Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hurt Locker Producers Sue First 5,000 File-Sharers

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the tilting-at-windmills dept.

Movies 861

Voltage Pictures, the production company behind 2008's Oscar-winning Iraq war film The Hurt Locker, today sued 5,000 people who illegally downloaded the movie over BitTorrent. Quoting CNET: "Attorneys for Voltage wrote in the complaint that unless the court stops the people who pirate The Hurt Locker then Voltage will suffer 'great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.' Voltage has asked the court to prevent those who downloaded the movie without paying for it from downloading its movies ever again, and order them to destroy all copies of The Hurt Locker from their computers and any other electronic devices they may have transferred the film to. As for monetary damages, the movie's producers want those found to have pilfered the movie to pay actual or statutory damages and cover the costs that went into filing the suits." According to the complaint (PDF), the 5,000 infringers are known only by their IP addresses at this time.

cancel ×

861 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383270)

post

The first movie (0, Offtopic)

orient (535927) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383286)

I fell asleep watching - in a long time!

Re:The first movie (3, Insightful)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383380)

I didn't think it was that good of a movie. The critics (from what I've heard) raved about it, but I found the combat scenes to be unrealistic, the dialogue to be rather boring, and the plot uninteresting. One ridiculous scene involved a gun jammed because there was blood on the bullet. Seriously? Using one of the best sniper rifles in the world and blood on the bullet jammed the gun? Of course removing the bullet and cleaning it with spit did the trick. Interestingly enough, all of this was done right next to where someone had just been shot. What a ridiculous scene. Maybe they didn't make that much money because it wasn't that good of a movie... Also, Avatar was in the theaters at the same time and everyone was talking about that. Either way, I bet they're just suing some Bit Torrent noobs and they won't accomplish anything. I hope that everyone fights the suits so we can see what happens when they take 5,000 people to court....

Re:The first movie (0, Flamebait)

orient (535927) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383470)

Pure and shameless war propaganga. The fact that not even americans would pay to watch it says everything. After all, a good movie brings good money regardless the degree of pirating - or, maybe, because of the pirating.

Re:The first movie (4, Insightful)

Theril (606664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383478)

Watching The Hurt Locker caused great and irreparable waste of time that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.

Re:The first movie (2, Interesting)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383578)

I was not really impressed with the film. Sure it was a quality film with a solid message. I didn't feel it was worth an academy award. I'm sure I am not alone.

I guess some people can make the right decisions about making a good movie, but make all the wrong decisions about how to appeal to the audience for the next movie.

Irreparable harm is being done to their next movie. It'll be known as the movie made by those guys that sue their customers.

Not this again... (4, Interesting)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383294)

We've been playing this game for over a decade now..

Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?

The onion-based darknets seem to be empty because it hasn't been as necessary yet there hasn't been anything other then torrents it seems..?

Re:Not this again... (0)

ashridah (72567) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383330)

Didn't all the smart kids move to usenet?

Re:Not this again... (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383364)

Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?

1. See it in the theater.
2. Buy the DVD/Blu-Ray
3. Rent the DVD/Blu-Ray
4. Watch on Pay Per View Cable/DBS
5. Watch on HBO/Showtime pay cable
6. Wait until it's rerun on basic cable.

Re:Not this again... (4, Insightful)

u17 (1730558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383456)

He said good.

All of the above lack either quality or user control. Some have quirks like needing to break encryption and being careful about your hardware locking up due to changing region codes. None can replace BitTorrent, even when not taking price into consideration.

Re:Not this again... (0)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383516)

The license to see any movie you want on any platform you want at any time you want is infinitely expensive. It's just that they're having trouble enforcing that.

Re:Not this again... (4, Insightful)

Alanonfire (1415379) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383650)

He said good.

All of the above lack either quality or user control. Some have quirks like needing to break encryption and being careful about your hardware locking up due to changing region codes. None can replace BitTorrent, even when not taking price into consideration.

Essentially, broke teenage kids want free stuff.

