Hurt Locker Producers Now Understand The Copyright Troll Shakedown Better: Sue 2,514 More Defendants
from the follow-the-bounding-ball dept
Voltage Pictures, the maker of The Hurt Locker, was one of the first companies to bring ridiculous copyright trolling practices to the US, where they sue thousands of people based solely on a questionably-sourced IP address. In fact, last year, the company sued nearly 25,000 people in one shot for supposedly file sharing the movie. Of course, the goal is not to actually go to court on any of these cases. Instead, it's just about getting people to pay up -- and so these "companies" are adapting.. And, as TorrentFreak noes, it appears that Voltage Pictures, (with an assist from Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver -- the tiny DC law firm that started "US Copyright Group" to do these kinds of cases, but which has gone nowhere) hasn't learned not to do this any more. It's just suing another 2,514 people for sharing, pretty much guaranteeing that no kids ever want to work for them in the future. However, it's also learned a few other things -- including how to get around the fact that many ISPs are pushing back on these kinds of things. For example, while plenty of ISPs have fought back against these lawsuits, in this lawsuit, Voltage Pictures only sued users who were subscribers of Charter Communications. Charter has shown a willingness to hand over such data when asked. So one way to avoid having ISPs challenge you in court is to focus on the ISP least likely to challenge your notices. Also, the new lawsuit is filed in Florida, which seems to have become the breeding ground for these kinds of troll fights lately -- so apparently Voltage and Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver think that perhaps this case might last long enough for them to get enough names and get enough people to pay to make it worthwhile. It would be nice if the court were to kill off the subpoena and note that it appears to be an abuse of power again.
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: hurt locker, isp, shakedown
Companies: us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ha. Once again reality has proven you all wrong!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boycott.
We have decided that your century is over.
Get real jobs or you will starve and die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Boycott.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Typo in title
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well that is the best most innovative business model ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: All the monies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They aren't idiots, they are fully aware that ip addresses don't identify infringers and they have no intention of taking anyone into court.
This particular business model relies on a percentage of the general public being ignorant and the purpose is simply to threaten them with court unless they pay up.
It's pretty much like patent trolling, going to court with representation will cost you money, paying the suggested amount will cost you less and if you are unaware of the fact that they will have absolutely no case, fearful perhaps that a member of your household might have done the thing you're being accused of, paying up might seem the best option.
It is a legal blackmail scam and that any judges allow it to persist for any time at all brings the entire judicial system into the utmost disrepute.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's hard, sometimes impracticable, and not very cool. A much cooler way of burning someone is to infect their machine with a trojan (skip this step if your victim is using windows, because they are probably already infected).
Then you can get use the sucker's machine as a proxy to download Hurt Locker into your own machine. The sucker gets the blame, while you get the files.
It's cool? From the perspective of the hacker, that is. The victim will just get shaken down by the studio.
(Just kidding here. Don't do this. It's bad.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"It's cool?"
should be
"It's cool."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not to diss the movie or anything
How many of these people probably downloaded it watched it once and moved on to other movies?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wish I could swarm in Florida
I'd fight back based on that alone.
big hugs ya'll
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Actually, it's pretty easy for your average script kiddie, and using WPA makes breaking it more time-consuming, but not more difficult. It's certainly not cool, though.
If you're using 802.11 and you are worried about someone making unauthorized use of it, don't think that the built-in security protects you. It's like locking your screen door: it will keep people from accidentally wandering in, but won't stop someone who is trying.
Instead, require a VPN over your Wifi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Interesting comment, that. It once again underlines how much short-term thinking is going on. "Apres moi le deluge" seems to be the industry's tenet. Maybe someone can make a nice coat of arms for them with those words.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right now we have one cable company in our city, and the DSL service is so terrible that even people who know nothing about technology want nothing to do with it. We have a fiber company that has the city ringed with fiber funded using some rural-only funding an authority from the state. The fiber company wants to lay fiber in the city itself now, and the local cable company is fighting that at insane levels. Even the threat of competition has been good for consumers; the local cable company has not raised rates recently, and has started offering some new package plans to existing customers that are actually attractive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I bet a dollar...
Since they have been in the shakedown business for a solid year now with nothing to show, the US Copyright Group has to find a way to prove their strategy profitable. As of now there are only downsides to their approach, thus not so many customers requesting the service.
If we could see the agreement for this latest round, I bet that Voltage is getting actual and potential revenue in exchange for little more than a head nod.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Wink wink nod nod.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know, I've seen this on my on-demand premium, and even though I could watch it for free - the nastiness of the whole situation on this... I just skipped it.
