New Litigation Targets 20,000 BitTorrent-Using Downloaders 949
Hugh Pickens writes "The Hollywood Reporter reports that more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington, DC, federal court for copyright infringement, and another lawsuit targeting 30,000 more torrent downloaders on five more films is forthcoming in what could be a test run that opens up the floodgates to massive litigation against the millions of individuals who use BitTorrent to download movies. The US Copyright Group, a company owned by intellectual property lawyers, is using a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents. According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the program captures IP addresses based on the time stamp that a download has occurred and then checks against a spreadsheet to make sure the downloading content is the copyright protected film and not a misnamed film or trailer. 'We're creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel,' says Jeffrey Weaver, another lawyer at the firm."
"The difference between the MPAA's past approach and the new one being offered by the US Copyright Group is that the MPAA took a less targeted approach going after a smaller sampling of infringers in a single suit for multiple films, to send a message. In contrast, the US Copyright Group is using the new monitoring technology to go after tens of thousands of infringers at a time on a contingency basis in hopes of coming up with the right cost-benefit incentive to pursue individual pirates."
They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
And before you sue me for that statement I'm sure that there is some sort of 'fair use' or 'truth' defense, so phfffft!
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name.
Just like cops, bad the 99% ruin it for everyone.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah... You're not going to get to tell everyone in the joint you were there because you 'stole' a copy of Twilight.
It's a civil court where these cases are going. Not criminal. Nobody is going to get 'booked'.
Please remember that from now on. Seriously. Having people think something is crime that can be prosecuted in criminal court when it is demonstrably not so, is not a good thing.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a civil court where these cases are going.
True, this story is about civil court lawsuits being filed. However I would wager that the "settlement offers" do explicitly raise the threat of criminal charges and prison if you don't give them the money they demand.
Having people think something is crime that can be prosecuted in criminal court when it is demonstrably not so
False. The 1997 NET Act [justice.gov] in the US did in fact make most copyright infringement into a felony. In particular the NET Act slipped this cute redefinition into law:
101. The term "financial gain" includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
Any use of Bittorrent or any other P2P pretty much by definition "includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works". It is also quite easy for offline non-commercial infringement to fall under that definition.
The NET Act adds the following criminal law:
506. Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
Note that that is an "or" situation. Under the first clause, even a single minimal infringement is defined as a criminal act if it falls within that crazy redefinition for "financial gain".
The NET act also defines the criminal penalties:
Criminal infringement of a copyright
(a) Whoever violates section 506(a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506(a)(1) of title 17--
1. shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
2. shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
3. shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
So the penalty is up to FIVE YEARS in prison if you have uploaded or downloaded 10 or more infringing files during a half year. The penalty is up to TEN YEARS for a second offense.
Oh, and if it's only a single act of infringement of a single file, then the law is much more generous with you, the crime is merely a felony with up to ONE YEAR in prison.
If you somehow manage not to fall under the "financial gain" definition, 506(a)(2) still makes infringement a felony if the infringement has a total "retail value" of $1,000 within a half year. In that case the prison terms are merely three years if it was ten or more copies with a total retail value of $2,500, six years on a second offense, or merely up to one year in prison for a non "financial-gain" infringement with total claimed retail value under $2,500.
Probably about a quarter of the entire U.S. population are technically unindicted criminal copyright felons subject
Re:They Suck (Score:4, Insightful)
...except no one is "stealing" anything.
That is just lying on your part as an attempt to create a bit of melodrama.
Although even if we accept that idea that you want us all to swallow that
BT downloads are the same as shoplifting, you are still left with the
problem of grossly disproportionate "punishments" and an end result that
looks like Sharia Law more than anything else.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are saying is that you don't agree with what the law says. I don't either. But the way to fix that is to fix the law, not to argue with trolls who think copying is the same thing as stealing.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, actually, stealing usually involves depriving somebody of property. So something like shoplifting is "stealing".
What's actually happening here is copyright infringement, they're just throwing around the stealing word to try and make it sound melodromatic.
See, that's where I take issue at those stupid anti-piracy videos they force us to watch at the cinemas. I watch a lot of movies - I probably hit the cinemas around once a week. Basically, I watch everything that comes out. I've racked up so many Greater Union Cinebuzz points, I could watch a month of free movies. But still, I'm forced to watch idiotic advertisements that try to equate copyright infringement with breaking into a car, or stealing a handbag? And a whole bunch of other ads for restaurants, cleaning services, and cinemas advertising. Come on...I paid money to see this damn movie, so I shouldn't have to sit there watching ads - it wastes my time, and it's actually annoying how inaccurate and farcial their propaganda is. And my friends that pirate movies (or heck, I've downloaded movies before, to be honest) - guess what, no long ads, no stupid inaccurate propaganda at the beginning.