Re:Not this again... (5, Interesting)

u17 (1730558) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383734)

Essentially, broke teenage kids want free stuff.

That, too, but once these kids grow up, they are already accustomed to being able to get movies quickly, conveniently, and in a format that gives them full control over how they watch them and what they do with them. A large fraction of these kids will probably gladly pay a small price for each download in a similar service, but will stick to BitTorrent if you try to take their freedom, convenience and inexpensive cost away from them.

Re:Not this again... (2, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383508)

I think he meant an alternative which would let him get a copy of recent films without paying anything to the copyright holder, and without getting caught for his illegal actions.

Re:Not this again... (1, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383632)

And in that world... just who will pay for movies to be made?

Re:Not this again... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383728)

the people who make record years at the box offices happen... year after year after year.

Re:Not this again... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383746)

The same way they do in this world...

People who have been brought up a certain way, will always 'do the right thing'... I think its called brainwashing.

Never mind that this same industry would sue them in a heartbeat if they even thought it would make them money, that is irrelevant to the types of people who would continue to support an industry that attempts to use that as a viable business model. You know what never gets reported much outside of the small burgs it happens in? When a teenager WHO PAID FOR THE FILM gets taken into custody, threatened with legal action, and never given a refund. All because some insignificant theater manager MIGHT have seen them video taping a movie at the theater. Oops, they were just sending a text on their cell phone... Oops, they were just recording their friends who all came out for their birthday party and there was .02s of the movie screen captured in the background...

Take your moral relativism and shove it up your ass.

Re:Not this again... (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383444)

It's called netflix, they even send you a disc you can easily copy if you so desire.

Re:Not this again... (3, Informative)

Alanonfire (1415379) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383594)

redbox is good too, $1 per movie and they give you promo codes once in a while for free movies. Its not too bad.

Even better (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383664)

it's called the library.

Re:Not this again... (2, Funny)

Tikkun (992269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383620)

Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?

Yes, IRC and USENET.

Re:Not this again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383710)

Redbox/Blockbuster Express + AnyDVD HD + CloneDVD = decent images that can be resized or recompressed to another format. AnyDVD even works on Blu-Ray movies. This is $136.00 + the $1 a night for a movie.

This is a hell of a lot cheaper than letting yourself be vulnerable to lawsuits because ISPs keep IP to personal name info indefinitely, or getting a judgment against you for millions of dollars.

I never have downloaded a movie. Most Internet connections take far longer to download it than to watch it, so why bother.

Sued by your IP... (2, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383298)

...that hurts.

Re:Sued by your IP... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383394)

IPConfig /release

You buy a wireless router. You hook it up. Leave it insecure.
You take the movie off your computer, put it in an external hard drive and hide that somewhere not at home.

Tell the feds it wasn't you, could have been anyone nearby. That's only illegal in Germany, right?

Re:Sued by your IP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383628)

Is that how you defend yourself against your kiddie porn?

But seriously... while you make a good point, I'd really like to see if this would stand up in court. I highly doubt it would... though I admit I'm not sure how it wouldn't if they couldn't pin it on you and didn't have any way beyond reasonable doubt to pin it on someone else.

I get that you were probably being at least a bit sarcastic there... but it does raise a good point.

Is this the answer to privacy and anonymity on the Internet? Just leave free access wide open and say it wasn't you? If yes, then... should it really be?

Maybe Shaggy was right when he said "it wasn't me!".

Re:Sued by your IP... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383654)

Your IP, the buck stops with you in most cases in the USA after a deep hard drive hunt.

Re:Sued by your IP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383454)

wrong, it hurts locker

Downloaded cia torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383304)

"order them to destroy all copies of The Hurt Locker from their computers and any other electronic devices they may have transferred the film to."

If downloaded via torrent, wouldn't that be and untold number of computers beyond the 5000 they name in the suit?

Re:Downloaded cia torrent (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383714)

Only if you assume that more than 5,000 people downloaded the film. Maybe they're suing because they heard that piracy gives extra publicity that leads to increased sales, but this time none of the pirates had anything good to say about the film?

