Hollywood Studios Call Six Strikes A 'Sham,' Cue Plans For Something Much Worse

from the deep-well-of-dysfunction dept

When the entertainment and broadband industries' "six strikes" anti-piracy regime first launched a few years ago, most people (outside of Hollywood) realized it wouldn't work for a number of reasons. One, data has pretty consistently shown that such graduated response anti-piracy systems -- whether three "strikes" or six -- don't work, and in fact may actually make things worse. Two, even partner ISP execs I spoke to ahead of the program's launch made it clear they knew the program wouldn't do much, with most infringers simply hiding their behavior behind proxy servers of VPNs.

Publicly, the firm created to run the program (the Center for Copyright Information) has frequently tried to claim the program is a smashing success, often using unreliable, contradictory evidence to try and suggest pushing ISPs into the role of content nannies was a wonderful idea. But privately, Hollywood and the MPAA have acknowledged the program isn't doing much, though they're quick to argue that this is only because it hasn't yet been "brought up to scale."

Amusingly, some of the very same Hollywood voices that pushed so hard for six strikes and ignored warnings that it wouldn't work, are now calling the program an abject failure. The Internet Security Task Force, a coalition of smaller studios, which counts copyright troll Voltage Pictures among its members, has come out swinging this week against six strikes in a press release, calling the program a "sham":

"We’ve always known the Copyright Alert System was ineffective, as it allows people to steal six movies from us before they get an educational leaflet. But now we have the data to prove that it’s a sham," Gill comments. "On our film ‘Expendables 3,’ which has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times, the CAS only allowed 0.3% of our infringement notices through to their customers. The other 99.7% of the time, the notices went in the trash,” he adds."

One, ISTF doesn't appear to know how the program Hollywood pushed for actually works, since users receive an "educational leaflet" the first time they're found to infringe. Steps two through six then include "mitigation measures" that may involve having your connection throttled or finding your broadband access temporarily suspended until you've clearly acknowledged you've been naughty. Users then have the honor of paying a $35 fee if they'd like to fight the accusation. After the sixth strike nothing happens, and nobody tracks offenders between ISPs, something Hollywood is surely eager to "remedy" with program updates.

ISTF notes that the five major ISPs participating in six strikes (AT&T U-verse, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon FiOS), saw a 4.54% increase in infringements during the fourth quarter of last year. Two non-participating ISPs, Charter and Cox (the latter of which is being sued by BMG for allegedly ignoring piracy), saw a 25.47% decrease in infringements during that same period. Assuming you can trust Hollywood math here (never a wise bet), the ISTF claims this is proof of the fact that ISPs aren't taking piracy seriously:

"These alarming numbers show that the CAS is little more than talking point utilized to suggest these five ISPs are doing something to combat piracy when in actuality, their customers are free to continue pirating content with absolutely no consequences," said ISTF member Nicolas Chartier, CEO of Voltage. "As for its laughable six strikes policy, would any American retailer wait for someone to rob them six times before handing them an educational leaflet? Of course not, they call the cops the first time around."

Of course if non-participating ISPs are seeing infringement drop massively while participating ISPs are seeing a slight rise, that would seem to suggest that graduated response programs actually make things worse, which is what data Hollywood ignored said in the first place. The ISTF's solution for the States is to implement an uglier version of Canada's Copyright Modernization Act, which gives ISPs safe harbor only if they agree to pass on all infringement notices. While the Canadian law caps damages, it hasn't done much to thwart copyright trolls, who appear to just be making up for the income reduction by shaking down Canadian users on greater scale.

While these smaller studios are solely focused on greasing the rails for their "settlement-o-matic" shake downs, it's only a matter of time before the MPAA and the larger studios start pushing for "improvements" to six strikes as well, whether that's an organization that tracks offenders between ISPs, or a frontal assault on VPNs and proxy services. And that's just it, these studios consistently whine about the need for aggressive enforcement policies that have been proven not to work, and when they fail the answer isn't adaptation of the business models to the modern age, it's an expansion of already-bad ideas that clearly aren't working. It's a bottomless well of dysfunction. Unfortunately for Hollywood, any expansion of six strikes is going to have a steeper uphill climb in the post SOPA era, which may hinder the program from mutating into something truly monstrous.

