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!

Uwe Boll, Other Filmmakers Sue Thousands of Movie Pirates

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the part-two-the-revenge dept.

Piracy 284

linzeal writes "Directors whose films have done poorly at the box office are increasingly being solicited by high-powered law firms to file lawsuits with offers of settlement. This practice, which the EFF has been calling extortive and 'mafia-like', has resulted in courts starting to rule in favor of the consumer, and in some cases throwing out the lawsuits. This is all fine and dandy, however, when you are considered the world's worst director and you largely finance films through your own holding company. At that point, the rhetoric and ridicule gets ratcheted up rather quickly."

cancel ×

284 comments

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

Sorry, I don't buy it. (5, Funny)

Kelson (129150) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572076)

Are they seriously trying to convince me that someone would want to pirate Uwe Boll's movies?

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572090)

Nah, they are trying to convince you to challenge him to a boxing match [wikipedia.org] ... This time lets get it right, I'll be your cut man.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

somaTh (1154199) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572094)

If I thought it might encourage him to stop making movies, I would.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (5, Funny)

aquila.solo (1231830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572096)

Maybe they're being sued for bad taste?

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (5, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572482)

Haven't they been punished enough for watching an Uwe Boll film?

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (4, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572740)

They're not just watching, they're distributing it too. Sorry, but putting those bits online is capital treason against the internet.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572962)

I'm more than a little embarrassed to admit that I quite enjoyed Rampage. Boll's bad cinematography actually makes the movie work in a way I didn't expect.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

tokenshi (1633557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572112)

Darn, beat me to it.
I'm surprised the source article isn't from theonion.com

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572114)

My feelings exactly. You wouldnt catch me dead with that crap on my hard drive.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572592)

We got a hybrid of 1984 and Brave New World, with all the religion and
billions going to war machine it was bound to be a hybrid of the two.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

CapnStank (1283176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572130)

I agree, I mean in order for them to take you to court they need (apparently) a picture of your IP downloading the file. If they get caught fabricating these lists then it'll be lights-out for this blackmail system.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (4, Funny)

skuzzlebutt (177224) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572146)

In Soviet Russia, filmgoers damage Uwe Boll!

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572372)

No,I'm pretty sure his films are screened much more broadly than that.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (5, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572170)

There are plenty of people who are into light to severe masochism out there, easily in the thousands.

It's a gateway really. You watch Uwe Boll movies, and maybe Street Fighter, and tell yourself "It's so bad, its funny!" Eventually though, the crappulence gets boring, you move to harder stuff, like the Mortal Kombat movie (not the new proof of concept one). Before you know it, you're living in a gutter, offering sexual favors for a copy of the Star Wars Holiday special.

I applaud Herr Boll for trying to clean up the streets and atone for his past actions.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (4, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572530)

Which Mortal Kombat movie? The first one was awesome. They had a pretty skilled fight choreographer who clearly had some actual MA experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Kombat_(film) [wikipedia.org]

Even claims it is among the best VG->Movie films ever.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572990)

Even claims it is among the best VG->Movie films ever.

Being amongst the best VG->Movie films isn't saying that much.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572568)

Your analogy is just fundamentally flawed here. If we're equating bad movies to drugs, an Uwe Boll movie is definitely NOT the gateway drug. It's heroin mixed with crack wrapped in meth cut with cyanide. And the analogy still falls apart for being too weak.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (4, Funny)

aevan (903814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572350)

I misread it as Uwe Boll being sued BY thousands of movie pirates, demanding time and bandwidth back. Shouldn't be hard to prove watching the movie was damaging.

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (0, Redundant)

infonography (566403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572354)

Clearly the submitter got that backwards. Millions of Pirates are suing Uwe Boll for wasting their bandwidth.

On the other hand... (3, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572506)

Are they seriously trying to convince me that someone would want to pirate Uwe Boll's movies?

I sure as Hell wouldn't *PAY* for a copy...

Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572536)

What the EFF are they thinking?

Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (-1, Flamebait)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572092)

...to not get sued for pirating movies.

Don't pirate movies.

Also a sure fire 100% guaranteed way to get modded into oblivion I'm sure, but whatever. I just have to ask though: Who the fuck is pirating a Uwe Boll movie? You deserve to get sued morons.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572180)

I made my choice years ago. Not to watch any of it. But if I was going to, I'd toss a Jolly Roger on my car and drive around yelling YAARRRR! At passing motorists.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572182)

Sure fire 100% guaranteed way

...to not get sued for pirating movies.