Wow.... (0, Troll)

xQuarkDS9x (646166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383308)

Apprantly this looks to be like the RIAA's "wet dream" of how to punish the oh so evil downloaders.... and while they may try to pull this crap in the USA, what about people all around the world who might have downloaded this? Seems to me like these guys have no clue about how the internet and torrents work, and how they actually would enforce people to literally delete all copies of this movie.. What, would they send RIAA thugs to every home and hold a gun to a persons head and watch while they delete "The Hurt locker"?

Sheesh

Re:Wow.... (4, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383414)

Ummm... Actually... I'll disagree. If they're suing for "actual" costs, and the costs of filing the lawsuit, then I think they're going totally against what the *IAAs have been doing. In fact, I think it's a totally reasonable and justifiable damage to seek among the downloaders. They're not looking to charge these folks $80K for the download, they're looking to get the illegal copies deleted, or have them pay for the movie and pay the court costs. That's exactly what I think it should be.

Now - If they decide that the "actual" cost is upwards of $80K + court costs, then I'm certainly going to go along with the wet dream theory.

Re:Wow.... (1, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383568)

They're also suing for something at this point incomprehensible... a block that prevents the infringer from ever downloading their movies again. Good luck with that at the tech level.

Re:Wow.... (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383622)

It also mentions statutory damages, and this is supposed to be the same law firm behind the Far Cry lawsuit, which is asking for $1,500 to settle now, $2,500 to settle at the end of summer, or they'll go for up to the $150,000 cap at trial.

Re:Wow.... (2, Insightful)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383680)

Agreed,

This *sounds*, currently, to be a fair lawsuit. RIAA/MPAA typical ask for massive amounts of money for possessing a song (not necessarily distribution), such as $2,000/song you download or $25,000/album

Seems like this lawsuit is aiming for "Stop, we know who you are now, delete your copies, don't do it again... + court costs" if found guilty...

Sounds fair in my boat... if not being a little easy on the copyright violation for possession... I personally think they should tack on a little extra for the lost revenue -- say $40-100, a fair value for what they might get if the person watched it in the theaters (with a friend or two) and/or bought the dvd/blueray

maybe the people who (2, Insightful)

bhenson (1231744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383326)

Maybe the people who are in the real thing should sue him for not allowing fair access to the truth. they should be happy that it might shed some light on what actually happens in iraq and afgan for the families. if more people would watch it than they would understand what vets have seen and experienced/

Re:maybe the people who (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383514)

Maybe the people who are in the real thing should sue him

Um, asking kindly is one thing, suing is another. I don't know what grounds you would sue on but let me tell you there would be no faster way to get people to stop making films about war than to make it known that vets will sue your profit away. The story is based on a writer's experience as an embedded journalist in a IED unit in Iraq. It's fictitious. It's art. It's not a real story.

In short, soldiers suing movie makers so that we can copy their licensed material illegally is a really bad idea. Your motives are interesting and sort of on track but don't logically follow your proposed actions.

Re:maybe the people who (1)

wbaxter1 (1240732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383562)

How difficult is it for someone to get a Netflix / Blockbuster account and rent the damn thing. Stop the bleeding persecuted victim. This was a small time indie that got picked up by a big budget studio. Give them some slack if they want to a little coin off of this.

Re:maybe the people who (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383678)

It's hard as fuck when you live in a country that Netflix doesn't support. Of course, maybe they can't sue you anyway in that case... but lobbying goes a long way with friendly foreign governments...

first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383334)

the 5,000 infringers are known only by their IP addresses at this time.
So in other words, they do not actually know the name of one person who stole a movie. In my book. Try again. People who downloaded it, comon, pay 10 bucks u losers.

Good Grief (-1, Offtopic)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383342)

I've never even seen this movie. And I work for the military (20 years AF, 10 years DoD Civilian).

I assumed it was just another Born On The Fourth Of July / Full Metal Jacket / [ insert gritty war movie here ] extravaganza.

