Hurt Locker Still Shared Widely Online; Wonder Why Producers Aren't Issuing Takedowns?
from the why-interfere-with-the-business-model? dept
By now we all know about how the producers of the movie Hurt Locker, Voltage Pictures, are suing thousands of people for file sharing their movie. And, you're probably also aware of the claims from Nicolas Chartier, who runs Voltage, that anyone who thinks these lawsuits are a bad strategy is a moron and a thief. You might also be aware that Chartier's "morality" on such subjects does not extend to paying the soldier whose story the movie is based on, but we'll leave that for another day.However, it is interesting that despite all of this publicity and all of this attention about lawsuits, that file sharing for the movie has not dropped at all. It appears to still be quite popular on file sharing sites. More interesting is that Voltage, and the lawyers they've hired to file these thousands of lawsuits, US Copyright Group (or, more accurately, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) apparently have not issued a single DMCA takedown notice to get the file removed from various file sharing networks.
That's pretty telling, of course. It certainly suggests that this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with stopping file sharing or any sort of moral position. The law gives Voltage and US Copyright Group the tools, via a DMCA takedown to mitigate damages. But they're not using them. Instead, they're suing as many people as they can and threatening to take them to court if they don't pay up. That feels a lot more like a typical shakedown. If USCG and Voltage were really interested in stopping file sharing, why wouldn't they use the tools within the law to improve the situation for themselves? It does make you wonder, should any of these lawsuits actually reach a court, if those who are sued will point to Voltage's own failure to mitigate the infringement through the tools provided by the law....
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
Companies: dunlap grubb & weaver, us copyright group, voltage pictures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If they take it down how they will get people in the trap?
Aside from that, good luck for them.
They will get the low hanging fruit and people will quickly move on to something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question... if someone does not share the entire film, how are they responsible? that portion that they shared is nothing at all. just garbled info. Nothing watchable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it doesn't matter (to USCG.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't matter if you've downloaded/uploaded 0.1, 1, 10 or 100 copies--you'd be liable for one act of infringement. Whether or not it's "watchable" doesn't matter. It's the fact that you've downloaded/uploaded something without the right to do so that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright laws are perfect! They don't need reforming at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright laws are perfect! They don't need reforming at all."
You could be sued for the maximum statutory damages in that case. It doesn't mean they would get it.
This cuts both ways. If you downloaded the movie twice, you wouldn't be facing to twice the damages.
I'm just answering your question... I'm not saying I agree with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Off to download The Hurt Locker a billion times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Off to download The Hurt Locker a billion times."
LOL! :)
[ 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:
That's the beauty of the system! Not only does it extort money from those merely accused of infringing, but it stamps out competing free stuff as well! And the general public blindly goes along with it because big media and and entertainers tell them to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A person who only downloaded the legal or potential fair use sections but did not select the movie file itself may have a good case, IMHO. They certainly would not have been involved in losing any revenue for the full movie, which is what these suits are meant to be all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a "copyright maximalist" but I'll take a stab at your question. The movie and the sample are really the same work, so I'd view that as one infringement. You could raise the affirmative defense of fair use of the sample, but I don't think that would matter since it'd be one infringement either way. I'm not sure about the cover art. If it's copyrighted separately, it'd be another infringement. If it's part of the movie, then it's part of the same infringement as the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If it's part of the movie, then it's part of the same infringement as the movie."
I would disagree with this, in the sense that it's a separate file and that small samples for certain purposes are fair use. Criticism being one of them, and since trailers rarely reflect the actual content of the movie I would think this is OK.
I agree with the fact that such a person would be sued, but I'd hope that a court would find the fact that *only* the sample was download would not constitute infringement as someone intending to download the whole movie would.
I would also consider such a lawsuit to be stupid and counter-productive, as not only would it not regain any "lost" revenue (which would not have been lost in the first place as the person in question was not downloading something commercially available) but would not encourage the target to purchase movies in the future and may invoke a boycott from them and their friends and family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, sorry. I see what you were saying now. The torrent has separate parts, and you choose to download the sample and the poster art parts, not the main movie part. I didn't know you could pick and choose within a torrent like that.
I'd still say downloading the sample of the movie is one infringement, and the poster art potentially a second infringement. You could certainly argue that both were fair use, but that would be a defense. Keep in mind that fair use is a defense, not a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's a right. Copyright is a right that society grants to a copyright owner, and a specifically stated exception to that is fair use. I find your attitude disturbing, especially being a blog writer myself who regularly uses the criticism aspect of copyright law to illustrate my reviews.
But, the wider point is that the person downloading a sample or a poster would almost certainly not have *paid* for it - even if it was available. Therefore, there's no losses to be recouped by such a lawsuit and it can lose the copyright owner money quite easily.
