And We're Off: Hurt Locker Files First 5,000 Lawsuits Against File Sharers
from the welcome-to-the-digital-hurt-locker dept
As was widely rumored and more or less confirmed by the rude email from Hurt Locker's producers, saying that anyone who thought this was a bad idea was a "moron" and a "thief," the producers of Hurt Locker have now officially started suing people, whom they accuse of sharing the movie online in an unauthorized manner. While the initial rumors said that there would be "tens of thousands" of lawsuits -- and some had predicted over 100,000 -- at least the initial burst is for 5,000 people. The actual complaint (pdf and also embedded below) has some fun claims about how a single copy being distributed destroys the whole market blah blah blah. That this point is disproved time and time again by box office results apparently doesn't matter:
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
Filed Under: copyright, hurt locker, lawsuits, nicolas chartier
Companies: voltage pictures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
afaik, those two p2p methods are dead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They do not track who downloads movies, as this is impossible. They track the IP addresses that appear> to be downloading potentially infringing material.
Unfortunately, the courts seem to be using IP address as a verifiable source of identity.
The sad fact remains that an IP address is nothing more than an assumable quantum state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
Wow. 3 million people. Oh wait! Not everyone in the States has an internet connection so it's less than 3 million people.
I bet half of those are children too.
WE HAVE TO DO EVERYHTING IN OUR POWER TO STOP ONE MILLION PEOPLE! WE MUST CHANGE THE LAWS! ACTA! LAWSUITS! THE LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IS CHANGE OUR BUSINESS MODELS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
on this forum
this forum
forum
6/10 troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie
And I can rip it any way I want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good movie
Even if it were the best movie that has ever been made, I'd still avoid watching it... even for free.
I refuse to give any manner of support to Nicolas Chartier, so I'm boycotting any project he is involved with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good movie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good movie
By watching a move (a bad one at that)? If that's what you call living, then I'll stick to my non-life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurt Locker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurt Locker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All BOR seems to prove to me is that a bunch of people went to see a movie in a theater. I do not see how this in any way shows that unauthorized downloading/uploading does not impact BOR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It shows, at the very least, that file sharing does not impact the box office in a significantly negative way. It suggests that increased file sharing may actually help box office receipts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe some P2P users did go to see it after watching a copy at home, but then again maybe some did not. There is no way of determining if P2P helped or hurt since there is no way to determine how many may have gone or not gone to a theater because of P2P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But then the extortion rackets wouldn't be able to make as much money, and lawyers would have to find better ways to siphon money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a side note, it is interesting that the suit was filed in DC...not exactly the location one would ordinarily expect for one involving a movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except there isn't any. Try again next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not expressing any opinion on the wisdom, or the lack thereof, concerning the lawsuit. I am merely noting that BOR proves nothing as some would have you believe.
As yet another side note, the law firm pursuing this lawsuit on behalf of the rights holder is about 12 short of a dozen. See copyrightsandcampaigns site to understand what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have some reason to believe that file sharing detrimentally affects box office revenue despite increased file sharing rates and increased box office revenue occurring simultaneously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
actual boxoffices sales are up dollar wise, but not as much seatwise. this is due to increased ticket prices, specifically for things like 3d and imax movies. the actual ticket sales are not increasing.
further, as the us population increases, all things being kept equal, ticket sales should go up by proportion. that isnt happening. we wont even discuss inflation and its effects.
further, as mike as pointed out here before, the number of movies being commercially released in some form or another has doubled, and yet income has shifted only a couple of percentage points. the take home per movie is way down on average. again, all things being equal, there should be tons more reason for people to go to the movies, and they are not doing so.
finally, you also have to look at the full chain / windows of sale to understand the effects. loss of dvd retail sales, lower buy rates on ppv, and so on are signs of slipping retail consumer activity. yet, pretty much everyone has seen the major movies. i wonder how that happens?
it is difficult to find solid hard link cause and effect because we are dealing with systems in motion. but it is clear that millions of people are getting their entertainment without paying, and there is no way that this doesnt have some effect, somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not worth..