Or yet another "Gulf War" glorification...

Fuck 'em.

alright (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383346)

Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative? The most common solution offered on slashdot for the people who make these movies is basically to just allow piracy.

Re:alright (1, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383400)

Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative? The most common solution offered on slashdot for the people who make these movies is basically to just allow piracy.

Slashdotter's believe that the studios can make more money by giving their product away for free.

Re:alright (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383474)

And the studios all have TV deals for the content they want to broadcast free. Disney = ABC... Time Warner = 1/2 of CW and a lot of cable outlets... Viacom = CBS and the other half of CW (even though they split, they still share a lot of common ownership)... Universal Studios = NBC, News Corp. = Fox.

Re:alright (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383712)

They receive money from advertisers when they put their content on TV.

Re:alright (2, Insightful)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383422)

Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative?

Maybe...gee, I don't know, pay for the movie?

Re:alright (0, Redundant)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383500)

No, I meant the movie company. The main viewpoint here is they shouldn't be able to stop filesharing of their movies, but most people on slashdot refuse to offer an alternative that would not bankrupt the movie companies.

Re:alright (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383586)

I think everyone is ok with them stopping distribution of their films, just not with them suing folks for millions for downloading 1 film.

Re:alright (5, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383724)

Here's my alternative: Offer me a service that will allow me to download the movie, at a good rate of speed, at a resolution of my choice, and include all the extras that would be on the DVD release, and make it available the same day the DVD releases, and in my country. No staggered release bullshit, no "in the US first, then elsewhere."

Make it tiered pricing based on resolution, and then maybe things like basic and special editions that include or exclude the special features. Sort of like how it's done in brick and mortar stores, with DVD vs. Blu-Ray and special editions. Also make the pricing realistic. It should not be the same price as going out and buying a physical disk at a store, due to not needing the distribution channels. I figure about a 25% discount over stores should cover it, and induce people to try it out, and encourage impulse buys.

Re:alright (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383446)

No. One more time. Please pay attention this time.

The alternative is to make your movies available for convenient download for a reasonable price.
If people can get your movie conveniently and cheaply the vast majority won't bother to 'pirate'

Re:alright (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383482)

but what's their alternative? The most common solution offered on slashdot for the people who make these movies is basically to just allow piracy.

And why isn't that a viable alternative? Stats show that X-men Origins: Wolverine did better than expected after it leaked online.

Re:alright (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383550)

Well, I don't know what the alternative is.

I just don't like the idea of the justice system being subverted in such a way that a corporation can sue someone anonymously, and I don't like the idea of a family being destroyed financially because their kid downloaded a movie, when otherwise shoplifting the movie would be a petty theft charge.

I would rather see them out of business if this is the only way they can make money. I'm a model mpaa customer. I have over 200 bluray movies purchased, but they would still label me a criminal because I have taken (at considerable effort) the evil step of digitizing all my movies (ripped and encoded to my fileserver in mkv). I have a live copy, and a backup, and the physical copy sits in a closet. They have never been shared. If I lived in America, they would undoubtedly sue me if they discovered what I have done.

Allowing me to rip movies harms their business plan of reselling the same movie every format change.

Fuck them.

Re:alright (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383614)

Well, yeah. If the cost of fighting piracy (legal fees, lobbying expenses, programming time spent on DRM, and intangible things like the PR hit from this stuff) - exceeds the benefits of fighting piracy, then it's a better solution to just allow piracy.

The Gross revenue of the Hurt Locker was ~40 million. Revenue lost to 5,000 individuals downloading the movie (assuming each download represents a lost sale, and assuming ~$40 for a DVD of the movie rather than a ticket sale, BOTH very generous assumptions), you're looking at only ~$200,000 in lost revenue.

The production company will spend more on legal fees to conduct 5,000 lawsuits then that.

This doesn't necessarily justify file piracy (It's still wrong to do) - but I've never met a person whose stated reason for not using bittorrent was "I'm afraid of getting sued."