And don't get me started on buying DVDs. There's these stupid long ads I have to sit through telling me how bad piracy is. I bought your stupid friggin DVD, ok, so yes, I'm bloody supporting you. Then there's all this ridiculousness with new budget DVDs not having subtitles - I'm hearing impaired, how bloody hard is it to put stupid English subtitles on your film? That's half the reason I like to buy DVDs. Instead, other people who download the MKV get a nice film experience, with no unskippable ads, they can watch it on anything they like, and guess what - some nice fellow transcripted subtitles for that "pirated" movie. I mean...seriously...the frigging pirates get a better experience than me, who just forked out $30 for your stupid DVD. Cheers, Victor
Re:They Suck (Score:4, Insightful)
No its fine.
Theft: The act of depriving another... ... of their property ... of their time
Theft of property:
Theft of service:
Copyright Infringement _removes nothing_ is is simply a breach of the covenant of copyright that many governments have established, it was established, in part, because the rules of theft _made no sense_ when applied to a body of work that could be duplicated with minimal effort.
It is different and it is not theft/stealing/piracy in anything but inaccurate colloquial parlance.
That _does not_ mean you get free reign to ignore it the same way that speeding is also not theft, but it can still get you fined and/or get your licence removed _when proven in a court of law_
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
When I download Firefox I'm taking something that isn't mine (I've never contributed code to it) without paying for it. I'm I stealing?
"Taking $something" implies that someone is deprived of $something. I don't "take" Firefox, I download a copy. The fact that Mozilla gives me permission to copy it is irrelevant to this issue.
But I'll quote the US Supreme Court:
Now tell me the Supreme Court is just lying to create justification for stealing.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Interesting)
You are wrong. "Theft" is a legal term that nowhere appears in the copyright act. It is not theft, it is copyright infringement. That is the law.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Informative)
Under the law, I've granted the public the right to use that program without paying me any money, but only under the terms I, as the copyright holder, have allowed. If you violate the license, you've stolen from me.
Nice sleight of hand there. And I'm burning mod points here, so be nice and pay attention, please.
Should you so choose you can - under the law - commence charges, in civil court against the violator. You will have to show the court your standing (your privilege to instantiate proceedings) AND what unlawful or tortuous act was committed, and be specific about it.
Your attorney will tell you, the judge will tell you - and yes I'll point it out as well: Your feelings of being "stolen from" don't matter. What matters is the Law - which says you have a violation of Contract predicated upon Copyright Law, not an act of Larceny.
Your GPL example is also not Larceny.
In other words, guess what: No matter how big a bitch-fit tantrum you throw, no matter how much you wish it to be true, what you believe simply is not true - under the law.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't say it isn't copyright infringement. I said it's stealing.
Even if you don't see the two as mutually exclusive, both I and the Supreme Court disagree with you as to it being stealing. Read the first bloody sentence and you'll see what I mean.
Are you more interested in justifying stealing via quibbles over legal terminology,
This isn't about justifying it.
Look, if someone had their pocket picked, and they started whining about being raped, we'd rightly correct them on their terminology -- frankly, it's an insult to the real rape victims to claim that pickpocketing is rape. That's not "justifying" it in the least, and we can still say that pickpocketing is wrong without also saying it's "rape".
The difference between theft and copyright infringement is significant, and it's not just about legal definitions.
are you interested in stating your opinion on whether it's right or wrong to do such a thing?
I'm not sure I believe in absolute rights and wrongs. Take the above pickpocketing example -- is pickpocketing always wrong? A child living on the streets might have no other source of income, or might have a "pimp" who will beat him if he doesn't do it. It might be that the pickpocket is a security expert hired by the victim. It might be that the pickpocket needs ransom money to save his family. It might be that the pickpocket is a spy, and has legitimate reasons for needing information stored in the victim's wallet...
So moving back to copyright infringement. In general, I don't like it. However, putting it in the context of copyright infringement shows it to be a relatively small offense, much smaller than pickpocketing. Let me make this even clearer: I run Linux. My options for HD video are basically:
The issue here is that no one is providing the product that I actually want, legitimately. Even something like Netflix WatchNow -- what if I want to download something at a higher quality than I can stream, leave it downloading all day so I can watch a 2 hour movie in the evening?
So pretty much the only realistic options are ripping DVDs myself (violates the DMCA) or downloading via BitTorrent (violates copyright law), and BitTorrent is going to give me a superior product -- I don't have to leave the house, and it'll be higher quality (HD) than I'd get with a rented DVD.
Now, is it wrong?
That's a harder question. There are some DVDs I go out of my way to buy, because I feel it's wrong for me to continue to watch the rips I downloaded without paying. DVD is, after all, not that encumbered, since it's been so brutally cracked. I also do tend to buy content I like when it's available as a DRM-free download, and I'll even tolerate a reasonable amount of DRM (I like Steam) on video games.