I'm using your IP now:).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP
I have a DHCP ip as opposed to a Static ip,
ive had this vaguely described to me and i just want to clarify with someone that knows..
I was told that after power cycling my modem for 30 seconds i would receive a alternate ip address
If this is true, which as far as i can tell from hosting an online game, when i access www.whatismyip.com is gives me a different ip after the power cycle.
Would this in anyway help to "hide" my identity if i decided to acquire online content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP
You could choose to direct your traffic through a third-party proxy server, where whatismyip.com would just show the proxy server's IP. Then, you would be as private as the proxy server's level of logging and willingness to cooperate with whoever may ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP
While you are correct in that it will give you a new address in your situation, the ISP still knows what IP address was assigned to what person at what time. So if you download a movie from 3:05p to 3:20p, then change addresses at 3:30p when the copyright right inquires with the ISP they will just say who had this IP at 3:15p and they will know it was you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP
Do you work for the RIAA, your misinformation points that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
You can log into any number of wifi connections and be registered as their IP, agreed. The problem is that if they know it or not they are legally responsible for the activities that you do while on their connection. I disagree with this law but the unfortunate fact is that it is currently the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
See here for an awesome guide to this: http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/The-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP
No it doesn't. While it's different, your ISP logs both what your IP is and when you have it. So they can check their logs and see that while you don't have xxx.xxx.xxx now, you did four weeks ago. And that's how you'll get pegged. Fortunately, after 90 days or so (changed with the provider) those logs are wiped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP
The ISP can tell which physical address and account holder was routed that IP at what date and time. This was originally set up to protect against real life threats, and system abuse.
The argument of "Someone stole my IP" - It's much harder to spoof a valid IP than what these script kiddies think. The NOC has valid checks in place. An individual capable of correctly spoofing an IP address, would not use this to commit copyright infringement. Think higher along the lines of international and industrial espionage. If a subpoena is submitted, and an IP and account holder are returned, it IS near impossible to prove invalid.
"Someone hacked my wireless" does not fly either.
You have just breached your TOS with the ISP. Which IS a valid fine for unlawfully distributing services. If the **AA's dont' get you, the ISP will. It's your responsibility to successfully, and safely operate your network. Looking for excuses to pass the buck only proves you're guilty.
The best way not to get caught, is to not do something illegal. Does not matter if you agree with the law, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Citation -
Level III NOC employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP
FYI -
I am level XXXIII Noc tech at super ISP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA Complaints
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP
@Justin Pennington
Tyvm for the helpful info guys, much appreciated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the people downloaded the movie. they may be peering it to others. they are not innocent. this is another classic techdirt reach, not shocking to see it on here on a friday!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gee that's funny, I thought people accused in the US were innocent until proven guilty? I guess you don't know the law as well as you claim to. And what little evidence there is (IP addresses) is no guarantee that the person who is being sued is the same person that did the downloading. How about you stop lying and spreading BS around, m'kay?
Another classic TAM reach, not shocking to see on a day that ends in 'Y.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IANAL
Unauthorized copying and distributing of a copyrighted product is unlawful, an inconvenient detail you had to skip over entirely to create this post.
It may be helpful, it may be promotion, it may actually drive the bottom line, but the only pertinent fact here for the Hurt Locker producers is that they are acting on an actionable offense. If they have one case of it, they have one case. If they have evidence of 100,000 cases they have 100,000 potential cases. In a court that is (and should be) the beginning and the end of it. Ancillary, incidental, beneficial (questionable) effect is utterly beside the point, and of course you know that. Without an initial, contributory unlawful act there is no actionable transgression and consequently no possible letter of “extortion.” Simple.
But even more off balance, you suggest this is an abuse that US officials should act to curtail. Really? Do you really want to advocate that the most basic right to redress in a court of law for an unlawful act be taken off the table for everyone just because you prefer to be indifferent to some laws and instead focus on a grey area that you create out of thin air with your rhetoric?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL
Furthermore, in this case, there is really no way for anyone accused to obtain any information from the ISP about how and where the IP address are assigned, collected, stored, ect. There are highly complicated automated systems that are prone to error and exploitation.
