Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Piracy The Internet News

Hurt Locker Studio Begins Requesting Canadian ISP's Subscriber Info 172

Posted by Soulskill
from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-be-careful-not-to-learn-anything dept.
New submitter Nerdolicious writes "Ars Technica reports that Voltage Pictures, the studio behind the infamous Hurt Locker debacle, has requested subscriber information for thousands of TekSavvy customers in relation to alleged copyright infringements. In their official blog, TekSavvy clarifies the situation and provides further reassurance that they will not release any private customer information without a court order. They have also posted the legal documents containing both the official notice and list of films that are the subjects of the alleged infringements. However, several questions remain to be answered: will Canadian courts be amicable to these tactics after changes to copyright law were made specifically to prevent the predatory legal entanglement of Canadian citizens? Will the studio actually attempt to pursue the situation beyond the proliferation of threatening extortion letters? How would the already-clogged courts react to what amounts to denial-of-service attack on the judicial system?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hurt Locker Studio Begins Requesting Canadian ISP's Subscriber Info

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bradmont (513167) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @07:07PM (#42255071)
    It actually makes me want to torrent it, even though I don't torrent movies, or have any interest in watching it.
  • Send them the money (Score:4, Interesting)

    by future assassin (639396) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @07:15PM (#42255139) Homepage

    with a letter stating that you are paying the requested amount in order to protect yourself from being sued but the Rights Holder as stated in the original notice. Then charge them with extortion.

  • Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (Score:2, Interesting)

    by neminem (561346) <neminem@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @07:20PM (#42255187) Homepage

    Same.

    In fact, it almost makes me want to torrent it, then burn piles of dvds and leave them out on street corners with signs saying "free movies!"

    Certainly doesn't make me want to watch it, though.

  • Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (Score:4, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @07:22PM (#42255205)

    It actually makes me want to torrent it, even though I don't torrent movies, or have any interest in watching it.

    Maybe that's the point. It's such a shitty movie the only way to get publicity for it is to say "We're suing the pants off people for this!" It makes it sound like it's valuable. Like they're wasting millions of dollars and throwing armies of lawyers at it because it's worth defending. The reality is... it's a shitty movie and there's way too much marketing research saying that people who pirate are also their most reliable customers. If you wanted to get your sales numbers up... what better way than to get your most reliable customers to say "Hey, I see smoke over there. Must be a fire, let's go check it out!"

    Never believe the reason 'they' state (the generic ominous 'they', which applies to any group with an agenda); You look at the effect. That's almost always the reason for the action taken. The few times it isn't, they stop right away and spin the hell out of it... which us laypeople refer to as a Fuck Up.

  • Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (Score:3, Interesting)

    by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @07:23PM (#42255211) Homepage Journal

    Not missing much - it's a pretty crapy movie over all.
    It's basic premise is based on Captain Willard's intro sequence in Apocalypse Now.

    I'd wake up and there'd be nothing. I hardly said a word to my wife, until I said "yes" to a divorce. When I was here, I wanted to be there; when I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle. I'm here a week now... waiting for a mission... getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around the walls moved in a little tighter.

    But they wait till the end to show you that. So it ends up being all about this jack-off who works as a bomb squad expert defusing IEDs and what not who keeps re-enlisting for another tour because it's all he can deal with any more. He's little more than a caricature of a risk junky with a death wish.

    The plot consists of a few people dying, David Morse making a brief appearance as a gung-ho Colonel filled with bravado in homage to Duvall's Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, how relatively untrained US regulars are able to out shoot and outlive highly trained SAS in a fire fight against a few insurgents holed up in a shack and how he risk of getting blewn-up is a hellofa rush.

    And that's about it.

    Frankly I'd have liked it better if it featured a Humvee odyssee up the Highway of Death to find a Colonel Kurtz character leading a group rebel Kurds holding their own against both the US Allies the Insurgents with Kurtz' command being terminated during the goat slaughtering for a Ramadan feast.

  • Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @07:30PM (#42255269)
    You'd be giving them free publicity. The movie isn't worth watching. It's slow. It's boring. There isn't that much suspense. It's yet another war movie where an invincible person traipses through a war zone and comes out on the other side affected by what he saw. Yawn. I don't remember where I saw it, but I do remember that I did not pay to watch it, but even then, it wasn't worth the time spent to watch it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @07:39PM (#42255351)

    When Canada was reforming it's copyright laws it got a specific commitment from the movie industry that they were not interested in mass john-doe lawsuits against consumers. The copyright law was reformed to reflect that. Maximum penalty for _all_ infringements is as much as $5K or as little as $100 and judges are instructed by the law to keep the penalty proportionate to the damages and to consider the hardship of the penalty against the defendant.

    Now here we are, the movie studio have proven themselves to be bald-faced liars and are going after consumers in mass john-doe lawsuits.

    My hope is that Canadians don't allow themselves to be bullied by these copyright trolls and each and every one of them takes the matter to court. Further, my hope, wish, and desire is that the judges that see these cases see the movie industry for the liars that they are and punish them by awarding the minimum $100 fines.

  • by r1348 (2567295) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @09:25PM (#42256139)

    First of all, it never questions the reasons of the war.
    From the very beginning it pushes the audience towards sympathy for the American soldier, as in displaying apparently innocuous Iraqi men detonating IEDs and so on, giving a ready justification to any psychopathic behaviour of the soldiers because "the enemy is everywhere".
    In a complete reversal of moral values than in say, horror movies, the audience is pushed to stand on the hunter side instead of the hunted, to worry about the danger that Baghdad's alleys pose for the soldiers instead of the danger that the soldiers pose for anyone else around them. Ultimately, the audience is led to identify itself with the soldier about to shoot someone out of stress induced paranoia, rather than with his victims.
    While I can understand that the director wanted to point out the state of mental stress of the soldiers in a war zone, a whole movie exclusively about that comes out as unbelievably American-centric in the eyes of the whole conflict.

    Ask yourself: do you remember the name of a single Iraqi character in the movie?

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil" -- Douglas Hofstadter

Working...