...and yes, most torrent programs on their default settings will ask you which file(s) you want to download. So, you can be happily seeding a torrent without breaking any law and still be sue for it.
Not an exaggeration, either - I was once involved in a torrent with Roger Corman titles from the 50s to the 70s. I was only seeding those based 100% in the public domain, but by the logic of these discussions since there were copyrighted works on the same torrent, I deserved to be sued. Most disturbing, especially since some of those movies were not available anywhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No need to question my "attitude." I'm only expressing my belief of what the law is. I'm not taking sides. I meant that in a copyright infringement suit, fair use is an affirmative defense. That's a fact. The fair use doctrine states that fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. In a trial, the burden would be on the person claiming fair use to prove that it was so. If it was a right, the presumption would work the other way.
I am aware of the debate surrounding whether fair use is a right or a defense: I think it operates as both, depending on the context.
"But, the wider point is that the person downloading a sample or a poster would almost certainly not have *paid* for it - even if it was available. Therefore, there's no losses to be recouped by such a lawsuit and it can lose the copyright owner money quite easily."
If the copyright owner is seeking statutory damages then their actual loss wouldn't matter as much.
"...and yes, most torrent programs on their default settings will ask you which file(s) you want to download. So, you can be happily seeding a torrent without breaking any law and still be sue for it."
It depends on whether or not simply offering a file for download is infringement. I think the courts are divided on that issue at the moment.
"Not an exaggeration, either - I was once involved in a torrent with Roger Corman titles from the 50s to the 70s. I was only seeding those based 100% in the public domain, but by the logic of these discussions since there were copyrighted works on the same torrent, I deserved to be sued. Most disturbing, especially since some of those movies were not available anywhere else."
That sucks. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Understood, but we are essentially talking about the presumption of innocence vs. the presumption of guilt. I find the latter highly disturbing.
"If the copyright owner is seeking statutory damages then their actual loss wouldn't matter as much."
I'm intrigued by this - why? If their actual loss is $0, why should they be allowed to claim a statuary damages payment?
"That sucks. :("
Indeed it does, but it's only a semantic argument between what I just stated and my first post you disagreed with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The plaintiff has to make a prima facie case against you first, so you aren't really presumed guilty (or liable). The burden starts with them and then shifts to you. I get what you're saying though. The more I think about it, fair use is closer to a privilege than a right, procedurally speaking.
"I'm intrigued by this - why? If their actual loss is $0, why should they be allowed to claim a statuary damages payment?"
I don't know why Congress allows statutory damages in copyright infringement cases. Good question.
"Indeed it does, but it's only a semantic argument between what I just stated and my first post you disagreed with."
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they didn't, everyone would realize that copyright infringement doesn't do much harm, damages would be minimal, and nobody would follow the rules.
In other words: "Screw everyone else, copyright holders need to get paid."
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights tells all:
That report was part of the basis for the total re-working of copyright law in 1976.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your attribution was not the problem. The spade was, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a spade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it was ok. greenzone was better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think that the Oscar hype came from Bigelow being in line to be the first female Best Director Oscar winner as well as being a non-political examination of the Iraq occupation - so Academy voters could feel good about it while not being accused of partisan politics or liberal propaganda. That, and the fact that Bigelow is James Cameron's ex-wife put the boot in while avoiding another "king of the world " embarrassment.
That said, it's a solid movie, though not one that was ever going to light up the box office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I thought it was a kick-ass movie. I really enjoyed it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hate to use a physical good analogy here, but if someone steals my car and I don't report it to the police as stolen, then my insurance company will NOT reimburse me for the car because since I didn't report it stolen, it's not technically stolen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is absolutely NOT how copyright infringement suits work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
dmca notification and your willful infringement are two very different things. there is no legal relationship. sorry, you just fail. mike is going to cut your paycheck if you keep it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankly... The Hurt Locker Sucked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are hungry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are hungry...
*free lunches
so mad I had several typos...lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
Its obvious, its also true that law enforcement can take many forms, its up to the people trying to enforce the law how they go about doing it. As long as their actions are in turn within the law.
Just because they have the ability to takedown sites, does not mean they have to take that option.
And if they want to catch the people who are breaking the law, you let them break it and catch them in the act.
Sure, you could stop bank robbery by closing all the banks, or you could go out and catch the bank robbers.
But if you close the bank first, you never will catch any robbers, because they are not able to rob, so you deny honest people from using a bank to stop the dishonest ones.
May be they will eventually use take downs but I assume first they would need proof of violations, and I also assume they are gathering that information right now.
So if you are silly enough to download this movie, when you know they are taking names, and you get in trouble. Its no one elses fault but your own.