This where the problem lies. If a mistake was made, and you are innocent, the process of defending yourself will, in the case of a federal lawsuit, do you more damage both financially and in the amount of time spent, than would simply paying the money.
The accused have basically no way to make a case to defend them-self and even if they were able to, it would likely cost more than just paying.
I leave you exhibit A:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/far-cry-innocence.ars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IANAL
Your modem is assigned a DHCP address based on its MAC address, which can be easily forged or spoofed. And so can IP addresses. How do you know a hacker hasn't compromised an ISP's edge router somewhere and has hijacked your IP address?? Or that the kid across the street hasn't cracked your WEP or WPA protected wifi?? Too many ifs to bring someone to court.
Bottom line is they would need more then an IP address. Show me the packet captures of the "alleged" copyrighted material that was downloaded to my ip address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL
if someone is hacking my connection, that is my problem, not the movie producers, and not the ISPs. if you are going to go to that extreme to download something, dont you think you are pretty much a lawbreaking asshole at some point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL
Ever consider here in AUS it is the phone service and user name NOT the MAC?
I can use any modem on my line... but not on another line regardless of user/mac.
so maybe tone it down a bit mate - your opinionated fangs are showing :)
Disclaimer: I am a Lv3 NOC tech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IANAL
Sharing your connection may violate the TOS and involve contract law (with your ISP) but it is not equal to direct copyright infringement with a 3rd party.
Tha'ts why just an IP cannot identify an infringer with absolute certainty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL
Really? Sam, I've never seen you post anything in agreement with me. You seem to always take the pro-stronger copyright position.
A classic extortion letter “pay up and nobody gets hurt” is delivered to someone whose total contribution to the situation is their mere existence. The perceived/mock offense is specious, it doesn’t exist; it’s the muscle behind the threat that gives it credibility, not some sense that someone actually did something unlawful.
And you don't think that in this process many innocent people will receive this threat letter? We've already seen with the RIAA cases and with the European ACS:Law cases that many innocent users get snared with these letters.
Unauthorized copying and distributing of a copyrighted product is unlawful, an inconvenient detail you had to skip over entirely to create this post.
Indeed. But the question is the actual impact of it, and the reasonableness of suing people for wanting to watch your movie. Considering the likely backlash for this move, it's going to cost the production company a lot more than they gain by shaking people down.
It may be helpful, it may be promotion, it may actually drive the bottom line, but the only pertinent fact here for the Hurt Locker producers is that they are acting on an actionable offense
Doing so grossly out of proportion to any "damage" done. That's the problem.
If they have one case of it, they have one case. If they have evidence of 100,000 cases they have 100,000 potential cases.
If they have evidence of 100,000 cases, then their problem is not with those people, but that they're clearly doing business badly. That's the only reason why so many people would defy your business model options.
But even more off balance, you suggest this is an abuse that US officials should act to curtail. Really? Do you really want to advocate that the most basic right to redress in a court of law for an unlawful act be taken off the table for everyone just because you prefer to be indifferent to some laws and instead focus on a grey area that you create out of thin air with your rhetoric?
When that redress is done in this manner (something you ignore) that is grossly out of proportion to the issue, and done in a way that will likely get many people to pay up without a good legal basis, then, yes, I do believe that is entirely reasonable.
In fact, I find it disturbing that anyone would think this is a reasonable response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IANAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IANAL
Oh come on, Mike. Get real. That laserjet was guilty and you know it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never saw it never will
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst is yet to come...
People might argue that the first offense would convince them to not download illegally again, but that's the problem. This opens the door to other claims with less of a burden of proof. There is now precedent to charge these folks for anything unintentionally downloaded (or watched). I could see them being sued for watching an SNL clip on Youtube (which they didn't necessarily watch or share, but perhaps stumbled upon), with precedent given to the fact that they 'regularly' download (receive) illegal content.... seems like a problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This was posted on another website, and this should be made clear to ANYONE who receives an extortion letter from Voltage for their Hurt Locker litigation scheme...