Filed Under: cas, copyright, copyright alert system, copyright trolling, hollywood, infringement, isps, six strikes, studios
Companies: cci, internet security task force, istf, mpaa, voltage pictures

Australian Court Says Dallas Buyers Club Copyright Trolling May Proceed, With Some Caveats

from the the-details-will-matter dept

Late last year, we noted that Australian ISP iiNet -- well-known for pushing back against anti-consumer practices in both surveillance and copyright enforcement -- had decided to go to court to fight a copyright trolling attempt by Voltage Pictures, the Hollywood studio behind Dallas Buyers Club. Voltage Pictures has also made a name for itself as a major copyright troll, shaking down people around the globe and loudly insulting anyone who questions the strategy.

As iiNet explained at the time, it had no problem with going after copyright infringers, but it wasn't comfortable with the copyright trolling practice of "speculative invoicing" -- which is the nice term for shaking people down by sending them an invoice and telling them the only way to avoid a lawsuit is to pay up. iiNet basically said that it would turn over user information only if ordered by a court, which is the proper response. Even though, during the course of the court case iiNet raised serious concerns about Voltage Pictures' "expert" Daniel Macek (a name you may recognize as also being a key figure in Malibu Media's copyright trolling game via a variety of shell companies), the court has now said that iiNet has to turn over the info.

However, the court appears to recognize at least some of how copyright trolling works, and says that the shakedown letters sent to iiNet subscribers must "first be submitted [to the court] for approval." It remains to be seen what the court will approve concerning such letters, but at the very least, hopefully this will prevent the aggressive shakedown actions seen concerning Dallas Buyers Club/Voltage Pictures in other countries.

Also, it's worth noting that last month, another Australian ISP, TPG, announced plans to acquire iiNet (subject to regulatory review), leading many to (reasonably) wonder if iiNet was going to continue its pro-subscriber advocacy in the future. Given the strong efforts made by iiNet over the years to stand up for the rights of its customers, it would be a shame to see the new company turn into yet another ISP with little concern for its subscribers.

Filed Under: austalia, copyright, copyright trolling, dallas buyers club, daniel macek, privacy
Companies: dallas buyers club llc, iinet, voltage pictures

Voltage Pictures Has To Pay $22k To Canadian ISP If It Wants Names For Its Shakedown Scheme

from the still-is-problematic dept

Voltage Pictures is the fairly successful movie studio that has a side business as a copyright troll -- sending angry threat letters demanding cash based on flimsy evidence about people who may have downloaded its films. While it originally focused on the US, more recently it has been trolling in other countries as well. When Canada changed its copyright laws a few years ago, Voltage immediately saw it as an opportunity to expand its trolling operations. It initially targeted Canadian ISP TekSavvy which refused to cough up names, but a year ago, the court ordered Teksavvy to cough up names -- but also said that it would review Voltage's shakedown letters to make sure they didn't overstate the company's position.

There was one remaining issue however: how much Voltage needed to pay TekSavvy for the privilege of getting the names. TekSavvy asked for about $350,000 to reveal about 2,000 names, while Voltage said it should only have to pay $884. The court has now given neither party exactly what it wants, saying that Voltage Pictures should pay $21,557.50 -- which works out to a little under $11 per user.

Just like this ruling didn't quite satisfy either Voltage or TekSavvy, it similarly is problematic for future copyright trolling situations on both sides. Michael Geist's discussion highlights the issues. For Voltage, at this price, and (importantly!) given the limitations of Canada's copyright laws on how much a copyright holder can get for infringement, the copyright trolling business might not be that profitable:

The big question now is whether Voltage will proceed with the case. Given their expense to date, they will likely pay the costs and obtain the names. However, they must be committed to going to court over the claims, since the court made it clear that merely sending threats would be viewed as copyright trolling for future claims. Yet with the cap on liability for non-commercial infringement, the further costs of litigating against individuals, the actual value of the works, and the need to obtain court approval on demand letters, it is hard to see how this is a business model that works. Indeed, that is what the court initial noted, stating that “damages against individual subscribers even on a generous consideration of the Copyright Act damage provisions may be miniscule compared to the cost, time and effort in pursuing a claim against the subscriber.”

