Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Piracy The Courts Your Rights Online

The Hurt Locker Producers Sue First 5,000 File-Sharers 861

Posted by Soulskill
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Hurt Locker Producers Sue First 5,000 File-Sharers

Comments Filter:
  • Not this again... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:34PM (#32383294)
    We've been playing this game for over a decade now..

    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..?
    • by LostCluster (625375) * on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:38PM (#32383364)

      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.

      • by u17 (1730558) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:44PM (#32383456)

        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.

        • by Alanonfire (1415379) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:57PM (#32383650)

          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)

            by u17 (1730558) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:04PM (#32383734)

            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)

              by Kjella (173770) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:40PM (#32384152) Homepage

              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.

            • Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Knuckles (8964) <knuckles@COLAdantian.org minus caffeine> on Friday May 28, 2010 @08:02PM (#32384412)

              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:

              • Rental prices are higher than in the brick & mortar store at the corner.
              • Just a few thousand titles, less than the brick & mortar.
              • All movies are dubbed in German, no other languages available, not even the original one. DVDs have offered this for how long now?
              • No obvious way to watch on laptop in bed, and impossible with Linux anyway.
              • User interface is clunky, slow, and annoying. All of this you can do better with IMDB and Piratebay.
            • by dubbreak (623656) on Saturday May 29, 2010 @01:50AM (#32386724)

              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)

              by Kijori (897770)

              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)

            by Nqdiddles (805995)
            Or cashed up adult wants stuff.

            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)

        by msauve (701917)
        I think he meant an alternative which would let him get a copy of recent films without paying anything to the copyright holder, and without getting caught for his illegal actions.
    • Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:43PM (#32383444)

      It's called netflix, they even send you a disc you can easily copy if you so desire.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tikkun (992269)

      Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?

      Yes, IRC and USENET.

  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:35PM (#32383298)

    ...that hurts.

    • 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?

      • by Sabriel (134364) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:11PM (#32383818)

        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.

  • Maybe the people who are in the real thing should sue him for not allowing fair access to the truth. they should be happy that it might shed some light on what actually happens in iraq and afgan for the families. if more people would watch it than they would understand what vets have seen and experienced/
    • 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)

    by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld&gmail,com> on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:37PM (#32383346) Homepage
    Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pongo000 (97357)

      Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative?

      Maybe...gee, I don't know, pay for the movie?

    • Re:alright (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:44PM (#32383446)

      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'

    • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:49PM (#32383550)

      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.

  • by rmckeethen (130580) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:37PM (#32383350)
    I assume this means they're suing for an a full and immediate apology, right?
  • ...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)

      Word is that 127.0.0.1 was the first to be sued.
    • 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.

  • by adbge (1693228) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:39PM (#32383386)
    Why is this sort of legal tactic allowed? The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior? Why isn't this illegal? It's obviously an abuse of the legal system, as far as I can tell.

    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)

      by xQuarkDS9x (646166)

      Welcome to corporate America, where corporation's run the USA and screw the little guys any which way they can.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991)
      Why is this sort of legal tactic allowed? The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior? Why isn't this illegal? It's obviously an abuse of the legal system, as far as I can tell.

      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
      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:56PM (#32383638)

        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.

    • by MWoody (222806) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:57PM (#32383648)

      *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.)

      • by twidarkling (1537077) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:14PM (#32383858)

        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.

        • by WrongMonkey (1027334) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:55PM (#32384332)
          Actually, $1,500 is a reasonable settlement to me. That's about a month's worth of wages at a burger flipping job. It's comparable to the punishment for similar misdemeanour crimes. It's enough to be a financial disincentive, but not so much that it would ruin someone's life.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by twidarkling (1537077)

            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)

            by Sponge Bath (413667)

            ...not so much that it would ruin someone's life.

            $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)

            by crossmr (957846)

            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)

            by marcosdumay (620877)

            $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.