Letter:
IF YOU or anyone you know receives a subpoena from Voltage Films, contact the US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
AND FIND A DEFENSE ATTORNEY willing to LODGE a CLASS-ACTION Law-suit at Voltage Films for invasion of privacy and UNLAWFUL accusations.
The Film THE HURT LOCKER isn't being re-distributed, only "random" binary bits of numbers are being passed from computer to computer.
Merely obtaining an ISP address and an IP address IS NOT SUFFICIENT evidence to accuse someone of committing copyright infringement;
ANY individual can access ANY OTHER individual's computer and commit a crime.
Voltage and other Entertainment Industry Companies are FRIGHTENING private citizens into settling these unfounded lawsuits outside of court.
Strength comes in numbers: the Entertainment Companies wrongly accuse innocent citizens of copyright infringement and scare the citizens into settling a lawsuit without the private citizen CHALLENGING them in court.
For instance: a Grandfather paid a Record Company $5000 because The Grandfather was AFRAID to challenge the Record Company in their claim that his grand-daughter downloaded music to His personal computer!
THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT should be notified of these unscrupulous tactits of record and movie company's to SCARE (extort) private individuals to settle out of court without having a FAIR TRIAL.
See, Big Business' WEAPON is to Sue individuals who are unaware of other individuals receiving the same law-suit.
Its a scam: Entertainment Companies "Catch" private individuals who may or may not be guilty of copyright infringement and make them pay money without a trial--essentially, Big Businesses divide private citizens and conquer them via EXTORTION (scaring them into paying to avoid further cost of a trial).
Those who are accused by Entertainment Companies MUST POOL THEIR RESOURCES together to COUNTER-SUE the "bullying" companies like Voltage Films in this case.
Simply obtaining someone's ISP information IS NOT ENOUGH evidence to PROVE any one particular individual committed a crime.
Playfully all defendants will file a CLASS ACTION COUNTER- SUIT against VOLTAGE for ILLEGAL INVASION OF PRIVACY.
Anyone can sit at anyone else's computer and click on "buttons."
AN ISP or even an IP address is not enough evidence to determine who is guilty of distributing copyrighted material.
The FILM THE HURT LOCKER is copyrighted . . . only Binary numbers are being traded.
There is No Evidence that the actual FILM or digital recording of The hurt Locker has been distributed.
---
The Goal: if you are handed a subpoena alleging you committed copyright infringement, IMMEDIATELY contact other people who've received similar subpoenas . . .
Try to BANKRUPT VOLTAGE PICTURES via a series of Class-Action Counter-suits claiming false accusation and invasion of privacy as grounds for your COLLECTIVE legal counter-suits of VOLTAGE FILMS .
--
Thanks.
Nick Berry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it is a nice idea from some dimestore internet lawyer wannabe, but in the end, doesnt appear to hold water. please learn more about class action before you repost crap like this again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This from the moron who doesn't seem to realize that accused people are innocent until proven guilty.
"the people downloaded the movie. they may be peering it to others. they are not innocent."
Pot meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open and Shut
Yep, that about sums it up. In other words, "What we have here, is a total lack of respect for the law." ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open and Shut
I for one repect the law - those who make it is another matter :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only 5000?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extortion
The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Extortion
Well, the argument is that traditional extortion doesn't involve the victim having done anything illegal. So it's something like "pay up or someone might smash up your store."
So, the argument goes, this isn't extortion because the person may have actually done something illegal (i.e., copyright infringement), and thus, saying "pay up or else we'll sue" is not technically extortion, because the "pay up or else we sue" is over an actual illegal activity.
I'm not convinced that distinction is really that meaningful, especially in situation like this, where the activity is so prevalent, and the potential damages are so great and out of proportion to the activity.
However, courts haven't always agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extortion
I mean, if I tell someone, "Pay me or else I will tell the cops what you did"... That is blackmail. Isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extortion
Indeed, but this is slightly different in that it's not about not telling (i.e., keeping you safe from criminal prosecution). This is about avoiding filing a civil suit... So, still slightly different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Extortion
Good answer. It worries me that someone would not understand this without it being explained to them.