But, on the flip side, the ruling is problematic in that it refused to let TekSavvy recover the costs associated with defending its users' privacy. The message, then, to ISPs is that it may be too costly to fight for users' privacy rights:

The decision unpacks all the cost claims, but the key finding was that costs related to the initial motion over whether there should be disclosure of subscriber information was separate from the costs of abiding by the order the court ultimately issued. The motion judge did not address costs at the time and the court now says it is too late to address them.

That approach seemingly does not reflect how the parties viewed the case given that this was an unprecedented action. With TekSavvy now bearing all of those motion costs (in addition to costs associated with informing customers), the decision sends a warning signal to ISPs that getting involved in these cases can lead to significant costs that won’t be recouped. That is a bad message for privacy.

Meanwhile, this just acts as yet another reminder as to why no one should bother watching movies produced by Voltage Pictures.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, copyright trolling, fees
Companies: teksavvy, voltage pictures

Copyright Troll And Famed Movie Producer Nicolas Chartier Debunks Entire Hollywood Talking Point About Protecting The 'Little Guy'

from the it's-about-lining-his-own-pocket dept

Nicolas Chartier is the CEO of Voltage Pictures, a very high-profile movie studio, thanks mainly to producing some critically acclaimed films like Hurt Locker and Dallas Buyers Club. For the past five years, Chartier has also been known as an over-the-top, somewhat ridiculous copyright troll, thinking that it's smart to sue thousands of fans of his films. When this began, someone sent him a very polite email, explaining why he thought suing fans was a bad idea that might backfire, and Chartier responded by calling him a moron and a thief. Chartier doesn't seem particularly thoughtful, but is very, very emotional about this stuff.

The Hollywood Reporter has a big interview with Chartier where he continues to make ridiculous statements, often without any foundation, and also undermines Hollywood's carefully crafted narrative about how its fight against piracy is really about protecting the jobs of the little guys, the union workers who work on films. Creative Future, the astroturf group set up by Hollywood to push for stronger copyright laws and to attack innovative services that threaten its obsolete business model, likes to trot out the "little guys" who work on movies, and highlights that it's a partnership between the studios and the unions. Yet, in the interview Chartier repeats his attacks on union works in Hollywood and points out that he films outside of the country to avoid paying them:

Bruce Willis makes a million a day, but we make the movie because of Bruce Willis. But at the same time, when I see a union driver sitting for 12 hours and being really difficult, that's why we end up shooting a lot of movies in foreign countries. People don't understand that without movie stars making big money, there's no movie. It's nice to victimize the big stars, but we need that because otherwise we don't make the movie. I don't make the movie because of the driver.

Yup, this is all about the rich getting richer, and Chartier apparently has no problem admitting that he'd screw over the everyday workers on films when he can. The fight over these things has never been about the everyday worker. They get paid their standard rate no matter what the film does. The issue is over the fat cats at the top. Also, that line about the movie only getting made because of the stars? Yeah, that's not exactly true either. As we've discussed in the past, there's no evidence that having a big name movie star helps a film do any better. It's just because Hollywood is so sucked into this vortex of believing that a "name" makes a movie that it focuses on that. That isn't to say that good acting isn't important. Great actors can make a real difference, but the idea that a big name is necessary to make a big film simply isn't supported by the evidence.

But Chartier isn't big on evidence or facts. He just makes up whatever he wants -- like his claim that the day after they announced plans to sue Hurt Locker downloaders, people suddenly stopped downloading the movie:

And the day after we announced 20,000 lawsuits, the Internet downloads of Hurt Locker went down about 40 percent. So, you know, you frighten people and then they stop.

Yeah, that didn't happen. And, really, in this day and age, if you're still going to claim that every download is a lost sale, it suggests you haven't put much (if any) thought into what's going on:

Hurt Locker ended up winning six Oscars, but at the same time we had 8 million illegal downloads on the movie. And I was like, "Wow, you know, we barely reimbursed the movie and we had 8 million illegal downloads." Well, if everybody had given me one dollar, that would be 8 million dollars, and the movie cost 11, so we lost 80 percent of the movie to piracy. That cannot hold

Or, you know, there are people like me who didn't see the movie, but wanted to. And then you sued all those downloaders and it got crossed off the list of movies I would rent. Ditto for any other Voltage picture. To this day, I've never seen a single one of them, and I know I'm not the only person to do so. Those are true "lost sales" because I absolutely intended to pay to see the movie. But now I won't. Unlike most of the people who downloaded who never would have paid. It's like Chartier doesn't even understand what battle he's really fighting.