But in many cases, the option simply isn't there. I want to support Firefly, but where can I buy a 1080p version of it that I can play on my Linux laptop? I can't, so the choice isn't between buying and torrenting, it's between torrenting or simply not watching it.
I don't know that I could say it's right, but I could certainly say that at that point, it's not even as bad as jaywalking.
Would you be okay with someone lifting GPL licensed code, changing it for their own purposes, and then selling the code without disclosing the source?
That depends.
First, you're begging the question. "Lifting" here is a synonym for "stealing".
In general, no. However, I also don't think copyright law should be so ludicrously long, and I think that definitely any software older t
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop being obtuse.
Something can be wrong and illegal without it being stealing. Copyright infringement is clearly illegal. I think most typical cases of copyright infringement (i.e. P2P piracy) are morally wrong, though I find nothing wrong with some things that people are sued or threatened for (i.e. quoting Joyce), and I think copyright terms should be short and fixed from date of publication. I don't agree with all Slashdotters on these things and that's why we argue.
I wouldn't, of course, "be OK with" someone distributing GPL-licensed code against the terms of its license, but I also wouldn't call it stealing. It's something different.
If you can't make the distinction between one and the other you can't have a rational discussion of copyright.
Re:They Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they're stealing. They are taking something that is not theirs without paying for it. That's stealing, plain and simple. You may not like to look at it that way because they don't "take" anything that is a "physical" item, but it's stealing nonetheless. You are the one lying as an attempt to create justification for stealing.
If downloading is "stealing," then jaywalking is "rape of traffic."
Words -- especially legal terms -- have meaning. You don't get to make up new meanings to suit your own purposes.
"We're creating a revenue stream..." (Score:5, Insightful)
"...and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel."
The equivalent of a distribution channel where tens of thousands get movies for free, but then a randomly selected group has to pay a hundred times the cost of the movie in litigation fees.
At least they're innovating...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The equivalent of a distribution channel where tens of thousands get movies for free, but then a randomly selected group has to pay a hundred times the cost of the movie in litigation fees.
So kinda like insurance...except the other way around?
Didn't someone start a p2p insurance policy a few years back?
Re:"We're creating a revenue stream..." (Score:5, Interesting)
How long do you suppose it will be until we find out that they are actually seeding the torrents themselves?
People here on Slashdot have been saying they need to find a new business model - well, now they have!
Re:"We're creating a revenue stream..." (Score:4, Interesting)
"...and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel."
The equivalent of a distribution channel where tens of thousands get movies for free, but then a randomly selected group has to pay a hundred times the cost of the movie in litigation fees.
At least they're innovating...
See http://www.savecinema.org/index.html [savecinema.org], the U.S. Copyright Group. They think threatening bittorrent users with demands in the $500. to $1000. range will work better than past approaches, and instead of suing few users for multiple media like the RIAA, they will sue multiple users for individual films. Most of us would cough up $500.00 to $1000.00 to keep our lives free from lawyers. They offer their services on contingency to the producers, meaning no upfront investment-- just about $20 million in recoveries per film if you multiply the typically 30,000 infringers (prior to release on DVD) times about $750.00 per. Yes, a lot of studios may come to see the USCG $20 million as an expected line revenue item. USCG specifically targets the 30,000 infringers who act in the window between theatrical release and DVD sale, which presumably means downloaders of "cam" copies are the targets.
Who knows how this will play out. This is a new approach; we have to wait and see.
WTF are they thinking? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF are they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.
I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.
Re:WTF are they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.
I disagree. It is to scare all the people currently pirating into not pirating. These are not people who are looking to buy the movies so they will just go without.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if they do buy films, they will go for the used option. These are clearly price conscious folks.
Re:WTF are they thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if they do buy films, they will go for the used option. These are clearly price conscious folks.
Another baseless and naive assertion. I download movies and TV shows for the convenience. I frequently buy box sets, collector's editions, etc at full retail price.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base. You have to *buy* something to be a customer.
Re:WTF are they thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base. You have to *buy* something to be a customer.
The people I know who download the most are the ones with the biggest DVD collections. They sample by downloading, and buy what they like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF are they thinking? (Score:4, Interesting)
I buy plenty of stuff. More than I should.
But when it comes to a lot of material I cant legally get hold of it. Delayed DVD releases is one thing that pisses me off.
And then there is the retardedness of pricing....
I went to buy the 7 seasons of Macgyver a while back and what was the price-tag? 600 fucking dollars. I am -not- paying that kind of money for 7 seasons of a tv-show from the 80s... I'ms orry.... It is a novelty to have on my shelf for geek cred, but I am NOT paying that much.