"I'm not convinced that distinction is really that meaningful, especially in situation like this, where the activity is so prevalent, and the potential damages are so great and out of proportion to the activity."
Uh oh, wrong answer. I think your (and others') ambivalence towards the law contributes to the problem. My perspective is that the usual $1500 settlement offer is a reasonable penalty/deterrent. It hurts but it isn't going to wreck anyone's life. I'm sure Jammie Thomas would jump at such an offer now. If people resist settling because they object to the action, they do so at their own peril, just like when they downloaded the movie and made it available to torrents in the first place. Remember, "13. The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the plaintiff." I don't think you can argue this point.
Will a couple of innocent people be caught in the net? Maybe. I'd like to hope not based on the granularity of data that can be provided to the plaintiffs, but mistakes happen. There have been a few visible mistakes made in the past, but to the best of my knowledge most were resolved, although I haven't done a lot of research on that point. The vast majority of people caught in the net will be guilty, of that I have no doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extortion
Expressing an opinion based on fact cannot be "wrong." You can disagree, but it cannot be wrong.
I think your (and others') ambivalence towards the law contributes to the problem. My perspective is that the usual $1500 settlement offer is a reasonable penalty/deterrent.
Ok. Using your language choices: "wrong answer." Given the nature of the infringement here, $1500 is a huge amount for an activity that many engage in, which hasn't been shown to cause any direct harm -- and which is done by many people who never would have paid in the first place.
It hurts but it isn't going to wreck anyone's life
Why does such an action deserve someone to be "hurt"?
I'm sure Jammie Thomas would jump at such an offer now.
Except she's already turned down a much lower settlement offer from the RIAA. She's fighting this based on principle (I think she's wrong to fight it on principle, because she's not going to win), but she's made it clear she won't settle for any amount.
If people resist settling because they object to the action, they do so at their own peril, just like when they downloaded the movie and made it available to torrents in the first place.
Indeed, but you're ignoring the larger question of whether or not this action is fair or proportionate.
How would you feel if you got one of those letters despite not having downloaded the film?
Remember, "13. The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the plaintiff." I don't think you can argue this point.
Um. Sure, you can argue that point.
Will a couple of innocent people be caught in the net? Maybe. I'd like to hope not based on the granularity of data that can be provided to the plaintiffs, but mistakes happen.
Granularity of the data? IP addresses? Really?
There have been a few visible mistakes made in the past, but to the best of my knowledge most were resolved, although I haven't done a lot of research on that point. The vast majority of people caught in the net will be guilty, of that I have no doubt.
Nice that you don't believe in the great American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Funny that you seem to be a big stickler for other US laws... but that one you can take a pass on.
Says a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
It can be wrong, in my opinion. If you disagree, so be it.
"Ok. Using your language choices: "wrong answer." Given the nature of the infringement here, $1500 is a huge amount for an activity that many engage in, which hasn't been shown to cause any direct harm -- and which is done by many people who never would have paid in the first place."
The fact that many people engage in this illegal activity doesn't legitimize it. In fact, it makes the $1500 settlement offer seem even more reasonable to me. The amount of harm to the plaintiff is nothing more than your opinion as a blogger unless and until it is accepted by a court.
Indeed, but you're ignoring the larger question of whether or not this action is fair or proportionate.
How would you feel if you got one of those letters despite not having downloaded the film?
I think the action is both fair and proportionate. If I received one of those letters and I hadn't downloaded the film, I would contact the legal firm and resolve it.
Remember, "13. The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the plaintiff." I don't think you can argue this point.
Um. Sure, you can argue that point.
No, I don't argue that point, I assert it because there is no other credible position, and I think it's one of the most important points in the dialog.
Will a couple of innocent people be caught in the net? Maybe. I'd like to hope not based on the granularity of data that can be provided to the plaintiffs, but mistakes happen.
Granularity of the data? IP addresses? Really?
If you think IP address is the granularity being used, you're naive. It's IP address + MAC ID + Userid at a minimum. There is also traffic pattern data that is being used.