He should be looking for ways to get more people to see movies. Instead, he's fighting ghosts: people who would never pay. It's not too different from his fight against the everyday people who work on his movies. He's pushing to keep down how much they pay while happily paying stars many millions. While he may have a knack for picking good movies, he doesn't seem to have much business sense, always fighting the wrong fight.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, dallas buyers club, hurt locker, movies, nicolas chartier, piracy, unions
Companies: voltage pictures

Voltage Pictures Abuses Trademark Law To Go After Dallas Buyers Club Downloaders

from the of-course-they-are dept

We've discussed how Voltage Pictures, a big time Hollywood producer behind award winning films like Hurt Locker and Dallas Buyers Club, has been one of the few non-porn film entities to really embrace copyright trolling (in particular over those two named films). We've also discussed how courts have been frowning on mass copyright trolling lawsuits of late, leading some copyright trolls to seek alternative means to identifying accounts associated with particular IP addresses. For example, we noted that infamous troll Prenda Law has tried both questionable CFAA claims and a bizarre interpretation of an antiquated Florida state law, known as "pure bill of discovery" (a move that failed miserably).

It appears that Voltage and its lawyers' latest trick is to abuse Oregon's state trademark law, which is clearly designed for things like stopping counterfeit physical goods, and not to go after people sharing a movie they like. This was first noted on the Troll Defense blog written by Benjamin Justus (representing two defendants in these suits), with further reporting done by Joe Mullin at Ars Technica:

"It's a little bit puzzling to me, because they can't get damages against these people under Oregon trademark law," said Justus in an interview with Ars. "They'd have to prove they applied a counterfeit mark to a product. I have looked at the law, and this is not a slam-dunk case. My guess is that the lawyer for Voltage is trying to find a more convenient and friendly court to get his subpoenas out."

That's a good guess, because this has always just been about getting names and contact info in order to pester people. None of these cases ever go to actual trial. The legal damages are basically meaningless, because the copyright holder never intends to pursue this under the law. The reason for all these "workarounds" is exactly as claimed: seeking a "more convenient" way to get the subpoenas out to get this information. Picking random state laws is often more convenient, especially as less sophisticated state courts often have a lot less familiarity with the nature of copyright trolling and how these cases have fared at the federal level.

In fact, these filings try to make the same "joinder" case for lumping totally separate people together that has failed in so many copyright trolling cases across the country. Given that, it seems fairly clear that Voltage is basically just jurisdiction shopping for less sophisticated and less knowledgeable state courts. That really seems to be a serious abuse of the judicial process.

And, of course, the "trademark" claim itself is laughable. No one is infringing on the trademark here at all, no matter how Voltage's lawyers seek to twist the law. The lawsuit itself is full of emotional arguments -- including calling infringement "stealing," perhaps because the legal ones are not particularly compelling. Speaking to Joe Mullin at Ars Technica, Justus also noted that he gets the sense that this is "personal for the higher-ups" at Voltage. I think that was established many years ago. You may recall that when Voltage first started copyright trolling, a fan emailed Voltage's Nicolas Chartier to try to engage him in a friendly, respectful conversation about how copyright trolling probably wasn't a good way to win fans, and that there might be more appropriate ways to deal with the issue. In response, Chartier lashed out at the person, called him "a moron" and told him to "keep being stupid" and "I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day."

So, yeah, it's pretty clear that this is an emotional thing for Voltage, and no attempt to talk sense to the company's execs is likely to do much useful. Given that, it's unsurprising that Voltage would now seek to abuse a state trademark law to continue on a path that has been failing using federal copyright law.

Filed Under: benjamin justus, dallas buyers club, nicolas chartier, oregon, trademark
Companies: voltage pictures

Voltage Pictures Both Wins And Loses In Canadian Copyright Troll Attempt

from the remind-me-not-to-watch-your-films dept

You might remember how Voltage Pictures, creators of The Hurt Locker, was the first studio in the United States to really try to take a stab at copyright trolling, suing large numbers of purported P2P copyright violators en masse. Despite struggles with this approach the company has proven persistent, with Voltage boss Nicolas Chartier insisting that anybody that criticizes his company's approach to business is a "moron and a thief." The company recently scaled down their efforts slightly, earlier this month filing a lawsuit against 31 anonymous people for using BitTorrent to obtain their latest film, Dallas Buyers Club.

