Hurt Locker Studio Begins Requesting Canadian ISP's Subscriber Info

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 just in , shitty movie blames piracy .

[Anonymous Coward]

I own this movie, it sucks. It's not terrible but it's certainly not good.
This review off rotten tomatoes says it all
"Lacking a narrative arc. There's no central conflict to keep the audience interested. Instead it's just repetitive unrealistic war scenes, and it really drags throughout its long running time. Yawn."

I'm confused by all the good reviews.

Re:What's the point?

[MightyMartian]

Indeed. If every Canadian threatened with legal action over Hurt Locker pirating were to tell the lawyers "I'll see you in court" they would go bankrupt in a hurry.

I suppose the lawyers could try to declare commercial infringement for someone seeding the movie, but I doubt that would wash in court without some direct evidence of exchange of funds, so I think we are looking at a hard $5k limit. From what I've read, the general opinion is that the courts would likely award the "injured" party significantly less than $5k (that's the statutory maximum).

The only way I see this really working is that the media corporations send out nasty letters saying "Pay us a couple of hundred bucks NOW!" followed by some impotent legal fluff threatening dire circumstances, and hope enough people just simply pay to make it go away. But anyone that understands the true nature of the new copyright act will realize that there is no way in hell the media companies are going to pursue people all the way to the steps of the courthouse and tens of thousands of dollars of their own expense.

There will be no Joel Tenenbaum's in Canada.

Re:Why TekSavvy?

[Gastropod_ca]

I've been a TekSavvy customer for a few months now (they only recently came to our area). I appreciate them for introducing a little bit of competition in Canada. I also appreciate that they fight for your digital rights. The reason I switched to TekSavvy was because I watched their CEO participate in discussions on TV Ontario's "The Agenda" and CBC about digital rights and competition. When I switched from Rogers(our cable monopoly internet provider), Rogers offered me a rate that was 1/2 of what I was paying and double the bandwidth. It was even lower than TekSavvy's rates but I switched anyways. You would never get such a deal if TekSavvy didn't exist. The switch was difficult because Rogers cut the cable line rather than transfer it to TekSavvy... but I'm finally off of the mega giant known as Roger's. I'm glad TekSavvy is publicizing these legal threats, it reminds me why I switched.

Charge them with extortion

[davecb]

At least one U.S. judge thinks it actually is extortion: at http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2012/07/04/judge-wright-is-so-right-copyright-trolling-is-essentially-an-extortion-scheme/ [fightcopyrighttrolls.com] Judge Otis D. Wright writes:

The Court is familiar with lawsuits like this one. AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1058, No. 1:12-cv-48(BAH) (D.D.C. filed January 11, 2012); Discount Video Center,Inc. v. Does 1-5041, No. C11-2694CW(PSG) (N.D. Cal. filed June 3, 2011); K-Beech,Inc. v. John Does 1-85, No. 3:11-cv-469-JAG (E.D. Va. filed July 21, 2011). These lawsuits run a common theme: plaintiff owns a copyright to a pornographic movie; plaintiff sues numerous John Does in a single action for using BitTorrent to pirate the movie; plaintiff subpoenas the ISPs to obtain the identities of these Does; if successful, plaintiff will send out demand letters to the Does; because of embarrassment, many Does will send back a nuisance-value check to the plaintiff. The cost to the plaintiff: a single filing fee, a bit of discovery, and stamps. The rewards: potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rarely do these cases reach the merits. The federal courts are not cogs in a plaintiff’s copyright-enforcement business model. The Court will not idly watch
what is essentially an extortion scheme, for a case that plaintiff has no intention of bringing to trial. By requiring Malibu to file separate lawsuits for each of the Doe Defendants, Malibu will have to expend additional resources to obtain a nuisance-value settlement — making this type of litigation less profitable. If Malibu desires to vindicate its copyright rights, it must do it the old-fashioned way and earn it.

They've asked for $10,000 per person in punitive damages, twice what the current law allows, so they either to think the old rules apply, or they're just trying to scare people into settling out of court.

--dave