How a Virginia Law Firm Outpaces the MPAA at Suing Over Movie Downloads 237
Jamie points out this Ars Technica piece on a series of suits brought by the Virginia law firm of Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver against users they accuse of illegally downloading movies. The firm has an interesting business model in these suits; sue enough users in a DC Federal court to be worth splitting the sum of many small settlement offers (generally $1,500-2,500 apiece) with the filmmakers, rather than rely on winning after trial a small number of larger judgments. Most people settle, and Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver has so far named more than 14,000 "Does" — as in John Doe — including, as mentioned a few days ago, 5,000 who downloaded The Hurt Locker.
So In Essence (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point, I think I'm just holding out hope that a competing law firm will think things through and decide they can make money by suing these vulture law firms for harassment and whatever else they can drum up. After all, if those firms can make money just suing at random, surely another law firm can also make money counter-suing, right? Well, where is our white knight law firm who's eager to make a name for themselves? If the feds won't put a stop to it, maybe a last-to-sue war between legal firms can put a stop to it.
Re:Bizarre Editor Abuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't bother submitting anything on /. b/c I *know* it's a waste of time.
Some users are favoured over all others.
This is the same for all blogs.
Re:Seriously... (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, when is something going to be done about these guys? Their business model is built on "it costs more in legal fees for people to fight these accusations than to settle with us out of court so they'll just pay up" which, really, amounts to extortion. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they are being allowed to get away with this shit.
They don't, in other countries.
Switch country. The grass IS greener - really.
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the main kink is that the defendants know they can't take them to court, win, and then sue them to recover court costs because the defendants (whether you agree with copyright law or not)know they committed an illegal act.
So it's really more a problem of whether the law should be the way it is then lawyers extorting people. If it's OK to get big companies to settle by threatening to take them to court when they've done something wrong it makes sense that it should work the other way around. The only reason people see this as extortion right now is that they don't agree with the law itself.
Re:Bizarre Editor Abuse? (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree, I've posted several articles to slashdot before as well, and they either get ignored to resurface 2 weeks later by someone else, or never surface at all. The editors can lick my nuts.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they are being allowed to get away with this shit.
Because our justice system is wholly subservient to business interests. It's not that hard to understand.
In a sane, logical world, somebody (the feds, the bar, whomever) would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Sadly, I don't think we live in a sane world any more...
Is this really what tipped you off? Were the hundreds of thousands of pot smokers in jail not enough?
Re:Bizarre Editor Abuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been wondering when this would happen (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA and MPAA were limiting themselves so that they wouldn't have the publicity generated by suing over a thousand defendants at once. They must have known that that looked just a bit like extortion.
Anyway, I'm glad they did this, now the country can decide whether they want to spend their time on federal lawsuits of importance, like civil rights, or on this bullshit.
Unfortunately I'm also convinced that the answer is the latter.
Re:Seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)
Because our justice system is wholly subservient to business interests. It's not that hard to understand.
No, our justice system is wholly subservient to lawyers. It's just as common for individuals to exploit the system in the manner described by the GP as it is for businesses. The fact that it costs less to settle than to fight a lawsuit is leveraged by all manner of legal practices that have nothing to do with "business interests". In fact, some of them are directly opposed to "business interests", like the ambulance chaser that my insurance company settled with even though the accident was not my fault.
Re:So In Essence (Score:3, Insightful)
Some directors have thanked pirates.
I would have never heard of the Man from Earth [torrentfreak.com] if it didn't show up in an RSS feed.
Ink [justpressplay.net] is another more recent movie.
Games too [joystiq.com]
This makes no sense... (Score:2, Insightful)
I know you are just being overly sarcastic and trying to get karma or something, but it just doesn't apply here. Why are you getting modded up for an unfunny, non-insightful comment that is flat out wrong? The Hurt Locker won the academy award this past year. I personally feel it rightfully deserved it, it was a fantastic movie! Light years better than Avatar, which had huge sales, and probably huge downloads as well.
Perhaps more people downloaded The Hurt Locker because they heard about it from the academy awards but it wasn't in most mainstream movie theaters? Perhaps the RIAA distribution model favors huge Avatar style blockbusters that appeal to the masses rather than well crafted intelligent works of art? Perhaps Hurt Locker didn't have the huge media blitz and the money to promote it that Avatar did?
So don't settle. Got it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you equate commercial success with critical success? The Hurt Locker won the Academy Award for Best Picture and Best Director. It was a good movie even if the masses did not really go out to watch it.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to climb off your horse and realize that not every ill in this country can be blamed on business.
I got sued by someone who rear-ended me at a stop light. There is no conceivable way that accident can be attributed to my negligence. My insurance company settled with the asshole for $12,000 and then raised my rates. Their reason? It's cheaper to settle than to fight the lawsuit. The person who sued me was an individual who perverted the justice system. It had nothing to do with business.
Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it is completely unrelated. Marijuana prohibition began at the behest of the paper industry, and continues today because of the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and prison industries. If we're talking about the perversion of the justice system by business interests, it's worth pointing out that copyright abuses are the tip of the iceberg. As Americans we have to understand that we have an extremely serious problem with corruption that goes back for decades, if not centuries.
Re:Yeah.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're gonna have to clue me in on the joke... I mean, if the cost of settling for those 5,000 Does is $2,000 each, then that's $10M to split between the producers and lawyers. Hurt Locker has racked up about $48M in worldwide box office so far (against a production cost of $15M). How is $10M "almost as much money" as $48M? (Not to mention the $28M from DVD and BD sales.)
You're right, it isn't.
And, let's see....9 Oscar nominations with 6 wins, including Best Picture and Best Director; about 100 awards from groups that like to hand out prizes; 97% on Rotten Tomatoes; the praise of two Iraq veterans with whom I watched it...yeah, it's a crappy film. Are you forgetting that it's lowest-box-office-ever-for-Best-Picture status in large part stems from its extreme shortage of prints?
I never once said it was crappy. I personally liked it...not enough for a best picture, but I liked it. Apparently, a LOT of other people didn't. Hence my post.
And just because it's slashdot....what's up with putting "stealing" in quotes? Are you saying that if I'm offering my car for sale and someone drives it away without paying, that my car hasn't been stolen?
You would no longer have access to your car, hence it would have been stolen. If someone took a copy of the DVD from a Virgin Megastore, that would be stealing, as it would prevent another person from having that same DVD.
Downloading a movie isn't stealing, as it isn't restricting your ability to obtain those exact same zeros and ones. It's illegal and immoral, but it isn't stealing.
Re:This makes no sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt the makers of the film have anything to do with it. It's far more likely to be the publishers/distributors.
Re:Bizarre Editor Abuse? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Attorney Emails (Score:5, Insightful)
* Dunlap, Thomas M - tdunlap@dglegal.com vcard * Dureska, Geoffrey M. - gdureska@dglegal.com ... snip ... ]
[
Someone want to get home addresses, phone #s, list of first-born children?
Individuals at the company may be scum, they may not be - however attacking an individual's personal life for what he does in public I find offensive. The lawyers, are, at the moment within their legal grounds to perform this service for the MPAA and their ilk, as much as it leaves a bad flavor in my mouth.
If you want to change the world, stop attacking people and start attacking the issue. Fuss at your congressman to change silly lawsuits that are extortion schemes.
Re:Attorney Emails (Score:2, Insightful)
Your congressman doesn't listen because people who benefit from the status quo pay him good money not to. Just because this filth can buy laws doesn't mean they are acceptable and that you should take the punishment lying down.
The people at this law firm ruin lives for monetary gain. They chose to do it on their own free will. They aren't doing this because they have to. They do it because they WANT to. For that they are as guilty as the corrupt politician who took the bribe. Even more so, because they are the ones pulling the trigger.
They may know how to legally abuse the law and destroy lives of people who cannot defend themselves, but that doesn't make it acceptable. Not by a long shot.
These lawyers - as individuals, personally - are scum.
Re:Attorney Emails (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not find it offensive in the least. You don't get to do whatever you want and hide behind the "It's just business, nothing personal" excuse. You are responsible personally for any business you conduct whether it be private, public, business, or personal. You are complicit in everything you do. I don't want to hear about how the lawyers are just doing it to put food on their family's table. You really think the guy who owns the law firm is just barely scraping by? These guys are just greedy fuckwads, plain and simple. And they are supporting an entire industry of greed and abuse. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. There are plenty of things that are technically legal that are not ethical. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you should do it. I say fuck them and their personal lives.
Re:Yeah.... (Score:3, Insightful)
what's up with putting "stealing" in quotes? Are you saying that if I'm offering my car for sale and someone drives it away without paying, that my car hasn't been stolen?
You answered your own question. If someone makes a copy of your car and drives off with the copy, you still have your car and it hasn't been stolen. Calling copyright infringement "theft" is a lie.
Re:worth a read (Score:3, Insightful)
alain94040 (785132) is under no obligation to adhere to your definition of what constitutes a "signature." His formatting mimics that of the standard Slashdot signature. No reasonable person could mistake it for the content of his message.
Therefore, your Off Topic moderation was inappropriate. His comment was very much on topic.
You were just pissed off that you are unable to block his sig, and decided to penalize him for it. Well boo hoo; that's not what your mod points are for.
Your attempted abuse of the moderation system was not successful. His comment's moderation summary after your anonymous post reads:
Next time, take him to task by posting a reply and risking an Off Topic mod yourself. Gutlessly moderating him Off Topic then posting an anonymous admonishment isn't exactly taking the high road.
Re:Attorney Emails (Score:3, Insightful)
Do I think these lawyers are performing what their job requires them to do? In all probablity, yes
Would I quit my job if I was required to perform work I consider detrimental to society? Absolutely.
If a job forces you to behave like scum, you either quit the job, or you are scum.
I respect lavatory cleaning staff far above copyright lawyers.