Hell, the local price of the Star Trek TNG series was 134 USD per season up until recently when they just plain stopped selling em as nobody bought em...
I'm sorry but for flippin' sake get the prices within the limits of sanity. If the 7 seasons of macgyver had been 150 dollars I would have had em sitting on my shelf right now instead of on my media-server... Probably in a lot better quality too!... Arg....
Disclaimer: I'm sleep deprived and annoyed at real life asshattery atm so my post is heavily colored by that :-p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because you're a not a customer for one pirated movie doesn't mean you haven't been a customer. There is a chance you've seen the movie in the the theater and wanted to copy when the dvd, but didn't think it was worth $20.
You paid to see it once, but you found the pay-to-buy price too high, and found a different channel to acquire it. I bet if you looked at any of the people sued by the MPAA, you'll find they've also paid to see films created by MPAA members - in pretty much every case. Is that not a c
Re:WTF are they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, you know, the RIAA uses that same logic, but there were a couple of studies that showed the opposite: people who downloaded music spent more money on music (either discs, concerts or other products) than people who didn't download music. I wonder if the same holds for movies? I kind of suspect it does. If indeed it does, not only would the studios be attacking their customers, but attacking their best customers. If I were them, I would have wanted to test that one before launching the lawsuits.
"massive litigation" (Score:5, Insightful)
If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat.
Personally, I think the basic reason we built the amazing companies in the "entertainment industry" is that distribution used to be difficult, and it required a lot of capital to set up channels to get media to consumers. This is no longer true; & the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"massive litigation" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the classic corporate-welfare strategy: you failed in the market, so get the government to force people to pay you.
Checks against a spreadsheet (Score:3, Funny)
Checks against a spreadsheet! What kind of Mickey Mouse organization is this anyway? Don't they know they could haul in 10x more pirates with a proper database backend. Maybe it helps the lawyers boost their billable hours if they can have an intern do as much manual work as possible.
"Sue fucking everyone" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Sue fucking everyone" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Sue fucking everyone" (Score:5, Interesting)
if the legal copyright holders seed to you, they KNOW what was inside the encrypted stream.
If the legal copyright holder is offering a free download (seeding) then should they sue you for accepting their offer?
Re:"Sue fucking everyone" (Score:5, Informative)
Is it possible for a Bittorrent tracker to make IPs appear in the swarm that aren't actually representing any actual clients?
Yes.
It's also not guaranteed that a peer in the swam is downloading or uploading. The only way to be 99% sure is to send/receive to/from a given peer. But, if you don't send/receive 100% of the content to/from that single peer, it would be hard to claim copyright infringement, as you couldn't prove a full copy had been shared by that IP address.
I don't know about you, but even with my very fast connection, it would take me a long time to download 50,000 copies of a movie. And, it'd be insanely difficult to make sure that I downloaded it from exactly 50,000 unique peers.
Can we bill them for the court's time? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we bill them for the court's time? If they are going to use the court system to "create an alternative revenue stream", they can damn sure pay for the costs of handling all that paperwork. If an average citizen decided to do this (by using the court system to send out tens of thousands of nastygrams and collecting on the handful that pay) they'd be facing serious-ass jail time.
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
A while back, a colleague and I had a discussion about unauthorized downloading, and I quipped something to the effect that I would avoid infringement penalties by buying the content and then ripping it. He, OTOH, asked why. Why would I pay for something I could legally record from broadcast for free.
There's an interesting double standard here:
In both cases you've acquired the same content, in the same form, for the same price. But now we're supposed to believe that because it happens via the internet, a crime has been committed? That their business is now suddenly failing because people are doing the same thing they've done for years with tape players and vcrs?
The VCR didn't kill tv and movies. Nor did the tape player kill rock and roll. If you can't make a living as an artist in the era of mp3's and youtube, well, you couldn't have made a living back then, either. Stop blaming the Internet for your own failure.
Devil's Advocate Position (Score:4, Insightful)
The Devils advocate position is that by requiring customers to wait for arbitrary showtimes and having an arbitrary limited selection pretty significantly impedes the flow of copied materials.
If I want to watch "Uncross the Stars" tonight, I don't have any way of doing that other than paying the movie companies (or downloading it).
In fact, I would wager that said movie will never be aired on any sort of television station that many people have.
So, while the concept of suing customers is unpalatable to me, as well as you, I disagree that it's "exactly the same thing" as a VCR.
I know how to increase movie revenues (Score:5, Funny)
All the MPAA has to do is get me a girlfriend and I'll gladly spend 10 to go out and see a movie. Until then its torrents from my parents basement using my neighbors wifi connection.
how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Each of those soon to be 50,000 people is entitled to a jury trial. That's a LOT of resources tied up on this and for a long time. The logistics could get ugly. And this is supposedly just the test run that could open the floodgate?