Nice that you don't believe in the great American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Funny that you seem to be a big stickler for other US laws... but that one you can take a pass on.
Says a lot.
Now you're making things up. You're a liar, Mike. I do believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty (it isn't a law) and I have never said otherwise, so you're a liar. I have only said that my opinion is that the vast majority of those who will receive letters are guilty. In fact, I estimate that if mistakes are made, it will amount to no more than 5 out of 5000 people and the mistakes will be easily resolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
So no, he's not making things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
And you base this on what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion
But Mom, EVERYBODY'S DOING IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
about that award...
We seriously need some copyright reform in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how does this work
I've been reading about the recent Time Warner response to the Ewe Boll FarCry lawsuits, where they stated that they (TW) only kept IP records for ~6 months at the max. I'm sure this is the upper limit for most ISP's...most tend to be around 90 days or so.
Therefore, how exactly are they going to sue these Doe's - as in, from when are they targeting people.
Out of curiosity, how do producers/their IT wizards know exactly which IP's downloaded their files? I mean, do they piggyback some sort of passive tracker into all of the files and then, ahem, "leak" them, silently collecting data? Or...? I'm not certain at all.
I mean, most of the rippers for torrent files have been doing it for quite awhile, so I'm sure they could find these passive trackers and whatnot when they re-encode and upload the files to whatever trackers they use (e.g TPB, private trackers, what have you). Just some thoughts...discuss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
their "evidence" is too weak to even go to court
On a personal note, I have received one of these "pre-settlement" agreements, and I sent it back, with a threat from my lawyer. The company responsible has not yet replied(over a year ago that i sent it back, so, its not a "new" tactic, just not used en-mass like US copyright group and ACS Law did.
They send these threat/extortion letters hoping to get a stupid person that will just pay up, and never have to see the inside of a courtroom. They DO NOT EVER intend for any of these to get to the courts, as they would all be ruled frivolous in a matter of minutes. US copyright group is just hoping to make a buck from stupid people. I suggest you contact a real lawyer if you get one, and file a counter suit for harassment, and get criminal extortion charges going.
PS, can we get a PDF or link to what the letters are saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, thats right, the embedded journalist came up with the movie idea all on his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The only people they are pissing off are the type of people on this forum that download/STEAL the movie!"
Who are you trying to convince, exactly?
I've never torrented a film in my life (it eats up too much of my alotted bandwidth), and generally pay for movies. Due to the arrogance displayed by the sniveling producer of Hurt Locker, I'm definitely NOT seeing it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stealing
I've never downloaded an unauthorized work. I don't even have bittorrent on my computer.
Also, you should learn the difference between infringement and stealing.
That said, you actually believe this is a proportional response? You actually think this will help get more people to want to pay for a movie? Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stealing
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=134341123246967&v=wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will a court really allow marginally related defendants as one case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
roomies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are a parent, and you get a letter saying someone at your house downloaded whatever, you don't know if your kid did or didn't do something they should have. What if it was one of their friends? If your child says they did nothing wrong, then what, how does the parent know? Pay anyway?
There is no government oversight. The law firm(s) pushing these claims have financial motivation to generate revenue to keep the suits moving forward.
The fact is the average parent, or individual, will be manipulated and is vulnerable. I don't care if as many as 98% of the people who are contacted are guilty. Those innocent 2% don't deserve to be railroaded for the sake of some Washington, DC, lawfirm's bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
"If its too good to be true, it probably is"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Lawyers
Unfortunately, with civil cases, there is no burden of proof requirement. The court (or jury) only has to believe you're guilty and you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid Lawyers
Copyright infringement and inducing copyright infringement have specific requirements that point to an individual (or group), not an owner. If this wasn't the case, then internet cafes and other publicly accessible computer owners (like libraries) could be liable.