Its even worse because its been made public that is what they are doing, so how silly would you be to download that file knowing that they are taking your details ?
Common sense says you would be crazy to do that..
And just because they have not issued a takedown does not give you the right to assume its free for the taking, being available is not permission to take it.
As you should well know..
Its your responsibility to abide by the law, if you go into a bank and there is no one there and the vault is open you do not have the right to take a pile of money. By law and by basic morals.
Same if you find someone wallet, do you take the cash and throw it away, or do you find the rightfull owner and give the money and cards back?
I know what I would do and have done.
I know what is write and what is wrong, and I can use that knowledge to understand what to do if confronted with a situation where I have to make a moral decision.
So, just because something is accessible to me, does not give me the right to access it, that is just on a moral basis.
"Finders, Keepers" is not a valid defense.
And your moral compass should be able to tell you if what you are doing is right, lawfull and morally correct or not..
And if you cant decide, im sure you are entitled to go to court and defend your claim.. that is also the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
"Just because they have the ability to takedown sites, does not mean they have to take that option."
They don't have that ability. They do, however, have the ability to request the take down the infringing content.
"And if they want to catch the people who are breaking the law, you let them break it and catch them in the act.
"
This could be considered incitement to commit a crime...which itself is a crime, especially if you put the incriminating content online yourself. Watch your step.
"Sure, you could stop bank robbery by closing all the banks, or you could go out and catch the bank robbers.
"
Nobody is telling you to close banks. Only to inform the authorities when a robbery occurs.
"Its your responsibility to abide by the law, if you go into a bank and there is no one there and the vault is open you do not have the right to take a pile of money. By law and by basic morals."
Yes, but a bank has a limited amount of money. If I take it, they won't have any. I would be stealing. File sharing is different. Every time I take one file, there is one more, not one less.
"Same if you find someone wallet, do you take the cash and throw it away, or do you find the rightfull owner and give the money and cards back?"
Again, if I take it, it's gone, unlike file sharing.
"I know what is write and what is wrong, and I can use that knowledge to understand what to do if confronted with a situation where I have to make a moral decision."
People know what's right and what's wrong. So far, the majority of people don't seem to be much bothered by "piracy". Basically the only people you see complaining are the big media.
"So, just because something is accessible to me, does not give me the right to access it, that is just on a moral basis. "
You should stay off the Internet then. And libraries. And schools. All this free information is going to make your moral compass go haywire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
Yeah, that's dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry and Physics cannot be copyrighted. Most of the literature I studied in school is no longer under copyright.
They are all technically free (except if you buy them on a book...the book costs money).
Can't your "pea" brain handle that much free information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
Ignoring the tools provided to you to minimise the damage from infringement and subsequently suing infringers smacks of a money grab. While it may be legal, it’s difficult to sympathise with the film makers in this case.
If they were really concerned about the ongoing infringement they would be taking every measure to stop it, not watching it go on in the background while they sue thosands of people for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Equally, if they were as confident as they pretend to be that each of the suspected infringers was guilty, they would never opt for a settlement of a few thousand bucks when there’s a potential $150,000 per infringement waiting in the courtroom.
The whole operation is a scam by the short-sighted and bitter makers of a poorly marketed film. Hopefully enough people boycott their future productions as to cost them more than they could ever make from the settlements. I paid for The Hurt Locker on DVD, but I know they’ll never get another penny of my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation
More like: You come home to find some guy having sex with your child. You could call the police, or you could take pictures and blackmail him later.
...Hey, you're already comparing infringement with armed robbery. We might as well compare it with child rape, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand there is the regular refrain that rights holders should stop pursuing "platform" owners and start pursuing those who actually committed the alleged infringing acts. Why punish "platform" owners? They merely provide "dumb pipes", and imposing liability upon them ignores the true malfeasors.
But what happens when a rights holder pursues those who committed the allegedly infringing acts? In this case the rights holder is criticized for not using the DMCA against the "platform" owners.
The rule here seems to be that using the DMCA against "platform" owners is wrong, and that not using the DMCA against "platform" owners is shortsighted.
Of course, all of this is really a shorthand way of saying that copyright law should go the way of the "buggy whip".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am proud that my daughter uses iTunes when she wants to add music to her collection, music that she has heard over the radio, seen performed on television, or is by an artist whose music she truly appreciates. If she is short of cash she simply either saves money so she can buy it or else moves on to other music that is within her budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's an extremely simplistic view that sticks to the RIAA argument that the only reason why people download is the "get something for free". This is extremely untrue on many different levels.
"I am proud that my daughter uses iTunes when she wants to add music to her collection"
Why?
Maybe you're referring to the "legal" aspect of it, but then why aren't you encouraging her to seek out new music through AmieStreet or Jamendo that's no only innovate and free, but LEGALLY free. If you stick to iTunes, all you're encouraging is the "corporations know best" attitude, not anything moral or forward-looking.