The courts will have a choice. Either shred any semblance of justice, reject this litigative spam, or devote itself exclusively to these suits and hope they get to the last of them before the revolution comes.
Re:how? (Score:5, Informative)
That may be the case, but I'd be willing to bet that group filing the lawsuits will offer defendants a standard settlement option which most defendants will accept. If each of those 50,000 people is being sued for ~$100k and is offered a ~$1k settlement, most will take it since a) they did what they're being accused of and/or b) it's less than a lawyer would cost.
Re:how? (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH, it would be incredibly interesting ... even funny ... if most of the 50,000 said "fuck off big evil corporation ... I'm lawsuit proof via Title 11 ... bring it on and see what you get". Hint: there's no crime under Title 11 unless there is a conviction.
Re:how? (Score:4, Interesting)
An invasion of privacy?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't this proprietary software package being used to track downloads be construed as a wire tap ergo inadmissible in a court of law?
Or is this AC being a silly little AC again?
With love
The Anonymous Coward
Degradation of Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
I am ranting, I know, but for mother fuck-fuckity-fucks sake how much longer are the rational, intelligent, and reasonable going to continue to stand for this? Are the aforementioned independent free-thinkers to disjointed, apathetic, and outnumbered to ever turn the tide? I feel this civilization is edging towards a serious crises, one much worse than we have ever seen. Be that crises a nuclear holocaust, or the silent denigration of of the common sense rights that a democratic mentality provides, the crises is coming, and we don't seem to be heading anywhere near the appropriate direction to turn the tides of destruction.
Perhaps my tinfoil hat is too tight, maybe I need to get some sunlight. I don't know. But it is hard as a relatively young individual to imagine a positive environment for future children. Each day that passes, more rights are stripped, more debt is incurred, more inflation rapes the dollar, more political seats are bargained, more people hate democracy, more people get lazy, more people become passive obedient workers, taking the big red, white, and blue dick right up the ass, while the bourgeoisie reap the benefits of a society that becomes more mentally jellified by mass-media induced mind-fucking every day.
Sorry about that. Your regularly scheduled broadcasting will now continue.
Scarcity and Information (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not an economist, but...
The fundamental problem with selling music or other media over the internet is that data is not a scarce commodity. Copying music does not deprive anyone else of access to that music. It's much like copying an entire book without buying it. The book is still available for buying, and the store still owns it, so who cares?
Of course, this is a harmful position to take. If everyone thought nothing of "pirating" music, then artists would receive no compensation for their efforts, which is wrong. (Of course, imagine for a second an ideal world where all music purchases went right to the artist. The RIAA/MPAA just muddies things a bit.) Artists deserve compensation, but it will never work to sell data, which is inherently non-scarce, for money, which is scarce. Why spend money on something that has no actual scarce value at all? At least, there will always be people who will say that.
(Yes, the creative work of the songs themselves would be a scarce work, but in the end you're paying for a copy of the work, not the idea of the work itself. More on that in a second.)
The best solution would be for us to pay for copies of music with some non-scarce currency, but that sort of system is hard to set up and harder to maintain inside a predominately scarcity-based economy, because people tend to attach no value to non-scarce goods when there are scarce goods around. The two economic systems don't mix well at all. I suggest that, instead, artists give music away for free (or for Whuffie, real or imaginary), and sell the primary scarce thing they have left to sell: performance. Get artists to make their money on tour! Give the music away for free to get fans, and the fans will come to the concerts!
...
For more fun, consider that numbers cannot be copyrighted, and that all data can be represented by one really long number. I'm not so much trying to say that data can't be copyrighted, as I am that copyright should be seriously looked at again.
This is why I gave up downloading movies... (Score:5, Informative)
This is why I gave up downloading movies, I now resort to buying all of my movies on blu-ray.
Sure, most of them fell off the back of a truck, but the fines are much less harsh than getting sued by the movie industry...
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Informative)
Also, please read the article for once:
the US Copyright Group, on behalf of an ad hoc coalition of independent film producers and with the encouragement of the Independent Film & Television Alliance. So far, five lawsuits have been filed against tens of thousands of alleged infringers of the films "Steam Experiment," "Far Cry," "Uncross the Stars," "Gray Man" and "Call of the Wild 3D." Here's an example of one of the lawsuits -- over Uwe Boll's "Far Cry."
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
It must be insult to injury to get sued over an Uwe Boll film. Not only did they watch it, but they got sued for doing so. Nobody needs that!
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
It must be insult to injury to get sued over an Uwe Boll film. Not only did they watch it, but they got sued for doing so. Nobody needs that!