If the owner of a vehicle, who isn't driving, gets a red light ticket, the ticket will get thrown out if the owner appears in traffic court since the ticket is for a driver, not an owner. If this wasn't the case, rental car companies could be liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, it's only $1,500. That's about 25 new film releases, 7 video games, 20 CDs and a pirated copy of paint shop; or the equivalent of maybe 6 months of steady downloading. I am sure most who are caught are still ahead of the benefit curve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: seeded
If that client is only recording torrent information, then yes, it would only record people who seed. On the other hand, if it also seeds the content (or pretends to), then it may also record other clients that attempt to connect with it.
There's no way to know for sure, because the technology is proprietary.
Incidentally, I've seen no reports that it records anything other than an IP address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oops
After reading this post at CSS labs, it appears that they are targeting leechers as well.
I'm not sure if this is legally actionable - I thought that you needed to distribute material to be considered an infringer. (For example, that you could be sued for releasing a bootleg recording, but not for buying one.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurt Locker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurt Locker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurt Locker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the movie's way overrated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and jsut to rubn it in
and i will keep doing so all week
haha
F U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another idea
"is to rent it for 2 bux and copy it" - is the 2 dollars really going to change your life, or is the overall expense related to the need to be passively entertained 24/7?
"already made 16,000,000 dollars from this crappy movie"
"Crappy movie" is your opinion; fortunately, both your opinion and mine are irrelevant to whether or not one is obligated to pay for what one consumes - i don't recall ever being allowed to donate what i thought i should based on my enjoyment of the book / meal / whatever.
"Made" 16M dollars? hardly. that was the BOR. Out of that comes the theatre's share, the cost of producing physical prints @ $15,000 each, and marketing costs - probably at least $16M. They lost money on the film, as do 70% of films released. And though you did not make this statement, anyone who thinks they will make any money from this enforcement action once the lawyers and expenses are paid really needs to sit down and do some math. The reason behind this is deterrance, pure and simple, and the costs are being shared by all the studios in the form of their financial support for the MPAA and various support mechanisms such as the organization involved here.
Lastly, to think that it is the "producers" behind the suit is somewhat naive. Ask yourself the following: once the film goes into production, who owns the legal and financial rights and the legal authorship of the film? Hint: it isn't the producers. So if you're really peeved that someone might come after you for usurping a product for which a lot of money, and many people's time effort and creativity have been invested, perhaps you should boycott all the films produced by the studio? Or would that be too inconvenient?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another idea
Hey smart guy, take a look at the plaintiff listed in the lawsuit. Hint: it's the produciton company.
And this is only one of the many falsehoods in your comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because I don't want to see it. Did that one ever cross your mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet I still haven't paid for it. Since the filmmakers seem to have such a sense of entitlement, that should make me as big a villain as anyone who has downloaded the film.
Why exactly should filmmakers care if anyone who doesn't pay them has seen the movie or not? Not paying is not paying. What if I borrow the DVD from a friend? Holy cow, I've just seen the movie, AND I DIDN'T PAY FOR IT!
Or could it be, perhaps, that filmmakers still cling to the fallacy that every download is automatically a sale lost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they have no evidence whatsoever against a particular defendant, then that's a problem. But we don't know whether that's the case yet, because we don't know who any defendant is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think its ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of clickwrap
There is a legal concept called "clickwrap". Look it up on wikipedia.
To protect downloadable media, it must be "wrapped" with an "I agree" installation process. Think about the software you download.
I might have downloaded this movie as it seemed to be in the public domain. There was no "clickwrap" that prevented it from expanding on my computer and being shared with others. By the time I finally started viewing it, and saw it was only intended for professional private review, it could well have been shared with other people (that also were not advised by a clickwrap).
They only have recourse against people that may have illegally made their product available for public domain sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of clickwrap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its Called EXTORTION
Guilty until proven guilty, but why even have to prove anything when they'll just pay in fear? Its the new American profit model!
Im sorry but honestly, before they can do this they should need to subpoena your pc and verify that indeed you did DL the movie. Not just part of it, the full thing. Then like most civil suits not backed by corporate greed they should be able to sue for 3x the cost of goods, which would be the purchase price of the dvd. So i see this online for $30 MSRP, you should then be liable for $90 plus legal fees. Sadly this film has been reported by other sources as having been up for DL 6 full months prior to its debut at the festivals. Which means someone at, or possibly, voltage themselves seeded the original copies. Wow, organized corporate crime really does pay.
