Film88 Owner Fined $24 Million
from the seems-a-bit-extreme... dept
Two years ago, a site popped up in Taiwan called Movie88, that let people stream movies for $1. The site became somewhat popular, which, of course, forced the MPAA to step in. With a little help from friends in the US government, pressure was put in the right places and the Taiwanese hosting company pulled the site off the internet. It didn't take long for the site to reappear, this time as Film88, and claiming to be based in Iran, where US government pressure and laws were unlikely to be followed. The problem, though, is that the Iranian internet infrastructure wasn't quite up to the task, so the site was actually hosted in the Netherlands... where US pressure could be exerted, and the site was quickly shut down again. Soon after this, the movie industry sued the guy who ran both sites. It only took two years, but a California judge has found him guilty and ordered him to pay $23.8 million to the movie industry. Now, clearly, the guy was taking unauthorized files and streaming them online for profit. However, the punishment still seems a bit extreme. Streaming movies over the web is nothing like watching them in a theater or even on a DVD. It's unlikely that the industry actually lost very much money (let alone $24 million) from this guy. In fact, you could make the case that it may have helped increase revenue by convincing people that certain movies were worth buying on DVD or seeing in a theater. The popularity of the site showed that there was demand that the industry wasn't meeting. If the industry was smart, they would have looked for a way to offer something similar -- inexpensive, easy to use, movie streaming. Instead, they get their $24 million and millions of movie watchers don't get what they want.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
film88
I wonder how many movies were downloaded, even if your purchased all the DVD's that still 1.2 million DVD's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-- a little pregnant --
As the previous post indicated, the judgement and actual money to exchange hands is seldom the same thing. Nonetheless, the judge/jury found in favor of the plantiff.
I do agree that the streaming would probably help sales instead of hurting them due to streamings poor quality. But this would also assume that the movie was of any real interest to begin with.
But the judgement isn't about business practices and how to make them better. It's about mis-use of copyrighted material. Period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's still wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's still wrong
It's just that most people will quickly figure out that I'm offering it for free, and you won't have a business very long.
But, go ahead, and try. If you can do it, good for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
I guess a "fair" sum, would have been the average cost of a DVD or cinema ticket multiplied by the number of downloads.
Although even then it could be said that people would watch a movie for $1, but wouldn't have bothered for $10-20 (yeah I went to the cinema last night and it cost $10, I shall not be bothering again until SW Ep3 comes out, and that may be my last ever cinema visit).
Then there's the arguments of how many people were watching that one stream, how many then bought the DVD when it came out, or recommended it to friends who subsequently went to see it at the cinema....
It's all swings and roundabouts, and no fair sum can easily be calculated, but 24m is not a fair sum be any stretch of the imagination.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's still wrong
OK, how about if somebody subscribed to your paid content and then sold it for less? That's more analogous to what the Film88 low-life was doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: -- a little pregnant --
If the Film88 guy actually cared about helping the film industry, he could have offered his services as a consultant to help them set up a streaming service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damages
For more information, read GigaLaw to find out why this can happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Damages
[ link to this | view in thread ]