Don't pirate movies.

Actually, you are wrong, I can sue you for just about anything I want, but that doesn't mean the courts are going to rule in my favour, or even have the lawsuit at all, they could just through it away, like they are doing now.

But all in all, there is no way sure fire way to not get sued.

I'll ignore the whole bit about pirating movies and why some people do it, that's a broken record that can be found on about 10% of slashdot articles.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (2, Insightful)

Bysshe (1330263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572684)

100% sure fire way of not getting sued for pirating movies...

move to Canada. Or most European countries. or other places where corporations don't control the government nearly as much.

a broken record? (2, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572890)

got a torrent?

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572194)

Er, they've sued innocents before... I'm sure that's not true in the majority of cases but it does happen.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572266)

Problem is, it's not. It's only about a 99.9% sure-fire way, give or take. :S

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (3, Interesting)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572438)

Actually, given the number of people who have been sued, the well-known cases of them suing innocents, and the number of people likely to be downloading movies...

I'd say you are just about as likely to be sued if you pirate as if you don't. The average chance of being sued is near-zero, really, and the chances of them making an error are high enough that the difference between the two likelihoods is statistical noise.

Not the case (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572286)

There's multiple problems:

1) The software they use to determine who is downloading a movie may not give accurate results. This was particularly true with Kazza Lite. You could ask it for a list of IPs of people on a share and it would return incorrect results. So, maybe your IP got reported incorrectly.

2) Your ISP could give them incorrect information. Perhaps their logs of who had the IP at a given time were incorrect. Let's not pretend like software never fucks up. Perhaps they got tampered with (it is just text files after all). Maybe one of their admins was doing the downloading and falsified the logs to cover his tracks.

3) Your net connection could have been used without your knowledge. Unless you are really serious about wireless security, someone could have used it. Many people run open APs or WEP and that can easily be bypassed. So it is perfectly possible for someone to have used your connection to download.

That is one of the many problems with lawsuits like these. You really can't be sure that the people being sued are the people who did the downloading. So not doing it is NOT good enough to prevent you from getting sued. You could still find yourself hit with a lawsuit. You claim "But I didn't do it!" and they say "Ya right, pay us the extortion money or we take you to court."

Re:Not the case (3, Interesting)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572686)

Exactly. Not to mention all the possible exploits there are out there. I can tell you with 100% confidence right now that anybody running Skype can be used as a proxy without their knowledge in any way, and its completely untraceable. Computer security for anything other than major business is a joke, and people need to realize that.

Re:Not the case (4, Informative)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572832)

While all those points may be valid, don't forget that we're talking about civil law here, not criminal. The standard is preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So when an IP shows up as having downloaded a file, and the ISP provides the logs which map the IP address to a person, the question before the jury isn't "Does that prove conclusively that that person downloaded a file?" but rather "Given the evidence, is it more likely than not that they did?". The plaintiffs really only have to prove there's a 51% chance you downloaded the file. It's not a very high burden.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (3, Insightful)

Spewns (1599743) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572348)

...to not get sued for pirating movies.

Don't pirate movies.

Also a sure fire 100% guaranteed way to get modded into oblivion I'm sure, but whatever. I just have to ask though: Who the fuck is pirating a Uwe Boll movie? You deserve to get sued morons.

Actually, you're going to (or should) get modded down because this is flamebait. "If you don't want to get sued for doing X, don't do X" is an extremely shallow, closed-minded and unintelligent oversimplification that assumes people should be able to be sued for doing X in the first place.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572426)

Well yeah, but if it's illegal and you do it, you can be sued. Talking about whether it should be on /. is a waste of time.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572580)

Well yeah, but if it's illegal and you do it, you can be sued.

Wrong.

If it is illegal, you can be sued for doing it, whether or not you actually have done it.

A major purpose of the trial -- which comes after you have been sued -- is to determine whether or not you did what you were sued for doing. If there was away to assure you were guilty before you were sued, we wouldn't need trials.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572744)

I thought suing was a civil case. If something is illegal, isn't that a criminal case? Different situation - in a criminal case the plaintiff is a government (The State of California, or whatever), whereas in a civil case the plaintiff is the entity doing the suing.

For a country as litigious as the US, I'm surprised you got this wrong :-) Don't they cover basic law in kindergarten?

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572464)

On the other hand, it's a valid point.

The law is pretty clear on whether copyright violation is legal or not.

Using the "I'm not likely to be one of the people they choose to pursue action against" strategy seems, as time goes on, to be a less-than-optimal one.

