Warner Bros Claims Agency Ran Its Own Pirate Movie Site

Warner Bros Entertainment has sued talent agency Innovative Artists, claiming that the agency ran its own pirate site when it ripped DVD screeners and streamed them to associates via Google servers. TorrentFreak adds: In a lawsuit filed in a California federal court, Warner accuses the agency of effectively setting up its own pirate site, stocked with rips of DVD screeners that should have been kept secure. "Beginning in late 2015, Innovative Artists set up and operated an illegal digital distribution platform that copied movies and then distributed copies and streamed public performances of those movies to numerous people inside and outside of the agency," the complaint reads. "Innovative Artists stocked its platform with copies of Plaintiff's works, including copies that Innovative Artists made by ripping awards consideration 'screener' DVDs that Plaintiff sent to the agency to deliver to one of its clients." Given its position in the industry, Innovative Artists should have known better than to upload content, Warner's lawyers write.

Damn...

[Penguinisto]

...did y'all run out of single moms to sue for $millions or something?

That's getting pretty desperate for income when you're trying to screw over a vendor because they're too dumb to have a proper IT department...

Re:Damn...

[PatientZero]

Uh, they didn't screw up with IT and accidentally expose an unsecured file server. They purposely ripped and served up DVD screeners in direct violation of their agreements. Not some automatic shrink-wrap agreement or TOS but and actual specific, legal contract signed by both parties. I have no problem with companies enforcing their contractual agreements with each other.

Of course, I didn't RTFS. Were the culprits just some innovative—er, I mean opportunistic—employees, or was there a larger internal conspiracy?

Re:

[bws111]

Probably the address they have for the person is 'c/o Innovative Artists'.

Re:

[yotamoteuchi]

This just serves to remind everyone that this is how people think of copyrights, even those that benefit from them. Simple, intuitive actions will always win over artificial, constrained rules, even for the rule makers. Just take a moment to think about how many of Warner's own employees are probably doing the same?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

In mid 2008 after the indictment had been served, it was discovered that the main police investigator in the preliminary investigation had started working for one of the plaintiffs, Warner Brothers, before the date of the indictment.

The Pirate Bay trial [wikipedia.org]

Warner isn't above blatantly buying the legal system in one of the highest profile copyright cases ever.
They are pretty far beyond "desperate", they became organized crime a long time ago.

Themselves

[deadwill69]

I came to this thinking they were hosting their own pirated video site. Silly me. It was just one of their partners.

Re:

[skr95062]

They should use the hillary defense. "We didn't intend to commit a crime."

I tried that...
The cop still gave me a ticket for speeding, after he stopped laughing.

Re:

[TroII]

Speeding is a statutory offense; intent is not required, and lack thereof is not a defense.

Re:

[Coren22]

Since when do those laws require intent? I am sure that the Navy Sailor didn't intend to reveal classified information when he took a selfie in a sub's engine room:

http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]

No intent is required in classified leakage issues, only the failure to report...which last I checked, Hillary didn't do.

Re:

[Joe_Dragon]

you just went over the real limit on some roads it can be 15mph or more over the posted one.

Something seems rotten here

[swb]

Isn't an "associate" by which I assume "business associate" of a talent agency watching a movie kind of something Warner wants to happen? Like they want industry visibility of their product, especially to talent agencies?

Isn't it also fair to assume that among industry insiders "off the books" copies of films have been around forever and are widely circulated? I'd guess old timers have significant libraries of 35mm and 16mm prints which were never paid for and some of which may have been made in labs for

Re:

[bws111]

RTFA. They discovered this was happening because they were alerted that copies of the movies were appearing on file sharing sites. That is not 'industry insiders' getting access, it is everyone.

Re:

[gl4ss]

for old timers they would need to be rich old timers because..

well. "for nothing more than the cost of film and developing" was quite significant.

basically what they did was rip screeners and put them on their google docs. probably a few of those ended up getting copied to wider net.

why warner would care is that those screeners were never meant to be opened by or even watched by anyone else than the recipient personally.