM
* provide a good, flat-rate, service globally to download media to own and use ; the distribution channel doesn't even have to come from the distributors (this is their fear...) : let anyone download from ie. bittorrent and pay that flat-rate fee. See it as a TV license fee : you watch it, you pay it.
* as far as distribution channels are concerned: allow them to only ask a transparent price for distribution, split the costs for "the work" and "the medium" (distribution) clearly, and make it into law
* make sure the profits of "the work" end up with the makers of the content.
* make sure the profits of "the medium" end up with the distributors of the content - as per the division above.
* stop all lawsuits
* if you get caught "illegally downloading", you pay a fine. The fine you pay is equal to the fee you would have paid normally, for the period you (likely) owned said content, and is increased with a percentage to discourage you from doing it again (20%-50% sounds fine).
* no internet disconnections
Now that's solved, what's next ? Energy crisis ?
Re:The first movie (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I spend more money on movies (cinema and DVD/BD purchases) than I ever did before. I see a simple explanation: Hurt Locker made no money and investors need to blame someone. Hell, let's blame piracy. Surely the only possible reason since they received rave reviews. Marketing has absolutely nothing to do with it. I for one haven't seen any of the Oscar winning movies. Yet my initial statement stands true. Maybe people aren't into war movies where aliens are absent.
Re:The first movie (Score:4, Insightful)
Watching The Hurt Locker caused great and irreparable waste of time that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.
Re:The first movie (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Had I paid to see it, I would have asked for my money back.
So if you like a movie, does that mean you pay afterwards? You are a thief. You take the product of someone's labors against their will and offer nothing in return. That has nothing to do with whether what you steal meets your personal standards.
Yes. And every time you fastforward through a TV commercial or get up to go the bathroom during them, you too are a thief.
Or do you watch all the commercials to satisfy your morality? Do you listen to all the commercials on the radio in between songs? Do you read all the banner ads on every webpage you load?
Welcome to 2010. You can't lock media down as easily anymore and you can't charge exorbitant prices for shit and expect everyone to happily pay it. And using your political influence to sway the FBI and the judicial system in your favor is not going to change the popular opinion.
If the movie industry doesn't like it, they can always stop making movies...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was not really impressed with the film. Sure it was a quality film with a solid message. I didn't feel it was worth an academy award. I'm sure I am not alone.
I guess some people can make the right decisions about making a good movie, but make all the wrong decisions about how to appeal to the audience for the next movie.
Irreparable harm is being done to their next movie. It'll be known as the movie made by those guys that sue their customers.
Re:The first movie (Score:5, Interesting)
Who says? How many of the sued saw it in the theater and just wanted a copy on their HD? How many were, will be, or would have been paying customers of other movies of the same creators or studio?
I, for one, spend a lot of money on CDs. And yes, sometimes I'll also illegally (depending on jurisdiction) download stuff, because there is an upper limit to what I can afford to spend, and there is much more fantastic music around. Nobody gets hurt by this, because I would not have spent any more money anyway, The only effect of not downloading would be that I wouldn't have listened to this music. And I've often bought CDs after a download if I liked the stuff. So yes, it would be wise to consider me a customer or potential customer even if I haven't paid for a particular mp3. Suing me would be a damn stupid business move.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That sounds very much like long-term business thinking. That has no place in modern American business.
By the way, here's your papers... you've been served.
Sincerely,
The ##AA
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... Actually... I'll disagree. If they're suing for "actual" costs, and the costs of filing the lawsuit, then I think they're going totally against what the *IAAs have been doing. In fact, I think it's a totally reasonable and justifiable damage to seek among the downloaders. They're not looking to charge these folks $80K for the download, they're looking to get the illegal copies deleted, or have them pay for the movie and pay the court costs. That's exactly what I think it should be.
Now - If they decide that the "actual" cost is upwards of $80K + court costs, then I'm certainly going to go along with the wet dream theory.
Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For anybody found guilty of *downloading*, the maximum damages awarded should be the retail cost of one *copy* of the copyrighted material.
Why? If you shoplift something, the punishment is more than the cost of what you shoplifted, the penalty for doing illegal things is often greater than the cost of what was lost. That's how law works, and for good reasons. If you want downloading to be legal, that is one thing, but as long as it's illegal, then it's not surprising to see the penalty so high.
Yes. It's not just DLing that's the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Technically speaking, downloading a copy of a movie you already own may be illegal, but it's extremely unlikely that anyone will sue you for it. If they could even track you down in the first place.
But the issue here is that BitTorrent isn't a download tool: it's a peer-to-peer protocol. By default, while you're downloading any given file, you're also uploading it to others. And even if you have a legal copy of the work in question, you don't have the legal right to make it available to those who don't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BitTorrent is peer-to-peer. Unless you've run through some unusual hoops, by downloading something over BitTorrent, you're uploading it at the same time.
If the suit was being filed against Usenet or IRC downloaders, then this would be a valid argument. As it is, the plaintiff is right about this.
No, technically it's copyright infringement (Score:3, Informative)
If it were theft, every pirated copy of the movie would have to come at the expense of a copy that could otherwise have been legitimately purchased. If I break into a store and steal a DVD, that's theft. If I break into a store and meticulously copy the DVD, it's not. File sharing is closer to the latter case than the former (although without the whole trespassing/breaking and entering aspect).
That's not to excuse piracy, mind you: copyright infringement is still illegal and (depending on your ethics) possi