Hurt Locker Subpoenas Arrive With New Language... And Higher Demands

from the the-$400-oscar-bounty dept

Well, it took a while, but US Copyright Group (really DC law firm Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) have finally gotten around to getting subpoenas out to ISPs in the Hurt Locker lawsuit. While that lawsuit was filed months ago, the subpoenas just went out, in part, because of the fight in another of USCG's lawsuits over certain aspects of the threat letters. That ended with a requirement for USCG to work with groups like the EFF to come up with more informative threat letters. The results don't look all that more reasonable, but it does note that those accused have the right to try to fight the subpoena, and removes the misleading threat of a $150,000 penalty hanging over their heads. Of course, being just slightly more honest has its cost. The pre-settlement fee demanded has been increased from $2,500 to $2,900 this time around.

Separately, in Greg Sandoval's article, he talks to Cindy Cohn from the EFF who notes that they're hearing from a lot more people on the receiving end of USCG lawsuits who have no idea what it's all about and aren't BitTorrent users at all. That happened with the RIAA lawsuits as well, but apparently at a much lower rate. This certainly calls into serious question the techniques that USCG is using to identify file sharers and to make sure they're not suing innocent people. Of course, when you look at the economics of it all, to USCG it really doesn't matter. When it makes mistakes, the actual likelihood of getting in trouble for it times the likely cost of such a mistake is so low as to make the incentive such that there's little reason to care about false positives. Yet, on the flip side, the cost of defending yourself against a bogus threat from USCG is certainly going to be more than $2,900 in almost every case. As Cohn notes:

"When it comes to copyright," Cohn said "the law is set up so that truth, whether someone actually violated the law or not, takes a back seat to financial considerations."

And, really, that's what's so nefarious about this whole process. The incentives are totally screwed up. USCG has no incentive to weed out the false positives, and the innocent folks threatened have powerful economic incentives to just pay up. It's still not "extortion," in that USCG can claim to have a legitimate legal basis for the demands, but it certainly comes damn close in practice.

Filed Under: copyright, hurt locker, pre-settlement letters, subpoenas
Companies: us copyright group

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....

Filed Under: copyright, hurt locker, lawsuits
Companies: dunlap grubb & weaver, us copyright group, voltage pictures

Guy Who Isn't Even Being Sued By US Copyright Group Files Response To Lawsuit

from the um...-that's-not-going-to-work dept

As a court is about to hear oral arguments concerning the legality of one of US Copyright Group's (really law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver) lawsuits which attempt to lump thousands of alleged file sharers into a single lawsuit, something odd has happened in response to US Copyright Group's most famous lawsuit against 5,000 people accused of sharing the movie Hurt Locker. Despite the fact that no one has yet been identified in that particular lawsuit, some random guy has stepped forward and filed a response to the lawsuit, supposedly in "protest." It seems like a pretty weak protest, however. In fact, the guy says he does download some files, but didn't even download Hurt Locker. And, on top of all that, he seems confused. During an interview with News.com, he also says that he was trying to "take a stand against file sharing." In the end, this seems like it's all a really weak and confused publicity stunt by a guy who is apparently running for some form of public office. The courts will likely make this one disappear quickly.

Filed Under: copyright, hurt locker, john doe, lawsuits
Companies: us copyright group

As Hurt Locker Producers Sue Thousands For File Sharing... They Claim Free Speech Rights To Copy Story Of Soldier

from the for-us,-not-for-thee dept

While there's lots of attention being paid to the somewhat suicidal decision by Hurt Locker's producers to sue thousands of fans, and to call anyone who suggests this might not be the best business strategy "morons" and "thieves,", it's also worth remembering that the producers themselves have been sued for "pirating" the story. As we noted at the time the lawsuit was filed, we don't have much sympathy for the guy suing.