After spreading such love and joy in the States, the company turned its sights on Canada in late 2012, where they took specific aim at a small independent ISP by the name of TekSavvy. Over the weekend, a Canadian court ruled that TekSavvy would have to hand over the personal data of roughly 2,000 customers who obtained copies of Voltage films via BitTorrent. Those users can now look forward to "settlement-o-matic" letters from Voltage demanding anything from $100 to $5,000 under Canada's federal Copyright Act.

While the court did feel bound by precedent to allow the release of user names, Judge Kevin Aalto at least recognized the hazards of copyright trolling, including numerous safeguards such as the requirement that Voltage have the precise wording of these letters signed off on by the court before they get sent to end users:

"In order to ensure there is no inappropriate language in any demand letter sent to the alleged infringers, the draft demand letter will be provided to the court for review," Aalto wrote. "Any correspondence sent by Voltage to any subscriber shall clearly state in bold type that no court has yet made a determination that such subscriber has infringed or is liable in any way for payment of damages."

The court also required that any subscriber must be able to request a full copy of the Judge's order, which Voltage will have to pay for. TekSavvy's legal bills must also be paid in full before any information is exchanged, and Voltage is prohibited from exposing any of the data to the media, or putting it to use for "other purposes." All told, under Canadian law it may not make financial sense for Voltage to pursue this further. Canadian law professor Michael Geist does a nice job showing how being a copyright troll in Canada isn't going to be worth the expense:

"Even if Voltage were successful in convincing a court to award ten times the marketplace value of a $15 movie - $150 - the economics do not make sense. Assuming Voltage manages to convince 75% of recipients to settle for the $150 demand, the campaign would generate $225,000 in revenue. Yet that must be offset by paying the TekSavvy costs before any names are released (which alone were estimated at $200,000 at the federal court hearing), covering their own costs (assume a matching $200,000 to collect the IP addresses, retain experts, and fund the litigation), and dealing with thousands of demand letter recipients (if each letter costs $30 in time and money that adds another $45,000)."

Between the restrictions prohibiting Voltage from using their usual scare tactics in the letters and the high costs of pursuing things further, it doesn't look like Voltage is going to have much fun during their visit north of the border after all.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, the hurt locker, troll
Companies: teksavvy, voltage pictures

Voltage Pictures Continues To Use Its High Profile Films To Copyright Troll

from the sad dept

Voltage Pictures is the movie studio which famously kicked off the process of copyright trolling by "suing" thousands of people who, it claimed, had illegally downloaded its Oscar-winning movie, Hurt Locker, via Bittorrent, and whose producer, Nicolas Chartier, said that anyone who thought this was a bad plan was a moron and a thief. It recently did the same thing in Canada, and apparently can't resist still suing fans. The latest is a new lawsuit filed against 31 anonymous people for supposedly using Bittorrent to get Dallas Buyers Club, an Oscar-nominated film from the same studio. This lawsuit at least seems a bit more targeted, in that it tried to make sure the targeted IPs were actually in the jurisdiction of the court, unlike in the Hurt Locker case. These attempts at lumping a bunch of individuals for a single lawsuit has run into trouble in many (though not all) courts. Still, as a way of making sure that a lot of people will simply avoid any Voltage movie, it seems like an effective strategy. It seems like a reasonable rule to not support any company that sues its fans.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, dallas buyers club, joinder, nicolas chartier
Companies: voltage pictures

Canadian Anti-Infringement Enforcement Company Caught Using Infringing Photos On Its Website

from the casual-infringement-for-all! dept

IP "enforcement" is a Herculean task (according to the enforcers), one that requires so much time and energy that those pursuing infringers barely have time to make sure their own backyard is clean. Many in the copyright industry (or closely affiliated) have been caught infringing on others' copyrights: hosted infringing material. SOPA pusher Lamar Smith. NBC Universal. Righthaven. The US Copyright Group. The list literally goes on and on.

Here we are again, discussing an entity so concerned with outside infringement, it can hardly be bothered to notice the infringement within its own walls. Canipre, the Canadian "forensics software" company that has hunted down IP addresses for a "million pirates" on behalf of lawsuit-happy studios like Voltage Pictures ('Hurt Locker,' anyone), has decked out its (rather overdramatic) website with the unlicensed photos belonging to others.