But since we're commenting on flamebait mods... the whole article is flamebait for slashdot. The only reason this is newsworthy is because it includes Uwe Boll, make of some of the most nerd-despised movies on the planet. It's no longer news when a media rights holder pursues action against infringers -- the only reason this article made the main page is so we can flame (1) entities that pursue enforcement of their IP rights and (2) that director of tripe, Uwe Boll.

Seriously, it's hard to complain about flamebait posts when that's the very nature of the article.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (4, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572658)

But since we're commenting on flamebait mods... the whole article is flamebait for slashdot. The only reason this is newsworthy is because it includes Uwe Boll, make of some of the most nerd-despised movies on the planet. It's no longer news when a media rights holder pursues action against infringers -- the only reason this article made the main page is so we can flame (1) entities that pursue enforcement of their IP rights and (2) that director of tripe, Uwe Boll.

I disagree. I had never heard of Uwe Boll until he started his lawsuit campaign. The reason this issue gets under my skin is the egregious abuse of copyright and the court system, not because of the person doing it.

Saying that "it's no longer news when a media rights holder pursues action against infringers" is dangerous- do you want such actions to become the accepted norm?

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572754)

Saying that "it's no longer news when a media rights holder pursues action against infringers" is dangerous- do you want such actions to become the accepted norm?

It doesn't bother me one way or the other. I don't knowingly violate copyright. If copyright law gets changed, then my actions may change. Until then, I buy the media I choose to consume, and if I don't think the price is right -- I do without.

The key reason the pursuit of action against violators is not newsworthy is that we know it happens frequently. This is nothing new. What would be more newsworthy are articles about how enforcement is changing, or articles about how the law itself is changing. Yet another copyright holder suing due to infringement just isn't news anymore.

One other note:

I disagree. I had never heard of Uwe Boll until he started his lawsuit campaign.

You must be new here :) . Luckily for us, since Germany (and other countries) closed the tax loophole investors in his films were taking advantage of, he hasn't been getting a lot of work. The tax loophole is what made his bombs profitable despite their dismal ratings.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572998)

I buy the media I choose to consume, and if I don't think the price is right -- I do without.

I applaud you. Sadly, we appear to be a dying breed. I hear far too many cries and justifications for consuming without paying.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (2, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32573014)

It doesn't bother me one way or the other. I don't knowingly violate copyright. If copyright law gets changed, then my actions may change. Until then, I buy the media I choose to consume, and if I don't think the price is right -- I do without.

Wow, someone with a grown-up attitude on this topic, posting on /. Thank you.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572940)

I had never heard of Uwe Boll until he started his lawsuit campaign.

Exactly :-)

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572882)

On the other hand, it's a valid point.

No. In order to be a valid point, it must be true, and the idea that "if you don't do it you won't get caught" has been proven false [slashdot.org] . Specifically, innocence is no guarantee that you won't get sued.

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572982)

D'oh!

Corrected link here:

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/ [washington.edu]

Re:Sure fire 100% guaranteed way (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572370)

Also a sure fire 100% guaranteed way to get modded into oblivion

And you'd deserve it because it is false.

Wrong. (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572554)

[Sure fire 100% guaranteed way...]to not get sued for pirating movies.

Don't pirate movies.

Wrong.

Not doing something doesn't stop you from getting accused of doing it, and a lawsuit is, after all, just a very formal accusation.

Specifically relevant to copyright and P2P, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of Media Sentry and Media Defender.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572100)

I'm in favor of these lawsuits, to tell the truth. The more people get sued, the more ridiculous it will seem to the outside observer, and the more support there will be for copyright reform. If only we could have every owner of every piece of music and every movie suing every person who had ever connected to a torrent of that material, I have to think we'd be certain to see the whole thing collapse.

err, no. dream on. (4, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572210)

The more people get sued, the more ridiculous it will seem to the outside observer, and the more support there will be for copyright reform.

Sorry, but your expectation rest on the assumption that politicians gives a flying f_ck, and that somehow common sense would prevail in a system where every politician is bought and paid for by special interest groups.

Sue Me! (2, Informative)

Bruha (412869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572106)

You'd have to sue me to download this guys stuff.

Now we have "You pirated my movie!" trolls.

Can we get back to dealing with real criminals?

This Slashdot Article Is Libel (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572126)

None of these people are proven to be pirates. Uwe Boll claims they are. But that doesn't mean you get to report that they are. The headline should be "Uwe Boll, Other Flimmakers Sue Thousands of People".