Re:alright (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383754)

Suppose that the only way I want to make money is by selling my shit. Suppose further that there is a legal loophole that allows me to sue people for picking up my shit without paying me. Imagine also that I produce so much shit that, for all practical purposes, it's everywhere and there is enough for everyone. What is my alternative? According to your logic, I cannot continue crap in peace until I use that legal loophole and destroy the livelihoods of people who stumbled into my shit.

The real alternative, of course, would involve not applying punitive statutory damages in a civil case.

Cannot fully be compensated or measured in money? (5, Funny)

rmckeethen (130580) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383350)

I assume this means they're suing for an a full and immediate apology, right?

Asking the courts to prevent them from downloading (4, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383492)

They're asking the courts to prevent them from downloading their stuff again... How would you implement that? Ban the people from the Internets entirely? (Including at the local coffee shop?) Short of stuffing them in jail, I don't see how you could actually do that. So what do you think they have in mind here?

Re:Asking the courts to prevent them from download (1)

ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383634)

A spanking, and "you're grounded for the weekend".

Re:Asking the courts to prevent them from download (1)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383722)

I would assume it would be a clause to the effect of:
"If we see you do it again you will pay $______," which I do believe is enforceable by a judge & court as a result of a court case... (of course, needing another review/trial/something to prove)

but IANAL

Re:Cannot fully be compensated or measured in mone (1)

ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383494)

Yes, that's a rather mysterious claim by the plaintiff. Surely they have not been subjected to pain and suffering because of the popularity of the movie -- a popularity demonstrated by the number of downloads.

It sounds like their lawyer went a little hyperbolic with the language in the lawsuit. If I were their defendant (but I.A.N.A.L., and anyway what single opponent will appear for them in this suit?), I would urge that the court not support monetary compensation, since it would not be fulfilling to the plaintiffs. I like your "apology" idea instead.

And no doubt... (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383366)

...that in the case of shared/allocated ISP addresses used by many possible subscribers, they'll just pick which ever poor sod happens to be using at the time. Rather than understanding or realising the severe flaws of ID via IP address

Re:And no doubt... (2, Funny)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383398)

Word is that 127.0.0.1 was the first to be sued.

Re:And no doubt... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383406)

Yep... the classic Shaggy defense where A says it wasn't me, B says it wasn't me, C says it's wasn't me. Despite evidence that says it must be that A, B, or C did it, they all get off unless there's more specific evidence that says which one it was.

Re:And no doubt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383436)

Care to suggest an alternate identification mechanism?

Re:And no doubt... (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383510)

Oh no - but I mean, as per usual, this means they'll end up making an example out of someone that is probably completely innocent rather than catching the real culprit. So it's a sham case really

Wasn't there that case with the woman tracked by IP (and sued) that had never even owned a computer? Or something stupid like that

I've never understood... (4, Insightful)

adbge (1693228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383386)

Why is this sort of legal tactic allowed? The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior? Why isn't this illegal? It's obviously an abuse of the legal system, as far as I can tell.

Basically, I feel that this is extortion. Their tactic is: pay me x dollars or else you'll have to pay to fight an expensive civil suit. That's not ok.

Of course, it's easier to blame pirates for the failure to properly monetize your film. Couldn't be Hollywood's fault, could it?

Re:I've never understood... (2, Insightful)

xQuarkDS9x (646166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383408)

Welcome to corporate America, where corporation's run the USA and screw the little guys any which way they can.

Re:I've never understood... (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383416)

Why is this sort of legal tactic allowed? The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior? Why isn't this illegal? It's obviously an abuse of the legal system, as far as I can tell.

How? If they have a legitimate claim against each of these defendants, why should it matter that they filed an unusually large number of claims?

Basically, I feel that this is extortion. Their tactic is: pay me x dollars or else you'll have to pay to fight an expensive civil suit. That's not ok.

They think they have a suit. They're offering a settlement agreement beforehand. Don't see the issue.