Canipre, as a company, offers to track down people who are illegally downloading copyrighted material from record companies and film studios. According to their website, they have issued more than 3,500,000 takedown notices, and their work has led to multimillion dollar damages awards, injunctions, seizure of assets, and even incarceration.

In a recent interview, Canipre's managing director Barry Logan explained that it's about much more than just money—he's hoping to teach the Canadian public a moral lesson:

"[We want to] change social attitudes toward downloading. Many people know it is illegal but they continue to do it... Our collective goal is not to sue everybody… but to change the sense of entitlement that people have, regarding Internet-based theft of property.”

Well, it seems the "sense of entitlement" goes all the way up. Here's a screencap of Canipre's website that features a self-portrait by Steve Houk.


We'll quote Vice here:

So, just to be clear: Canipre has written "they all know it's wrong and they're still doing it." Referring to copyright theft. On top of an image that they are using without the permission of the copyright holder. On their official website.

Houk says no permission was given to use his photo. He contacted Canipre directly to discuss its infringement and to point out that is was "disheartening" to see a company claiming to "champion intellectual property rights" obviously disregarding the rights of others. This led to Canipre's marketing director firing off a volley of emails and phone calls before finally deciding to pass the buck.

Logan claimed that the company used a 3rd party vendor to develop their website and that the vendor had purchased the image from an image bank.

I pointed out to Logan that if that was true, he had basically paid his vendor to rip off other people's creative work. Logan told me that he would contact his web provider and have the image removed. He also told me that he would provide me with the name of the website developer and the name of the image bank where they obtained my photo.

So, it's important that Canipre maintains a presence on the web that properly (and noirishly) delivers its message on the importance of intellectual property rights, but not important enough to dot i's, cross t's and make sure its "third party vendor" isn't simply grabbing images from "the internet" (or image banks with their own infringement problem).

Logan has yet to provide the name of the developer or the image bank, so it still remains somewhat of a mystery which 3rd party vendor slapped Houk's photo onto an IP enforcer's website. And this photo, taken by Sascha Pohlflepp. And this one, taken by Brian Moore. At this point, all of the infringing photos have been taken down, but only after Vice called attention to Canipre's actons.

The ironic thing about the last two photos is that they're both Creative Commons-licensed, meaning all Canipre (or its vendor) had to do was properly attribute the photos. But neither could be bothered.

Now, some might say that in the scheme of things, Canipre's infringement is nothing compared to the infringement it's fighting. But here's the difference. Canipre is a company that helps studios like Voltage sue alleged infringers based on not much more than an IP address. File sharers aren't turning a profit or presenting themselves as righters of the world's wrongs. If you're going to put yourself in the position of "educating" people (via mass lawsuits) about the importance of the intellectual property rights you're being paid to protect, you had better make sure you're not stepping on the IP toes of others.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, infringement, licenses, photographs
Companies: canipre, voltage pictures

Voltage Pictures Thinks Canada's New Copyright Law Opens The Door For More Trolling

from the oh-canada dept

You may recall Voltage Pictures not because it once made a movie that won the Oscar for Best Picture (Hurt Locker), but because it was basically the first Hollywood studio to embrace copyright trolling. This is the company whose boss, Nicolas Chartier, once said that anyone who criticizes his company for copyright trolling is a moron and a thief (and that was in response to a rather friendly and polite email to Chartier suggesting that copyright trolling might hurt the company's reputation in the long run). While some of its earlier efforts to sue thousands of people at once (in once case it sued nearly 25,000 people in one shot) have run into difficulties, Voltage just won't quit. A quick check of the records shows that it's still been filing new lawsuits in the US (among smaller groups) and trying to make the case for proper joinder by using the "swarm" theory: that if all the IP addresses are a part of the same swarm, they're all connected in the legal issue (of course, they miss the fact that this would likely also mean that the total sum that could be collected would be split among all defendants).