Slashdot could be sued for this headline.

Re:This Slashdot Article Is Libel (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572648)

Or they could just end the summary with a question mark. Been working for TV news for some time. They can say just about anything, as long as it posed a question. For example, if a news show said "Michael Moore downloaded child porn." they would get tagged for slander pretty quick. But making it "Michael Moore downloaded child porn?" gets a free pass.

Watch the movie...WATCH IT! (1)

Favonius Cornelius (1691688) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572136)

This is hilarious. It's like these failed directors and musicians are holding us at gun point, forcing us to watch their garbage and pay for it.

Re:Watch the movie...WATCH IT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572402)

No one is making anyone watch, buy or download anything. You're acting like you're getting robbed for material you have no interest in. The fact of the matter is that if you don't bother with it in the first place this kind of crap media would go away. Instead a number of people have decided that theft is the way to do this instead and the artists involved are defending their legal property.

Why is this such a hard concept for such supposedly intelligent people? Don't like it? Don't be involved with it and you'll come out clean.

Re:Watch the movie...WATCH IT! (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572804)

It's the Metallica model.

When Load flopped they started sueing.

Should have never used Crysis engine on this film (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572138)

It limited them to 24fps and I think it shows.

Re:Should have never used Crysis engine on this fi (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572228)

Shill! You're attempting to generate piracy and it shows.

Old news (5, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572142)

These ludicrous lawsuits are already in jeopardy, as the judge has ruled they have to prove a valid legal reason to roll up all these John/Jane Does in one lawsuit [arstechnica.com] . Rightfully so. I have no problem with them suing these people, but trying to roll them up into single lawsuits so that their filing costs and complexity remain low is abuse of the justice system.

LOL? Wut? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572188)

Gotta love Slashdot. Idiots like this clown running their mouths off about crap they haven't a clue about.

Re:LOL? Wut? (4, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572292)

From the article I linked to:

"A brief entry in the official court docket lays out the order. "MINUTE ORDER requiring Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than June 21, 2010 why Doe Defendants 2 through 2000 should not be dismissed for misjoinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20," wrote the judge in The Steam Experiment case. The same order was repeated in a separate case targeting 4,577 users alleged to have shared the film Far Cry."

Let's take a look at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20:

"Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: [cornell.edu]

(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. "

Unless all of these people were a part of some vast conspiracy to download the same movie from the same source en mass, they can't be joined together in a single lawsuit. Explain how my post is wrong, based on the entry in the court docket and Procedure 20.

Re:LOL? Wut? (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572590)

Unless all of these people were a part of some vast conspiracy to download the same movie from the same source en mass, they can't be joined together in a single lawsuit. Explain how my post is wrong, based on the entry in the court docket and Procedure 20.

What does people joining together as plaintiffs (Procedure 20) have to do with joining defendants together in court motions?

Your supporting quote is not relevant, whether or not your point is correct.

Re:LOL? Wut? (4, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572652)

GAH!

Thanks for pointing that out. here is the relevant portion, from the same link:

Persons -- as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem -- may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Re:LOL? Wut? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572606)

Please disregard previous post.

While you may or may not be correct in your earlier post, the parent to this post uses the wrong section of Procedure 20. What you should have quoted is:

(2) Defendants.

Persons -- as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem -- may be joined in one action as defendants if:

(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Seems quite likely that part B may come into play for these type of motions.

Of course, IANAL, etc, but if you're going to ask someone to refute your point given a quoted piece of text -- may be a good idea to cite the relevant material :)

Re:Old news (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572270)

The point in question is "Rule 20, which Judge Collyer referenced in her order, plaintiffs may only join defendants in a lawsuit if:

        * They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
        * Any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action."

I'm just glad they haven't needed Rule 30 yet.

Re:Old news (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572644)

I'm just glad they haven't needed Rule 30 yet.

Rule 30? I'd be more concerned with Rule 34.

Have you seen some of these judges? I definitely don't want to see them sans robes.

Re:Old news (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572886)

Yeah, Rule 34 was what I was going for. Guess it got crossed in my mind with Wolfram's Rule 30. I fail.

Re:Old news (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572278)

I have no problem with them suing downloaders for the $19.95 they would have spent if they had bought the movie, perhaps even $59.85 with treble damages. Anything more than that is extortion, not actual damages. Uploading, that is a different story.

Take that pirates! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572148)

I hope you go to jail.