Of course, it's easier to blame pirates for the failure to properly monetize your film. Couldn't be Hollywood's fault, could it?

What would you suggest they do to monetize their films?

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383602)

What would you suggest they do to monetize their films?

  • Make better movies
  • Stop paying ridiculous salaries for huge actors
  • Focus more on the enjoyability of the movie than the amount of special effects
  • Fire a few of their lawyers

Re:I've never understood... (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383748)

Is making a better movie somehow going to keep people from stealing it?

Re:I've never understood... (1)

Bellegante (1519683) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383618)

What would you suggest they do to monetize their films?

Uhm, how about make good films?

Re:I've never understood... (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383638)

The issue is they can sue you and make sure it costs $10,000+ to even go to court then offer to settle for $1,000. This means even an innocent man will be forced to pay if he cannot spare $10,000.

I suggest they sue for reasonable amounts and do it more often.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383692)

randomly sueing people is illegal, or at least it was until the carzy americans started a revolution and kicked out the British. It's called Barratry.

Of course it has been in retreat for the last century or so and removed from most of the law books. I expect that the monkeys will see reason any decade now.

When there is a need to sue thousands of defendants it's usually a sign that something has gone seriously wrong and RICO and SLAPP should probably be invoked.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383694)

What would you suggest they do to monetize their films?

by giving it away for free, they'll make it up in volume!

Re:I've never understood... (1)

ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383702)

Where do you see information about a settlement agreement?

Re:I've never understood... (4, Insightful)

MWoody (222806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383648)

*sigh* So when they went after file sharing sites, people whined that they were just facilitators, not themselves guilty of anything. Fair enough. "Punish the actual infringers!" slashdot cried.

Then they went after the programs and tools themselves, and people whined that they were just tools, and had perfectly legitimate uses. Very reasonable. "Punish the actual infringers!" slashdot cried.

Now they're flat-out targeting people who actively infringe copyrights. These people are BREAKING THE LAW, and more importantly, doing something immoral: they are taking someone else's work and not merely using it without due compensation, but helping others to do the same.

I'm sorry, I'm out of excuses; I'm out of pity. We won the important war. BitTorrent thrives as a legitimate tool, and merely linking to something bad is usually not itself cause for litigation. My moral outrage stops at those caught red-handed, hands thoroughly lodged in the cookie jar (and no, "someone else could have being using their personal IP or broke into their house and used their computer" is a flimsy argument at best.)

Re:I've never understood... (1)

matunos (1587263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383700)

The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior?

Isn't sorting out who is guilty what the courts are for? If they have evidence from network traffic that people were offering copies of their copyrighted material, are you saying that's not sufficient grounds to sue the perpetrators? If the lawsuits are frivolous, the defendants can countersue.

I'm guessing they have to launch lawsuits in order to compel ISPs to link the IPs to persons. I'd rather that legal action be required than we just make ISPs offer that info on demand.

Re:I've never understood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383720)

"Of course, it's easier to blame pirates for the failure to properly monetize your film. Couldn't be Hollywood's fault, could it?"

I don't even know what you are talking about? It's their fault they didn't make enough money before it got pirated? This is filmmakers, bad, downloaders, good. There's no winning this argument. Slashdot spends entirely too much time beating this dead horse. People went ballistic when some one posted Iron Baby yet everyone is fine with making the same tired arguments day are day about file sharing. Can we just flag every post redundant and get on with our lives???

I've been wondering about this... (2, Interesting)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383410)

I've been wondering about this since I first heard about what these guys are doing. Basically they are capturing your IP when you are in the swarm downloading "the.hurt.locker.2009[dvdsrc]" or whatever. But what would happen if people started renaming the files like "the.hurt.locker.[parody]" or "this.is.not.the.hurt.locker.movie" or whatever. Basically, you wouldn't know it was the actual "hurt locker" movie until after you downloaded the entire thing. Couldn't you then just say, "Yeah, I noticed it was the real movie right after it downloaded and I immediately deleted it." Not sure if that would hold up in court, but you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... right?