And, now, it appears, they've decided to try the same scheme up north. We had just noted that with Canada's new copyright law in place, it appeared that the copyright trolls were getting ready to pounce -- and that's now been confirmed. ISP TekSavvy initially released a blog post noting that Voltage Pictures was demanding a ton of information on many of its users. So far, the company is resisting, while notifying its users. It also noted that Voltage's strategy here is an odd one:

We are frankly puzzled by the approach that Voltage has taken. It seems contrary to the government’s intent with copyright reform, which was to discourage file sharing lawsuits against individuals, while still protecting copyright holders’ rights. The manner and the timing of this action also seems unusual given that the government recently created a roadmap for addressing file sharing and copyright infringement within its legislation. Its starting point is a notification system to subscribers to discourage infringement without immediate threats of lawsuits or disclosure of their personal information. That system is not yet finalized though. In light of these factors, Voltage’s actions seem odd to us.

It appears to us that a notice period is essential, especially in cases where large privacy disclosures may be involved. Without this notice, a customer could be the subject of a lawsuit and not even know about it. Surely this is in part why the government is seeking to enact such notice provisions in the policy.

At this point there are many unanswered questions. How does Voltage intend to proceed? How will the courts rule if customers should retain legal counsel? Under what conditions might the court order the disclosure of customer information? If Voltage is successful, how many more notices will Canadian ISPs receive? Is there a limit to what the court will allow?

The move by Voltage has a number of people confused. One of the really good features of Canada's new copyright laws is a cap on how much someone would have to pay at $5,000. That takes away a troll's ability to demand huge sums, while also limiting its ability to wave a big stick about them being liable for $150,000 in possible statutory awards (as they do in the US). Besides, as Teksavvy notes, the Canadian government was already worried about trolling when it passed the new law.

In the end, it's unclear if Voltage is so wedded to the idea of copyright trolling that it simply doesn't understand what's going on in Canada. Either way, it makes one thing clear: I will now go out of my way to never watch a movie from Voltage. Who would support a company that sues its fans?

Filed Under: canada, copyright trolling
Companies: teksavvy, voltage pictures

Soldier Who Claimed 'Hurt Locker' Must Be About Him SLAPPed Down

from the you're-so-vain,-you-think-this-hurt-locker-is-about-you dept

While we still think the producers of the movie Hurt Locker are crazy for trying to sue thousands of people who downloaded their movie, we certainly supported their position in a different legal fight. In early 2010, a soldier named Jeffrey Sarver sued, claiming that the movie was based on his life. Of course, as we noted at the time, it's not illegal to make a movie based on someone's life without their permission, but he tried to argue that the movie violated certain "ground rules" that were agreed to before he was interviewed by the screenwriter. We also found it amusing that, not only did he claim that the movie was about him, he also claimed "defamation" saying that the movie portrayed him in a false light. I still have trouble seeing how both could be the case. If they accurately portray him, it's illegal... but if they don't accurately portray him, it's defamation?

Either way, the case has not survived its own hurt locker. Using California's anti-SLAPP law, the judge made quick work dismissing the case. The judge noted that the movie was protected by the First Amendment, and the lawsuit was an attempt to silence that. Separately, it found little chance that the guy would prevail on a publicity rights claim, because "no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the work was not transformative," since the movie character was, in fact, quite different from the actual guy. As for the defamation claim, the court dumped those, noting that the movie is fiction and not about the guy... but even if it were the movie probably wasn't defamatory:

The Court agrees with Defendants that the movie is sufficiently transformative such that Plaintiff�s defamation claim is barred. Further, Will James is not Plaintiff�s name, and the beginning of the film contains a specific disclaimer that the film is a work of fiction. (Hurt Locker Motion at 15.) However, even assuming, arguendo, that a reasonable viewer would believe the movie is about Plaintiff, he has nevertheless failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the depictions of him are false.

The judge says that Sarver's complaints that the movie portrays him as a bad father and having no respect or compassion for human life, don't rise to the level of defamation. In fact, in what may be a bit of film criticism by the judge, the various claims are disputed, saying that the character of Will James in the film does appear to care about his son, does have compassion and was not "fascinated with war and death." It also notes that the evidence suggests that Sarver was pretty fascinated by his job in the war, so even if the movie character was portrayed that way, it wouldn't be defamation.

There were a few other charges in the lawsuit, and each one was dismissed with ease. In fact, things were so against Server that the judge has now ordered him to pay the legal fees of the movie's producers. Nice to see a little common sense pushback for people being overly aggressive in claiming rights they don't have.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, hurt locker, jeffrey sarver, publicity rights
Companies: voltage pictures