"If she is short of cash she simply either saves money so she can buy it or else moves on to other music that is within her budget."
...which then raises the question of whether the pricing of music in the digital age is actually justifiable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is not just the RIAA (or the MPAA or the BSA or the (fill in the blank)) argument. It is a matter that is raised by many within the content-producing industries.
As for your comment about why people download, I deliberately inserted the word "some".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it's in the Disney vault? Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah . . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry if that will ruin your employment.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This comment in my view fairly exemplifies the "double speak" that so regularly appears in comments from certain anonymous cowards in matters pertaining to copyright law.
On the one hand there is the regular refrain that rights holders should stop pursuing "platform" owners and start pursuing those who actually committed the alleged infringing acts. Why punish "platform" owners? They merely provide "dumb pipes", and imposing liability upon them ignores the true malfeasors.
Slight misstatement of the position. It's not about "why punish the platform owners," it's about proper application of liability.
But what happens when a rights holder pursues those who committed the allegedly infringing acts? In this case the rights holder is criticized for not using the DMCA against the "platform" owners.
And here's where the doublespeak shines brightest. Using a DMCA to take down content is not doing something "against the platform owner." And you know it.
The rule here seems to be that using the DMCA against "platform" owners is wrong, and that not using the DMCA against "platform" owners is shortsighted.
Again, the DMCA takedown is not against the platform owner at all. It's against the uploader. Our complaints about the use of DMCA takedowns are when those takedowns themselves are either bogus or serve no purpose.
In this case -- which I thought was clear from the text -- was that these parties claim they're trying to stop file sharing, but are not using the tools that are readily available to them.
It is not doublespeak at all to point out that their actions do no match with their words, even if we feel that their choices in actions are mistaken.
Of course, all of this is really a shorthand way of saying that copyright law should go the way of the "buggy whip".
Misstating our position so blatantly does nothing to make us think that you are here to engage in serious debate, as you often insist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny.
Re your last sentence, are you implying that copyright law (and perhaps even patent law) in some form should be retained in our body of laws? This seems contradict your prior comments that "monopolies" of these sort are bad and should be eliminated.
I've made no such claim. I have said, repeatedly, that if there were actual evidence that such monopolies promoted the progress, I would be fine with them. My problem is the total lack of evidence.
My concern is not being pro- or anti-monopoly. It is being pro-innovation. To date, all evidence suggests monopolies are bad. So in that sense, I tend to be anti-monopoly. But if someone could show evidence that a monopoly leads to a better result, despite all of the economic evidence to the contrary, I am open to it.
I have said this many times before. Directly to you, in fact. Odd that you purposely ignore it. But telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Catching rats
You are a farmer, and you grown grain, you grain is mixed along with many other farmers grain in silo's that you do not own or have control of.
So you have a plague of rats, if you take down the silo where the rats presently are, they will go to the next silo and eat that grain (which is also yours, and others).
Mike, has often said you cant stop file sharing sites, new one will start with others close.
So like the silo's it does not solve the problem of the rat plague.
You can take down as many silo's as you like, but more will be available for the rats.
All you can do is kill the rats, and it is clear that is not possible by takeing away individual silo's.
(or DCMA site takedowns).
So you leave the silo's there, and you put nice tasty poison and rat traps all around.
You let the rats come and eat their fill, they then go away and die.
Problem solved, you are fixing the cause and not responding to the effect.
So if you are a rat and you are silly enough to go to the silo and feed on the nice tasting food there, and you can probably work out the next part.
As for this being "inciting theft" the producers of the content are not the ones providing the files online for free.
So the are not inciting crime, they are using what they consider (and I agree) would be the most effective method of dealing with the root issue.
Mike has said many times here, you will never be able to kill all the file sharing sites on the internet.
The copyright people have listened to Mike, and they agree, you cant, so why try.
Instead, fix the root cause of the problem, the people actually downloading and uploading illegal content.
What I find odd, is the justification for taking these files, fair use, or whatever. the bottom line is you want it for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Catching rats
This is the first time I've heard of farmers -- MANY farmers -- mixing their produce in a common location. I know finding working analogies is hard when you're being knee-jerk reactive, but at least show some effort; farmers are putting grain in silos for legitimate purposes. Going by your usual tirades on sharing sites/applications, it's hard to see how you thought comparing undeniably legitimate with what you consider illegitimate was a good idea for an analogy.
Look, I'll even help you out here -- if a dam springs a leak, it's a far better decision to divert the flow of the river, or otherwise fuck it up instead of repairing the leak. It actually more closely describes the situation, and makes you look just as ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]