This bullshit argument that copyright infringement isn't theft is just a matter of semantics and you know it. Now I hope that they prove it to you in a very real way with fines that will put a real boot to your ass. I'm sick of you little illogical bitches trying to use this unrealistic argument as a way to cover yourself for being little thieves.

Don't drop the soap...

On second thought, I don't give a fuck if you drop the soap. I hope you get ass raped for your little illogical lie.

Re:Take that pirates! (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572314)

Let's play "who's a bigger threat to society"

On the one hand, we have internet pirates. They click buttons in the privacy of their own homes, and watch movies for free.

On the other hand, we have you, who seems to think getting raped in the ass is a just consequence for copying bits.

So, America. Who would you feel safer living next to?

Re:Take that pirates! (4, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572952)

On the one hand, we have people who copy data without paying the creator. They have a small impact on the creators' financial incentive to create, and potentially reduce the cultural output.

On the other hand, we have Uwe Boll, who produces films that are so mind shatteringly bad that people need weeks of expensive therapy after watching them, taking money away from competent film makers and causing an entire generation to lose respect for the cinematic medium.

Finally, we have people who pirate Uwe Boll movies, intentionally spreading them to a large unsuspecting population.

People in category one are selfish. The person in category two is unfortunate. The people in category three are dangerous sociopaths.

Uwe Boll (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572150)

Don't nerds have an additional grudge because he exploits the common meme that video games are just for kids?

His films are financed by the public (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572156)

Aren't Uwe Boll's films financed by the public in the first place?

Re:His films are financed by the public (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572472)

Aren't Uwe Boll's films financed by the public in the first place?

Last I read German law was changed so that he could no longer use German taxpayers' money to fund bad movies, which is why his budgets have dropped dramatically. Though I haven't really been keeping up on what he's been doing in the last couple of years.

Sue film makers for bad movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572162)

Tell me why we shouldn't have on-demand refunds from movie theatres, in order to protect us from bad movies? If I, the person who paid to see the film, thinks it isn't worth the money I paid, then I should get my money back, or at lesat 50%. Should I sue them to get my money back?

Re:Sue film makers for bad movies (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572640)

You can get a refund. But don't sit through the entire move and then go demand a refund. That would be like eating an entire meal then saying you don't want to pay because it wasn't good enough. How bad could it have been if you finished the whole thing? Leave in the first 20 minutes or so (you'll know if it's bad by then) and go find a manager to demand a refund.

I almost did that with Battlefield Earth but it was like watching a slow-motion pileup on an icy road. I just couldn't stop watching. They should have given out "I survived" t-shirts after that movie.

in some cases throwing out the lawsuits (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572184)

I had not heard of any of this latest batch of lawsuits being thrown out. Where's the link to that story?

Re:in some cases throwing out the lawsuits (2, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572332)

You already responded to a post where I put up a link, but just in case others miss it and are curious, Ars had the story a few days ago [arstechnica.com] .

Re:in some cases throwing out the lawsuits (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572356)

I don't think any of these cases have actually been thrown out yet, so perhaps the poster should have used the future tense.

Re:in some cases throwing out the lawsuits (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572366)

For clarification, that story is about the possibility of them being thrown out and required to be refiled as individual lawsuits. Not quite the same as thrown out, full stop...but still.

Re:in some cases throwing out the lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572720)

14,000 does x approximately $200 filing fee = 2.8 million investment in a crap shoot. Now take the research 30 min. - 1 hour for preliminary review by a tech-monkey at 20-30 bucks an hour to determine whether each one of those John Does is worth the 200 dollars to file and your looking at another minimum of 140k.

Let's solve the real problem (2, Funny)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572226)

I hereby declare that on July 1st through July 4th we will celebrate the Independence of these United States by having a four day hunting season on trial lawyers. No bag limit! We do need certain rules to ensure fair chase:
1. No hunting within 200 feet of an Ambulance.
2. No standing on a corner yelling "Free Scotch".

Re:Let's solve the real problem (1, Flamebait)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572326)

Trail lawyers are the ones pushing all of these suits to get richer. How is that off topic?
This whole lawsuit crazy society is the product of lawyer greed and people wanting something for nothing.

Re:Let's solve the real problem (3, Funny)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572378)

Hunting Rules

1. Any person with a valid State hunting license may harvest attorneys.

2. Taking of attorneys with traps or dead falls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited.

3. Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash.

4. It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft.

5. It shall be unlawful to shout “whiplash”, “ambulance”, or “free Perrier” for the purpose of trapping attorneys.

6. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships.