I wasted $15 on this piece of garbage in the cinema on the recommendation of many a fool. But I paid cash and didn't save my receipt so now I'm probably a criminal and therefore I deserve a lawsuit from voltage too or at least a hot poker in the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google helped us
Google uses my wifi....... Bad google
Neighbor uses my wifi....... Bad me??? wait what?? double standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UK and EU citizens also at risk
At CCS LABS, we are about to implement a perfect counter to attempts by companies like GuardaLey to spam the courts, ISPs and end users with law suits based on a detection accuracy rate of less than 1/1000.
Keep an eye on CCS-LABS.COM over the next week or so... good news is on the horizon which will stop these scamming companies from tricking you out of your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time-Length and View
How far back are they looking? From when the movie was produced? Last 2 years? 1 year? 6 months? I'm sure BitTorrent has a file dump session atleast every few months where data logs of I.P.'s get tossed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His stunt at the Oscars then this... Even an "artist" needs some semblance of class.
Then again, I'll probably rent The Whistleblower from a dollar kiosk when it gets there. Even if it gets terrible reviews with it's executive producer, Rachel Weisz won't.
By Virtue Fall and The Company You Keep are two more coming from his company, the latter is produced by Robert Redford, but I'll likely pass on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shame on Voltage
The obviously believe that because of the films' tremendous performance at the Oscars that it should have done much better at the box office. Perhaps there is some truth to this but I doubt it's that major a factor. After all, Ironman & Avatar had no problems and history is full of such films w/great reviews but poor performance at the box office.
The issue IMO, is simple; are the file-sharers responsible that the industry cannot issue its products in a copy-proof format because they haven't kept up with the rapidly changing technology? Answer=NO.
When dramatic changes in digital technology suited an industry (like it did in the manufacture of cd's over LP's) they took full advantage. Nobody complained about making too much money.
Voltage is making a big mistake, not because illegal file-sharing is not stealing (it is) but because having multi-million dollar film companies harassing individuals for exorbitant amounts of cash to cease hostilities against them is patently offensive. Where I come from, we call that extortion! They are suing their own customers; not very smart. It will be interesting to see how many of these Voltage lawsuit victims have legal copies of the film as well as their shared copies?
Voltage should really put it's energies behind devising a secure method of issuing digital media and stop extorting money from their own customers for taking advantage of technology they have at their fingertips!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook group
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about smaller films that don't have theatrical release
It's one thing to be back by a major-studio and big bucks, but if a film is a lower budget project, financed by smaller (not rich) investors, don't they deserve a return on their money.
Also, indie producers often have to pay the SAG agreements, etc. and so have expenses off the top BEFORE recouping anything. It would seem that piracy does hurt producers in these situations.
Thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Winkz..
So, if you stand for freedom of the internet copy your middle finger and send it by fax to Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver:
phone: 800-747-9354 x3885
fax: (202) 318-0242
e-mail: tdunlap@dglegal.com
You can also call them and give them a piece of your mind or flood their email. If everyone did this work at Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver would slow to a snails pace as no other faxes, emails or phone calls could get through. Make their life difficult as they have tried to, basically, illegally extort thousands of Americans. Give them a piece of your mind! Remember complaining and being an irate consumer is your right! File a complaint with your state attorney generals office. File complaints with the state bar association in Washington DC � I know that they won�t stand for this abuse of the legal system if enough American consumers complain about it to them:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Winkz..
This case is the one of the first of its kind, it must not be a profitable business model for other producers to copy. DO NOT GIVE THEM THE $2900 TO SETTLE. An IP address is about as identifiable as the make/model of the car you drive. All those file hashes, MAC adresses, times/dates/, and threats in that settlement letter don't ass up to SHIT. All they are doing is scaring non-tech savvy consumers into settling. I'm filing every complaint I possibly can, I encourage everyone to do the same as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile aside from the usual Anonymous64 troll, all the samefagging IP address trolls are nowhere to be seen.
Imagine that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]