How a Virginia Law Firm Outpaces the MPAA at Suing Over Movie Downloads

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.

worth a read

[alain94040]

I found this on the topic: the actual settlement form. Read it all at http://www.copyrightsettlement.info/wfesettlement.pdf [copyrightsettlement.info]

Payment. You shall pay to the Company the total, lump sum of Two Thousand Five Dollars (US $2,500) by cashier’s check or credit card with no charge back or check cancellation.

Confidentiality. You agree that the terms of this Agreement shall remain STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL and MAY NOT be disclosed to any other party including but not limited to internet or on-line forums.

So don't go post this on slashdot or you'll owe this lawfirm $15,000!

--
The Founder Conference'2010 [thefounderconference.com]

Bizarre Editor Abuse?

[eldavojohn]

I submitted this same exact story [slashdot.org] referencing the same exact Slashdot article on the Hurt Locker this morning around 7am and it instantly went to being the lowest color any of my submissions have ever been at (jet black). So I was pretty sure I had done something wrong enough to attract the attention of an editor. When I submit stories I check for the story in firehose and by google searching Slashdot and this wasn't there. I didn't get the popup for duplicate URL submission either ... I guess Jamie or someone just really wanted to claim the scoop on this story. What's even more bizarre is that the summary seems to be misdirected at Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver when it's actually a larger set of plaintiffs composing the US Copyright Group [copyrightsettlement.info]. That's who is listed as behind the ~15,000 lawsuits. Oh well ...

Re:So In Essence

[Pojut]

Interesting, isn't it? Here, you have some indie film makers suing downloaders...and yet, many other indie film makers rely on downloaders to get the word out about their work. Other than Hurt Locker, I sure as hell never heard of the other movies.

I guess that's the difference between an artist and a professional?

Re:S2S

[hedwards]

I do wonder if this sort of reverse class action suit is even legal. I don't think that a law firm ought to be able to bundle that many defendants together without having to at least demonstrate that there's a link between them other than allegedly infringing upon the same material.

Re:So In Essence

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they suing downloaders or uploaders? The story says downloaders, you say downloaders and nobody appears to dispute that. It is my understanding that downloading can not be proven, except by offering the upload, but then the data is downloaded from someone who has permission to distribute and downloading that isn't illegal. Aren't we really talking about uploads here, i.e. when P2P programs also offer the downloaded data back to others?

Re:Bittorrent Users Sue Movie Studios

[thestudio_bob]

Don't forget that the movie studios spent millions in marketing to make you WANT the movie. Really, is this any different than what the tobacco companies did many years ago? Movies are the new addiction. They really should put warning labels on the movie trailers, fast food tie-ins, Halloween customs, etc.

Movie revenue

[cdrguru]

Today, without major restructuring of the Internet at large, it can be assumed that within a few days of release of a DVD that the movie content will be ripped and made available online.

If an Internet user has the knowledge to access these "available" movies, they can be downloaded and viewed with little or no risk to the downloader. This may require some fancy work to prevent the content from being redistributed and if you do not know how to do this you are certainly exposing yourself to redistribution and the legal penalties that come from that.

If someone does not have this knowledge, they have to buy their content. Because of this we are rapidly approaching a two-class environment: some people know how to get content for free while others have to pay for it. Right now, the division between these classes is also enforced by lack of broadband capacity - if your connection is dial-up or a weak DSL link you can't download free content no matter what you know.

Today it is possible for content providers to still make money from the 2nd class "payers", but this is going to change rapidly. I don't see any possibility for stopping this movement, no matter how many lawsuits are filed. The penalty is just too remote a possibility and too far removed from the act of redistribution. You get a notice in the mail six months after doing something and you are supposed to remember doing it? Worse, there is a trial over something that occurred two years before. It is like getting a speeding ticket from a state you used to live in and six months after you sold the car. There just isn't any connection between the act and the penalty for it to seem real and not arbitrary.

I'd say the content providers are going to see their revenue shrink rapidly as more and more of the "payers" die off and are replaced by well-educated (in the Internet black arts) younger people with better Internet connections. They might be able to replace the direct sales revenue (which retailers share in) with some kind of ad-supported content in the future - but retailers will not be sharing in that at all. This puts WalMart as a content retailer out of the business entirely, as it does with Amazon and anyone else that would consider themselves a "retailer".

Oh well. I think it plain to say "Piracy Rules!" If your business model depends on people paying for digital content, someone out there is going to ruin your day.

Re:worth a read

[Beardo the Bearded]

My lawyer would tell me that it's not worth bothering for less than $2500, so they've got a reasonable plan there.

It would take far more to fight that in court, even in Canada, where we've got that loser-pay system.