7. It shall be unlawful to use cocaine, young boys, $100 bills, prostitutes, or vehicle accidents to attract attorneys.

8. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, health spas, gay bars, ambulances, or hospitals.

9. If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, trap, or possess it.

10. Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for AIDS, rabies, and vermin.

11. It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, bookie, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

Always liked. (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572928)

"The more I think about it old Bill was right, lets kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight."

The Eagles from "Get over it"

Re:Let's solve the real problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572444)

Trail lawyers? neat idea.

NIGGA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572394)

Maybe... (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572418)

He's preparing for an impending class-action lawsuit by film-goers. I know the first time I saw a Uwe Boll "film" I was told I paid to see a movie and not the disastrous pile of shit that it was.

A countersuit in the works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572480)

People that pirated Uwe Boll movies are now suing to get the 90 minutes of their life back as well as pain and suffering. If the countersuits get lumped together it's believed the pain and suffering for Uwe Boll movies could bankrupt Hollywood.

What? (1)

uofitorn (804157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572490)

This is all fine and dandy, however, when you are considered the world's worst director and you largely finance films through your own holding company.

And people said I was dumb, but I proved them!

He's got the whole process wrong (4, Insightful)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572544)

Shouldn't Boll be PAYING people to download his films? What Ed Wood have done?

How hard is it to plant evidence against someone? (1)

KPexEA (1030982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572588)

Is it possible for someone to make it look like your IP address is downloading from a torrent when you are not?

Re:How hard is it to plant evidence against someon (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572728)

Given the "evidence" amounts to text files and screenshots collected by the plaintiff, you're insane if you think that it has any bearing on reality.

Hey, look, it seems 0.0.0.0 is downloading a movie!

Re:How hard is it to plant evidence against someon (1)

KPexEA (1030982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572822)

What I meant was, is it possible for someone to write some sort of program that constantly makes it look like a bunch of people are torrenting a particular file when they are not. They could then put in the IP addresses of a bunch of "enemies" in the hopes that they get caught. Is that possible?

Re:How hard is it to plant evidence against someon (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572902)

Simple answer is, it depends.

IP spoofing is not impossible, but is prohibitively difficult (nigh impossible) on the internet as a whole. It would be possible to do it on smaller networks, however. ISP-level is possible, and I would be surprised if there have not been cases of people tricking ISP hardware into thinking they were someone else. There is quite a lot an "unlocked" modem can do, which is why ISPs will cut your service if they find out you're using one.

So yes, it is possible. However, the number of people sued is tiny compared to the number of people who downloaded the movies. It would not be a good way to get back at people you dislike, since more likely than not it would go totally unnoticed, and it takes an extreme effort on your part.

Now, this is Uwe Boll, so it is quite possible that more people are being sued than actually downloaded the movies. I cannot fathom more than a few hundred people being so desperate for entertainment that they would break the law to see Boll's... erm... masterpieces.

Re:How hard is it to plant evidence against someon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572914)

Wake me up when they start claiming that 127.0.0.1 is doing the downloading.

Re:How hard is it to plant evidence against someon (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572954)

Yes, kind of. The torrent app will connect to the tracker (usually via UDP) and send it's IP address. There is an (optional) field in the message your computer sends to the tracker that may contain an IP address. It's possible that if you enter your enemy's IP address there, that it might work on some trackers. If not, you could just spoof the packet's source address to whatever you wanted.

So you could, yes, but there are better ways to get revenge.

Alone in the Dark (5, Funny)

Type44Q (1233630) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572626)

From Uwe Boll's wikipedia entry (this is priceless): "Another reviewer wrote that Alone in the Dark was "so poorly built, so horribly acted and so sloppily stitched together that it's not even at the straight-to-DVD level."[16] For example, in one scene a character who was "killed" can visibly be seen getting up as the actor prematurely made the move to get off the set."

Re:Alone in the Dark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572662)

So if something is poorly made it justifies theft? In that case I'll go steal an American car.

Re:Alone in the Dark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572704)

"visibly be seen"? Is there another way?

-Department of Redundancy Department

Maybe... (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32572836)

Maybe Ewe should take another route, one that was quite successful the last time he did it.

"I think he's a jerk. This might be PR but I don't want to keep getting punched in the head." Jeff Sneider, 2006

If they don't agree with you, beat the shit out of them.

You insensItive clod! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32572854)

something done STATEtS THAT THERE HOBBY. IT WAS ALL
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>