Re:I've been wondering about this... (1)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383498)

Not sure if that would hold up in court, but you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... right?

That doesn't really apply in a civil case.

Re:I've been wondering about this... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383536)

haha... and I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.

adding insult to injury (0, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383426)

These folks already suffered through this film is suing them really fair?

Damages my ass. (0)

seanonymous (964897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383466)

Prove that any of the people who downloaded this film illegally would have purchased it legally if downloading it wasn't an option. Prove that these people who said, "well, I wasn't interested enough to see it in the theater or rent it, but I hear it won some award so maybe I'll check it out" would have been thoroughly motivated to purchase or rent the movie. Your film bombed because it was crap. Deal with it.

Re:Damages my ass. (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383706)

That's like excusing a shoplifter because they wouldn't have otherwise bought or couldn't afford to buy the stolen item.

Whew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383486)

#5,001...

No thanks... (1, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383504)

I prefer my pirated War movies to be like Saving Private Ryan: all white, all the American soldiers are noble and good, all the Germans are monsters, and all the deaths are stunningly dramatic.

I didn't download it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383518)

but I'd be more than happy to agree to never watch, pay for, download, or otherwise take any notice of any of their films ever again.

Looks like this will save a lot of time and effort for both sides.

Nothing to see, move along (1)

Exception Duck (1524809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383522)

People violate copyright, copyright owner wants justice, sues...

breaking news ?

Re:Nothing to see, move along (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383600)

Here's what's different.

1. They're not suing uploaders, they're taking it to the downloaders. MPAA has never done that, yet.
2. They're not the MPAA, this is a small film maker turning into a lawsuit-powered company.
3. They're setting records for number of defendants in an IP case. They've got IP numbers for a whole lot more than 5,000, and the ISPs are starting to claim this is too many for them to research.

Re:Nothing to see, move along (1)

imthesponge (621107) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383674)

Downloaders are also uploaders though.

Re:Nothing to see, move along (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383696)

1) Yes they are. read the doc. There are suing people who downloaded while simultaneously uploading.

2) It is the MPAA doing the suing.

If you read the doc you wouldn't have looked like a fool.

I haven't seen it yet... (3, Interesting)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383538)

What do you say? Is it worth downloading the BluRay version?
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4748387/The.Hurt.Locker.2008.720p.BluRay.x264-CiRCLE [thepiratebay.org]

Or just go with the DVD version?
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5421482/The_Hurt_Locker_(2008)_DVDRip_XviD-MAX [thepiratebay.org]

Re:I haven't seen it yet... (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383764)

Not worth either way.

Dear Hurt Locker producers, 5000.... (2, Insightful)

zardozap (1812430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383552)

...is probably about the sum total who pirated the sleep inducing drama that is Hurt Locker. Avatar however was pirated beyond belief, and still sold 6.7 million copies on Blu-Ray and DVD in the first 4 days of it's release. So how does pirating affect sales again? Weak sauce.

any film suggesting heroism by the US in Iraq... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383554)

..is going to be as genuine as the heroism itself: i.e. nothing more than a way of making a few people rich using unreasonable force.

you are naive if you do not expect exactly this

Re:any film suggesting heroism by the US in Iraq.. (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383642)

It's not about that. maybe you should download and watch the movie.

IP addresses (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383612)

Who wants to bet that the first 5000 downloads came from 192.168.1.0/24? The guys on that network would steal from their own mothers.

International (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383636)

Considering that a large percentage of the illegal downloaders are probably not based in the U.S. --- good luck with that.

hmm (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383644)

They don't mention leeching. That is because you need to be distributing to violate copyright law.

The irony (3, Funny)

johncadengo (940343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32383686)

One of the few times an anonymous coward wouldn't want to be first...

I'm sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383690)

They'll only be suing for the $20 a DVD would cost, right?

I bet they're gonna be doubly pissed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32383736)

that they ripped of such a crappy movie AND are getting sued for doing it!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?