It's like getting kicked in the balls after consuming a large meal consisting entirely of broken glass bottles.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
Want to put a stop to this - don't sue, just publish the names of people who spent time downloading and presumably *shudder* watching films by Uwe Boll.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Which will soon be another British made for TV movie. If you have not seen Hogfather and Colour of Magic (which also includes The Light Fantastic) you really should go check them out.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Shooting yourself in the foot, 20000 law suits at a time. Apparently the independents are not more down to earth than the MPAA, just less successful. Way to ruin a reputation.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Informative)
I browsed the "U.S. Copyright Group's" website. To me, it screams sleazy lawyer. They claim to "obtain the ISP addresses of the infringers" as if that's a surefire way of establishing identity.
Then there is this: "The person who unlawfully downloads a movie cannot afford to pay a $10,000 settlement to avoid legal trouble. BUT, they can and will pay $500-$1,000 to avoid civil legal prosecution for copyright infringement. Multiply these settlement amounts by 10,000, 30,000 or 50,000 infringers, and we have created a tremendous solution to stop film piracy and recover the copyright owner’s losses."
My response: I'm sorry that new technology has rendered the movie industry's business/delivery model obsolete. I'm not sorry that they're choosing to litigate instead of innovate.
I will not support the efforts of any group that uses the U.S. legal system as a crowbar to pry money out of the general public.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also note that the .torrent file does not contain enough information to verify the legal status of the content. My guess is they download everything they suspect might be theirs.
If they do this, does that mean they're wide open for countersuits by anyone uploading their wedding movies? I'm guessing their death will be quick and painless, seeing how they must do willful copyright infringement on a massive scale.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
So it's OK to rip off Hollywood but not the independents?
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
Hold on.
Let me get this straight ... they've found 20,000 people downloading Uwe Boll's film?
If I were a defense lawyer, all I would do is play the thing for the judge - nay, I would insist that he sees it from beginning to end - and then I would watch the lawsuit getting dismissed with prejudice .... and all the poor sods sued ordered compensation for the mental anguish caused by mere insinuation of having downloaded the thing, all the involved lawyers getting disbarred, charged with cruelty to judges and odious crimes against humanity, declared terrorists etc and so on...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention the spreadsheet abuse outlined in the summary. Won't somebody think of the databases?
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I'm getting sick of all the whiners too.
Someone makes a movie and *gasp* wants to make money from it. You have several choices:
Pay full price and watch it in the theatre soon after release
Wait for it to come to the cheaper screens
Wait a bit longer for it to come to DVD/Blu-ray
Wait still longer for it to come to TV
If you're not happy with any of the options, then do without. Find something else. There's more to life than movies and music, and you don't have an inherent right to just take stuff any more than I have an inherent right to "borrow" anything from you without asking first. If you stopped pirating crap tomorrow your world isn't going to end - you'll just have to find something constructive to fill your time with - like interacting with people.
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Your analogy between "borrowing something without asking first" and copyright infringement doesn't hold water. There's a big difference between borrowing your Ferrari and making a molecule by molecule copy of it that doesn't deprive you of your car.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
So then you are an idiot. Identity Theft is just a way for a bank who was scammed to make it your problem.
The fact that people are ok with this I cannot understand.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Or wait until the copyright expires.
Not possible, copyrights will get longer again next time mickey mouse comes up.
I pay for my media, but the reality is copyright no longer serves society as it was supposed too.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and your hand passes right through it, it's probably an imaginary duck.
Protip: Real ducks don't talk
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing I'm not taking anything.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Indie films are by and large not indie films anymore.
Every major studio now has an indie branch. Plus 90% of everything is and has always been crap.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
What "good alternative" can I use to watch high-def movies stored on my home server via my networked media tank or laptop etc?
As long as the pirates provide a better product than the studios, the customers will turn to the pirates.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is what most don't understand. I am the type of pirate that does it for convenience. There is no other method of accessing movies that is as convenient as piracy, and I don't see anything coming in the near future that can come even close to allowing me to easily watch movies in multiple places in my home or on the road. With a downloaded .mkv, I can watch any movie I have on any TV in my home or on any computer in the world at the press of a button. I would love to see a viable legal alternative to my current setup, but it will never exist due to the luddites in charge of the movie companies.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love to see a viable legal alternative to my current setup
It's more than that, though, because your current setup in many cases should be legal.
How many dollars have been stolen from consumers by way of the politicians that have been bought to extend copyright on works that should have entered the public domain decades ago (copyright is supposed to be for the public benefit, which is why their government enacted it), and how does this compare to the money the industry claims is being stolen now? I think they may owe us a perpetually growing chunk of change, in fact.
And as a preemptive strike against the pedantic counterpoint, let's assume for these purposes that yes, selling somebody the Brooklyn Bridge is stealing from them.