However, it is entertaining to read the response from the producers to the soldier who claims that Hurt Locker was based on his life story with no compensation. In response, the producers claim that they have a First Amendment right to use his story. There are plenty of other arguments made in the filing (and most of it is a technical dispute about venue), but it still does seem rather ironic that the producers can so blatantly mock people for file sharing, calling it "stealing," when they refuse to pay the guy whose story was the basis for the movie. Now, I think they're legally in the right on this particular case (and at the same time ridiculously overreaching in their own lawsuits). But it still is quite a contrast that they can claim that a personal, non-commercial download of a movie is the same thing as "stealing" and deserves jailtime, while an attempt to take someone else's life story and make millions from it is somehow perfectly justifiable. Double standards.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, first amendment, hurt locker

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: Of course, this really has nothing to do with stopping unauthorized file sharing or the perceived harm of file sharing. This is entirely about trying to squeeze money out of people. Thomas Dunlap, the lawyer running this under the name US Copyright Group, isn't looking to take any of these lawsuits to court. The whole point is to find out who these people are and to send them legal nastygrams, that come very close to your garden variety extortion letter -- telling people that they'll drop the lawsuit if they just pay $1,500. It comes across as a classic "protection racket." "Pay up and you won't get hurt." Hopefully more ISPs stand up for their customers (and their own business interests) and don't just roll over. But, more importantly, hopefully the courts recognize how questionable this practice is and start blocking such a clear abuse of the court system. Over in the UK, lawyers have been disciplined for these sorts of stunts, and in France, some lawyers were barred from practice for six months after trying to do something similar. With any luck, US officials recognize that this is an abuse of the legal system and work quickly to block this practice.

Filed Under: copyright, hurt locker, lawsuits, nicolas chartier
Companies: voltage pictures

Hurt Locker Producer Says That Criticizing His Plan To Sue Fans Means You're A Moron And A Thief

from the reality-check dept

Robert Ring was the first of a bunch of you to send in this gem. You may recall the reports that the producers of the Oscar-winning movie Hurt Locker were supposedly gearing up to sue tens of thousands of fans for unauthorized file trading of the movie. Even if you're against infringing on copyrights, it's not hard to see why this is a strategy doomed to backfire massively. A Boing Boing reader found the email from Hurt Locker producer, Nicolas Chartier, who already has something of a reputation for... well... aggressive emailing, and received quite a response.

First, the polite email the reader sent to Chartier, expressing why he thinks the legal strategy is a mistake:

Dear Mr. Chartier,

I have recently become aware of Voltage Pictures' intention to sue thousands of people who are suspected of having used BitTorrent to download films produced by your company.

I wish to register my disagreement with these tactics, and would like you to know that as a result of these actions I am boycotting your films. The majority of the people you are suing were not seeking to make money from their downloads, and will be financially devastated by a lawsuit or settlement. While it is completely understandable that Voltage Pictures wishes to defend its intellectual property, this is an inhumane way of doing so.

Until Voltage Pictures publicly states that it will not pursue lawsuits for downloading its films, I will not view, rent or buy any films produced wholly or in part by your company. I will urge my friends and family to take the same actions. I do not wish for the money I spend on entertainment to be used against otherwise good people.

Thank you for your time.

And now for Chartier's response:

Hi Nicholas, please feel free to leave your house open every time you go out and please tell your family to do so, please invite people in the streets to come in and take things from you, not to make money out of it by reselling it but just to use it for themselves and help themselves. If you think it's normal they take my work for free, I'm sure you will give away all your furniture and possessions and your family will do the same. I can also send you my bank account information since apparently you work for free and your family too so since you have so much money you should give it away... I actually like to pay my employees, my family, my bank for their work and like to get paid for my work. I'm glad you're a moron who believes stealing is right. I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference. Until then, keep being stupid, you're doing that very well. And please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies, I actually like smart and more important HONEST people to watch my films.

best regards,

Nicolas Chartier
Voltage Pictures, LLC

Wow. Note that the original letter to Chartier did not, in any way, defend the practice of downloading the film. It just noted that suing everyone did not seem like a proportional response. And, for that, Chartier calls him a moron and a thief and wishes his whole family ends up in jail. I guess when you have someone like that in charge, it's no wonder that they think filing tens of thousands of lawsuits against fans is a sensible position. Perhaps somewhere along the line someone will sit Chartier down and explain to him the difference between disagreeing with a strategy and promoting infringement. At that time, perhaps they can also explain to him the difference between theft and infringement. Now I can understand why even folks at the MPAA have been rapidly distancing themselves from Chartier and this particular campaign, making it clear to pretty much everyone that they do not support his strategy for dealing with unauthorized sharing of his movie.

Update: In the meantime, I had almost forgotten that the producers of the movie, including Voltage Pictures, are being sued by a soldier, who claims that the movie was actually "his" story. Now, as we wrote when that story came out, the claim seems ridiculous, but if you run his claim through the same argument that Chartier makes above, it makes you wonder if by Chartier's own bizarre logic, he really should pay that soldier. After all, he took that soldier's "story" for free, and that soldier likes to get paid for his work too, I'm sure.