  • by thestudio_bob (894258) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:41PM (#32383410)
    I've been wondering about this since I first heard about what these guys are doing. Basically they are capturing your IP when you are in the swarm downloading "the.hurt.locker.2009[dvdsrc]" or whatever. But what would happen if people started renaming the files like "the.hurt.locker.[parody]" or "this.is.not.the.hurt.locker.movie" or whatever. Basically, you wouldn't know it was the actual "hurt locker" movie until after you downloaded the entire thing. Couldn't you then just say, "Yeah, I noticed it was the real movie right after it downloaded and I immediately deleted it." Not sure if that would hold up in court, but you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... right?
  • by Itninja (937614)
    I prefer my pirated War movies to be like Saving Private Ryan: all white, all the American soldiers are noble and good, all the Germans are monsters, and all the deaths are stunningly dramatic.
  • People violate copyright, copyright owner wants justice, sues...

    breaking news ?

  • by chord.wav (599850) on Friday May 28, 2010 @06:49PM (#32383538) Journal

    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]

  • The irony (Score:4, Funny)

    by johncadengo (940343) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:00PM (#32383686) Homepage

    One of the few times an anonymous coward wouldn't want to be first...

  • by ixtapa (903468) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:12PM (#32383834)
    I missed the movie, and thus don't really get all this fuss. It must be good if people are still talking about it. I guess it's off to TPB for me.
  • by kentrel (526003) on Friday May 28, 2010 @07:42PM (#32384182) Journal
    There seems to be a bit of post hoc rationalisation going on here regarding the quality of this movie

    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
    • by twistofsin (718250) on Friday May 28, 2010 @08:53PM (#32384998)
      Illegal or not, you have just explained why the studio is making a huge mistake with these lawsuits. This behavior is making their products unattractive.
    • you are wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Weezul (52464) on Saturday May 29, 2010 @12:14AM (#32386322)

      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.

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Friday May 28, 2010 @08:13PM (#32384520)
    It's time to start shooting these extortionist lawyers. I just don't see any other way to stop their abuse of the legal system.
  • by yossie (93792) on Friday May 28, 2010 @10:01PM (#32385490)

    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.

  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Saturday May 29, 2010 @02:35AM (#32386890)
    They want ISPs to track down 50,000 IP addresses? I tend to agree with the ISPs who claim that they do not have the resources to track down that many and even if they did the ISPs should be able to charge Voltage Pictures fees for this service. It is totally bullcrap that copyright holders can impose these sorts of costs on ISPs whenever they feel like going fishing for infringers. As I recall, the courts ruled against the RIAA and forced them to use the standard subpoenas; a process which proved too expensive, even for the RIAA, to pursue tens of thousands of individuals for what amounted to small claims settlements (i.e. without the abusing the DMCA takedown process, the financial calculus reversed and the RIAA had to give up on new cases). How many file sharers will actually be unmasked if Time Warner, AT&T or Verizon can charge a few thousand dollars plus several hundred dollars per hour of admin time in fees for each subpoena request? Is Voltage Pictures really prepared to spend 150 million dollars just to get 50,000 names (each one requiring an individual subpoena request)? This sounds like an empty threat by Voltage Pictures, but IANAL so perhaps someone who is can answer these questions. For the record, I have not even seen the movie in question and now I am pretty sure that I don't want to.
  • by thrill12 (711899) on Saturday May 29, 2010 @02:57AM (#32386968) Journal
    ...as long as 20+ years the battle on piracy (the home-grown stuff, not the pro-stuff) has been raging in the world. It really heated up with the digital age: CD, DVD, BluRay. The owners of the content fight for their current income, but fail to see the lost cause.In 50 years time (hopefully less), we can sincerely look back on these "piracy wars" and see them for what they really are: a battle for the fair use of someones work. Currently, the balance is - even though it *seems* the other way around - tilted far towards the distributors. The makers of the work get a very small percentage. Piracy is - as is often discussed - just the excuse of distributors to keep this balance tilted in that direction. It will change, but that will take time and money - mostly money from those who take the fall for the system as it now is (the 'bittorent users', 'downloaders' etc.).
    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 ? ;=)

"The Amiga is the only personal computer where you can run a multitasking operating system and get realtime performance, out of the box." -- Peter da Silva

Working...