Look at the time, energy, and money wasted on this.
EVEN IF they win 99% of the lawsuits, I doubt they'd even collect enough to cover their travel expenses. I mean, seriously, if the people they are suing have the cash to pay for a judgement - it's very likely they would have had the cash to buy the movie.
Just be more chapter 7 filings after the 'award'... lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hurt Locker
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not to diss the movie or anything
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So they're looking in a mirror, thinking it's a window?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTW, happy World Intellectual Property Day!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The first one most likely won't go anywhere until 6 strikes is in full effect or Charter decides not having customers is more important than not bending over for the **AA's.
If it is the latter, they really can't do anything. A court has ordered your details to be handed over. Several courts, including the court of the former RIAA lobbyist, have ruled that the account holders aka does have no standing to stop this release. This is confusing in that the account holder might not actually be the Doe being sought and there is no freaking way from an IP address to prove this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I bet a dollar...
$350 to file for X thousand names. (X can be 1 or 20)
$X per name for the reports from the ISP, these have limits to how much.
$1 or less to send a threat/demand letter(s).
$5 or less to make phonecalls to scare the shakey ones.
Cost to settle, my timeline on USCG is off I am sure SJD can correct me if I am wrong, is around $3000.
Using the ACS:UK model the lawfirm gets to keep 80% of recovery AFTER costs. Costs include a cut going to the "company" providing the IP captures, they do NOT work for a set fee.
How many settlements do you need to reach profitability?
They tell people even if you didn't do it your somehow still responsible.
The Randazza Group was seeking $10,000 for people having open Wifi, for not having done enough to "secure" their connection. There is no law demanding this, and a court in Hawaii recently dismissed with prejudice that portion of a claim.
They will get you to throw your children, neighbors, etc under the bus and still seek money from you.
The USCG cases are slightly more clean than the porn shakedowns, threatening to publicly brand someone a pirate is disturbing but branding them a porn pirate is much more damaging. Steele's latest reinvention actually posted the names of the accused as pirates on their website, until someone submitted it in a court filing and suddenly that was gone.
The damage to your brand from pursing these cases is large. Shaking down 70+ yr olds for porn or Uwe Bolle films they allegedly downloaded really does stick in peoples minds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That is the beauty of these cases, no expert testimony to challenge the tech. No Judge has looked past a paid firms expert saying yep this is all perfectly 100% accurate.
It is well known they framed a laser printer on a P2P network multiple times, but Judges are unaware of this fact.
Until the tech is held up, it doesn't matter if you did or didn't do it... your on the list you need to pay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They were gathered most likely by a German firm, which if you dig will be a spin off of a larger firm.
Each troll and sometimes each case has a different German based firm providing the data. This is to keep them from having the domino effect hit all of the cases. If one of them actually ends up in court and the IP "evidence" is shown to be faulty only 1 case collapses. All of the other cases are different firms, even if they all use the same underlying tech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The real solution...
That would destroy this entire shakedown industry.
Allowing them to claim you will be on the hook for $150,000 and even if your innocent the cost to prove that will be more than our generous settlement offer. And all of your neighbors will know what we claim you did, and you'll be embarrassed. Just pay us.
Make the max award $25, the cost of a DVD + a little extra. See how long they try to keep going.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Only when the requests started to become 50K a month total did they decide they needed to do something.
And this is nothing compared to 6 strikes.
Where 6 accusations made with the same faulty tech will lead to some unknown steps being taken against you by the ISP. Supposedly disconnecting the user is off the table, but throttling connection down to just about dialup is on the table.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Came here for this, was not disappointed.
I read elsewhere, from a supposed vet, that the movie was nowhere near reality. Haven't seen it myself, nor will I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That's as sensible as Anonymous allegedly taking out the power grid. Pirates will fund what they think is worth funding. On the other hand the recording industries are keen on suing everyone regardless of whether they can pay up and keep the money for themselves, telling their underpaid staff to sue kids for money.
The industry is frolicking in the ashes of the goodwill of the people which they happily destroyed for quick bucks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's not a bad film, not sure how realistic it is. I did love the schadenfreude of seeing Kathryn Bigelow beat her ex husband at the Oscars, though...
I saw it for free, myself. Not because I pirated personally, but because the refusal to offer decent legal services here in Spain has led to a roaring trade for Chinese guys who wander round with cheap pirated DVDs of new films to sell to locals and tourists alike. A lot of people I know buy them, even though they'd mostly be willing to sign up for Netflix or similar, if only they were available... Oh well, I guess legalised protection rackets are more profitable than legitimate offerings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boycotting!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]