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is what most don't understand. I am the type of pirate that does it for convenience. There is no other method of accessing movies that is as convenient as piracy, and I don't see anything coming in the near future that can come even close to allowing me to easily watch movies in multiple places in my home or on the road. With a downloaded .mkv, I can watch any movie I have on any TV in my home or on any computer in the world at the press of a button. I would love to see a viable legal alternative to my current setup, but it will never exist due to the luddites in charge of the movie companies.
I really, really, really hate the itunes interface in general but the online version of the store for the ipod touch is actually a good thing. The only two shows I watch on the pod are olbermann and maddow and the feeds are almost automatic. They only post the last aired episode but with a click I can download them to the pod. No fees, possibly one commercial, very sweet. I assume the for-pay stuff like Daily Show and Colbert would be just as slick but they're usually charging too much for this. Movie rentals are $4 and many movies are listed for "purchase" at DVD prices. I'm sorry, if you're not giving me physical media then why should I pay physical media prices? If DVD kiosks in the supermarket rent movies for $1, why should the electronic version that's even cheaper cost as much as renting from blockbuster?
The tech is already here to make buying more convenient than piracy. The issue is that they're charging too much and doing too many dickish things.
I actually like the idea of being able to vote with my dollars. Direct measurement of consumption is far more accurate than Neilsen's. Treat a season like shareware, Doom I'm thinking. The first third is free. You pay for access to the second third. If it's a good show, you'll want to pay. But make the price reasonable. I see DVD's of full seasons going for $20 some places. Keep the price down low enough so that it's an impulse purchase and we'll do it. Just look at the app store. Dollar apps? shit, that's cheaper than an appetizer. Yeah, I'll try it. If it sucks, no big deal. Price it at $10, now I'm skeptical and likely won't give it a spin.
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, I live in France and I can watch Movies over the Internet via Orange, and I do. I pay 2.99, or 3.99 for the abiitity to watch ONE time. However I only get 24 hours. My partner usually falls asleep at the halfway point so she never usually get the times to watch the rest.
I don't want HD, or blueray or other crap definitions. I use piratebay because I can download a film in 40 minutes and watch it that night in bed, and my partner can rewatch it some other time.
I would pay 5 Euros a download for a 1 gig sized version. But no one wants to sell to me, because copyright is A MONOPOLY in distribution. There is no incentive for the distributers to reacts to changing market conditions.
I WILL NOT BUY DVD's anymore. I do not buy CD's anymore.
Cinema? Yes I reluctantly go. I saw Avatar in non 3D. 10 Euros a ticket, 40 euros for the family.
People defending copyright have no idea on the intention of copyright. They have no idea the abusive monopolistic position of copyrights holders.
Their distribution model sucks and is overpriced.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Piracy costs nothing, the kids that do this were not going to buy those movies or games either way.
As for good equivalents please tell me where I can buy DRM free videos. Even DVDs are not DRM free.
I am not a pirate, I only break the law by using libdvdcss to watch my legally rented netflix dvds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Piracy costs nothing, the kids that do this were not going to buy those movies or games either way.
Is this why many of my friends parents ask them to burn a movie or tv show for them? You think 40-50 year olds with a job wouldn't had bought them otherwise?
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, if the movie is too cheap for them to have seen in the theaters. Let's see some proof that they would have purchased the movie -- that is the claim these companies are making, right? Prove that these companies are suffering. I have trouble believing that they could operate at a loss year after year and not go out of business.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
My father buys quite a lot of dvds. A whole lot more than he should in my mom's eyes ;)
That said.... He absolutely HATES the forced anti-piracy clip at the front of every blasting dvd in sale now... He hates it enough that he has now started ripping his movies to ISO files and watch them using his win7 laptop connected to the TV. He usually watches the movies while on a fatburner-bike and the last thing he wants to do when he goes for a 30 min 'trip' is to spend the first few minutes watching a damn anti-piracy clip.
Also.... He bought a blu-ray movie as his new spiffy laptop had a bluray drive. What happened? His sony hdcp-capable tv went blank when he tried watching it. It came with blu-ray capable software and was advertised as working "out of the box". He was quite annoyed that it didnt work. He spent a little time trying to get it to work, as he is quite computer literate but gave up with the feeling that it was just not worth it.
So he has written off the whole bluray format as "not worth it"... This is the kind of person who fits right in the 40-50 year old demographic who spend a lot of money on movies....
When he asks for movies for christmas or birthdays he asks to get them in pre-ripped ISO so he doesnt have to deal with the crap. That alone is more than enough of an indication of the failings of the movie industry than anything else. When you piss of the regular uses enough that they seek out ways to avoid it.... you have -failed-.