Filed Under: copyright, hurt locker, lawsuits, nicolas chartier
Companies: voltage pictures

Bad Ideas: Hurt Locker Producers Preparing To Sue Tens Of Thousands Of File Sharers

from the putting-your-fans-in-the-hurt-locker dept

Apparently, the producers of the Oscar-winning movie Hurt Locker haven't paid attention to what's happened on the internet over the past decade. Despite the massive levels of backlash against the RIAA for its "sue consumers" strategy, the folks behind Hurt Locker are preparing to sue tens of thousands of people for unauthorized file sharing of the movie. Apparently, they've signed up with the relatively new operation US Copyright Group, that is trying to copy the strategy used by ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons in the UK, where they send out thousands upon thousands of "pre-settlement" offers to get people to pay up. This process has lead to condemnation from politicians (who have called it a scam) and lawyers being barred from practice and being disciplined by regulatory boards.

But, apparently, that's of no concern to Hurt Locker's producers, or to Thomas Dunlap, the lawyer behind this scorched earth sue 'em all campaign. They may learn -- quite quickly -- about the backlash suing your biggest fans can cause. It's hard to think of a strategic move that will make things worse than this particular move. Have they not noticed what happened to Metallica after that band tried to sue its fans? Lots of people were interested in the movie after it won the Oscar, and plenty of people have been renting it. Yes, lots of people have been downloading it and sharing it as well, but that's not going to stop one way or the other. But in attacking people who want to watch your movie not just with legal threats, but with a full on lawsuit is ridiculous on any level. I actually had Hurt Locker in my rental queue, but there's no way I'm renting it now. I have no desire to support movie makers who would go to such ridiculous lengths for no good reason.

In the meantime, Dunlap and US Copyright Group are now claiming that 75% of ISPs have "cooperated fully." That's a very different story than we heard back in March -- at which time only one ISP had cooperated, and others seemed pretty skeptical. In fact, in that original case, the fact that ISPs cooperated was even more questionable after it came to light that the copyright in question was not registered in time. If it's true that most ISPs are cooperating and handing over IP address info, based on such sketchy proof, that would be a dangerous precedent. What happened to ISPs insisting they would never just hand over such information?

Filed Under: hurt locker, lawsuit, movies
Companies: us copyright group

Soldier Sues Because He Insists Movie 'Hurt Locker' Must Have Been Based On His Life

from the let's-explain-how-this-works... dept

You see stories all the time about moviemakers and authors being sued because someone else had a similar "idea" for a story. Those lawsuits almost always end up going nowhere fast. Now in a slight twist on this, someone's demanding cash because a movie character is based on him. Matthew Cruse was the first of a whole bunch of you to send in the story of how Master Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver is suing the producers/filmmakers and screenplay writer of the movie Hurt Locker, claiming that the main character was based on him. That's nice, but how is that against the law in any way shape or form? The problem is that it isn't. In most cases (there are some exceptions), you can make a movie out of someone's life without their permission, thanks to that old First Amendment.

The fine folks over at The Hollywood Reporter have gotten their hands on the actual complaint (pdf) and explain how Sarver hopes to get around the pesky First Amendment with some creative lawyering:

According to the complaint, before [screenwriter] Boal was embedded with the military, he and Playboy agreed to "ground rules" set by the Department of Defense. One of the rules was that reporters would be restricted in the type of personal information they could report on a service member. Reporters were limited to releasing a member's name and hometown only, and only on the condition the service member had provided consent.

Was this agreement sufficient to give Sarver a stake in the story and film? He says so. Another claim in the lawsuit is for breach of contract. Another is violation of privacy.

This still seems like a huge long shot by someone who feels entitled to something he has no actual legal rights over. Even if the story was completely based on Sarver (and the filmmakers claim that it was a fictional story), it's hard to see any courtroom outcome that leads to him getting a cut of the film, as he's requesting. Of course, it's amusing to note that while he claims the movie was based on him, he's also claiming defamation, in that the movie portrays him in false light (such as in that the character is a bad father). So, wait. Isn't that effectively admitting that the character in the movie is not him and is, indeed, a fictional character? Of course, we did write about one case last year that stunningly found that a fictional character can be libelous, but we're still hoping that was an aberration that won't be repeated.

Filed Under: defamation, fiction, first amendment, hurt locker, movies