Give me a legal way to get the files in a decent format that I can play on any device (win7, winxp, linux, portable) which is priced at a point where a DVD doesnt look cheap in comparison then MAYBE they can salvage the failing industry.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Piracy costs nothing, the kids that do this were not going to buy those movies or games either way.
But wait! If the kid found out the movie is crappy, it might prevent their moms, friends or relatives going to the cinema/buying DVD!
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
You pretty much can't in a digital format. maybe get movies on VHS and convert them to DVDs? Personally I do the following:
IMO, this is no different than if I use a DVR with a big hard drive to record every movie I like from HBO, Cinemax, etc. I can watch a DVR'd movie as many times as I like, and I can keep it until the HD crashes in the DVR. This speaks volumes to the ignorance of lawmakers on technical issues: recording digital content that comes down the wire = OK, but recording that same content off a plastic disc = BAD. WTF? So, if I bought the CD or DVD and it's sitting in in my closet while a digital copy resides on my network, according to the RIAA/MPAA that is not fair use. Really? Dan Glickman and Cary Sherman can kiss my pucker - Until and unless I upload the ripped copy to the internets I've done nothing wrong.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if you live in the U.S., you've committed a felony. I'm not saying that's right, but that's what the law says.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Prove it. You may find this difficult to do, since movie studios routinely lie about operating at a loss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting [wikipedia.org]
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
These discussions always devolve into pro- and anti-piracy rhetoric, but I have a question.
I actually agree in principle that piracy is wrong. But where I have a problem is with their method of determining guilt. I wish Ray Beckerman or one of the other attorneys here would explain to me how they can *prove* that I, and I alone, am the one responsible for an illegal download with an IP address???
Unless I'm the only one in the house and unless I have a static IP address, how can they *prove* that it's me? And even in that case, what if someone sneaks into my home during the day (maybe I gave the neighbor a key to watch my cats while I was on vacation one time). That's what worries me.
It would be the height of irony for ME to one day get thumped for this, when I AM opposed to piracy. But I could see it happening -- suppose I open a wireless access point at my house, taking reasonable care to secure it, but someone manages to hack in and download copyrighted material without my consent? Why am I liable for that? I'm a VICTIM, not a criminal!!!!
When someone is pulled for speeding, it's the *driver* who is ticketed, not the owner of the car. In fact, speeding tickets are routinely thrown out of court simply because the arresting officer couldn't prove that he/she had the vehicle under constant observation after clocking them at an illegal speed. There's always a chance that the car changed drivers while it was unobservable.
Why doesn't the same principle apply here?
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Informative)
They don't need to prove, beyond any doubt, that you were the person who downloaded it. That's not the burden of proof in a civil case. Hell, that's not even the burden of proof in a criminal case.
They only need to prove that you were the one who likely downloaded it. Civil cases in the US are based on a "preponderance of evidence". That simply means that they need to be more than 50% right.
Their reasoning is "We have these records that this IP address downloaded this movie at this time. We have a statement from the internet provider who owns that IP that this account was the one who used it at the time of the download. That account belongs to Mr. Smith."
If they go to court with that level of evidence, and you simply show up and say "Prove it" or "It might have been someone who stole my wifi signal" then you are going to lose. You also need to submit evidence that makes their evidence tell a different story, and show that it is likely to have happened.
Now, if you showed up with logs from your router that showed that this MAC address downloaded the movie, records from the MAC address database that shows that the MAC was assigned to a particular manufacturer, plus an expert technical witness to explain what all that is, and a signed affidavit that says that you don't own, have never owned, and was not using a device by that manufacturer at that time, then you have just likely made a sufficient defense.
Note: IANAL.
Re:Good thing (Score:5, Funny)
We aren't creating problems, we're creating solutions! By pirating, we are creating jobs for thousands of lawyers, paralegals and entrepreneurs who are seeking to end the very thing keeping them employed!
We are saving the economy and the american way. Join us.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, my comment was primarily sarcasm. I pirate out of convenience. I pay for cable and DVR, but its easier for me to simply torrent the ~4 shows I follow than it is to fight with the family and watch them on the TV. I pay for an all-you-can-listen music service but the DRM required means I cant listen to the music (I pay extra to use it on a mobile device)on my phone, the only mp3 player I own.
I feel justified in this action because the content creators have already gotten their share from me. If they can
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sort of like patent trolling. The company has no legitimate business activity except to act as an entity that can be "damaged" such that they can sue for damages. Remember that guy who got a bad paint job on his BMW and sued and won a 2 million dollar judgment [findlaw.com]? It's a bit like these companies are hunting around for cars with bad paint jobs and buying them for double the retail value, not because they need to drive somewhere, but just so they can get the rights to sue for the "damage".
what about wireless? (Score:3, Insightful)
Say your name is the one your Comcast account is under, but someone else such as a neighbor leeching on your wireless network ...