×

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!

Torrent Users Fight Back

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the we're-not-going-to-take-it dept.

Piracy 238

eonlabs writes "Torrent users being blamed for illegally downloading Far Cry are fighting back. In a 96-page lawsuit, the lawyers at Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver are being accused of: 'extortion, fraudulent omissions, mail fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud and abuse, racketeering, fraud upon the court, abuse of process, fraud on the Copyright Office, copyright misuse, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection violations.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

238 comments

Charges obviously too lenient (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407178)

Also, they kicked a kitten and didn't like their teddys.

My favorite part (4, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407220)

From TFA: "In short, Shirokov's lawsuit is accusing Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver of knowingly breaching copyright law to make money."

Re:My favorite part (0)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407294)

breaching copyright law to make money

Funny, that sounds incredibly like a pirate to me. Hopefully the law will actually work both ways this time.

Re:My favorite part (1)

MichaelKristopeit137 (1947024) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407532)

turnabout is certainly fair play, but it only further recognizes and brings credit to the existing broken laws.

Re:My favorite part (2)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408216)

You're welcome to make yourself a martyr, but some of us would rather hold to account those who abuse even the broken laws we have. Maybe we can prove that the people who promote and enforce the copyright laws have no intention of following them themselves, a clear sign of an unjust law. (I'm looking at you, Congress-whose-federal-pay-never-gets-frozen.)

Re:My favorite part (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407702)

Pretty sure most of the so-called pirates weren’t making any money.

Re:My favorite part (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407890)

Let me rephrase - like an ACTUAL pirate, not a curious teen or aging grandma.

Re:My favorite part (5, Funny)

md65536 (670240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408742)

Let me rephrase - like an ACTUAL pirate, not a curious teen or aging grandma.

We obviously need new terminology. By labeling people who let's say "back up" data as "pirates", the word "pirate" has come to mean something harmless, even cool. Yet the word is still used in the traditional sense to describe people who attack at sea, and destroy rather than create, and kill viciously, and actually take something away from people.

The pirate analogy is a bad one for copying data. The jesus analogy works better I think... he made some copies of fish and bread and distributed it free of charge.

People who copy data should henceforth be referred to as "miracle workers." Now try to paint them in the same exaggeratedly bad light with that name.

Re:My favorite part (1)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409518)

The jesus analogy works better I think... he made some copies of fish and bread and distributed it free of charge.

That's actually a very good point -- did Jesus pay the baker and fisherman for every copy of their work that he distributed?

This will go well.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407246)

If there's one thing the court system likes, it's lawsuits against lawyers.

Yo dawg, I heard you like tilting at windmills....

Re:This will go well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407304)

So I put a lawyer in your lawyer so you can sue while you sue!

Re:This will go well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407782)

Humm... Kinky! Just hope the receiving lawyer is female!

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407250)

It's about goddamned time!

May it be the first of many (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407264)

Let us raise our glasses in toast to these people and hope that they will be successful, and that their success will cause more to follow in their footsteps.

Re:May it be the first of many (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407438)

I sure as hell hope so. Whats better, every last charge is extremely valid, no lopped on bullshit like the opposition uses. This pleases me.

Re:May it be the first of many (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34408932)

I'm not sure that the legal test of the validity of a set of charges is governed by the agreement in the minds of those who hope that copyright will be overturned so entertainment will be free for all.

You must have started drinking already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407518)

Because you seem to believe that they'll be successful and even that they are even in the right.

No judge is going to do anything more than slap the law firm on the wrist. To do otherwise would threaten the whole business of law, and that just won't happen.

And really, folks who pirated a UWE BOLL movie? Aren't they at least guilty of criminal bad taste?

Re:You must have started drinking already (1)

chromas (1085949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407630)

No! Folks who didn't pirate the movie and have no wish to be associated with criminally bas taste.

Re:You must have started drinking already (2)

gorzek (647352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408892)

After I experience a bas taste I immediately seek out some bas relief.

Re:You must have started drinking already (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409368)

After I experience a bas taste I immediately seek ...

...something to get the fishy taste out of my mouth.

Re:May it be the first of many (2)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407576)

Raise our glasses? How can we help fund efforts against the USCG? I've got my checkbook ready.

Re:May it be the first of many (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407628)

No, I raise a glass in toast, in hopes they will be successful, and that they are the last to do what they are doing. For they would only be the last if no other troll firm ever tries this trick with copyright again...

Toast cheapskate pirates with terrible taste? (2, Interesting)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407994)

Pirating is inexcusable in our age of cheap media. Pirating a Uwe Boll movie is like shoplifting a Girls Gone Wild video. You deserve to have the book thrown at you for being a born asshead.

Re:Toast cheapskate pirates with terrible taste? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34408330)

Pirating a Uwe Boll movie is like shoplifting a Girls Gone Wild video.

Finding you had a copy of one of these would result in your friends and family losing all respect for you.

The other features topless college girls.

Re:May it be the first of many (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408476)

Let us raise our glasses in toast to these people and hope that they will be successful, and that their success will cause more to follow in their footsteps.

Maybe a class action lawsuit against all of the record companies for conspiring against the artists and their fans.

Re:May it be the first of many (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409224)

Why are you hoping they're successful? What's wrong with a copyright holder going after the people infringing on its copyright? In fact, Slashdotters suggested that copyright holders to do this very thing 10 years ago during the Napster lawsuit.

Re:May it be the first of many (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409618)

They aren't going after people infringing their copyright, they have no intention of following up on their threats. It would be more accurate to say that they're extorting money from people who don't want to pay more money to lawyers to fight the charges.

For that movie,, (1)

HazMat 79 (1481233) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407334)

there should probably be a few more charges. (Never watched it but it's Uwe Boll, how bad up is it going to be?)

Intellecticon (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407374)

Similar to how the Constructicons [wikipedia.org] combined to form Devastator, imaginary property lawyers are combining with the mob^H^H^H RIAA, and Obama's Intellectual Property Rights Task Force [cybercrime.gov] to form $0.

Re:Intellecticon (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407972)

You said a negative thing about Obama.
(steps back to avoid flames)

BTW "The Obama Deception" was yanked off youtube by Google & Biden cooperating with one another. Along with several hundred blogger websites. So much for fucking freedom.

This won't go anywhere (4, Insightful)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407388)

Sure the law might be on their side, but we aren't ruled by laws, we are ruled by men. While the "law" might say one thing, the judges adhere to a sort of spirit of the law. And the spirit of the law is that big corporations and corporate are implicitly responsible, good and therefore in the right. When they don't like what a young person does that young person is in the wrong. It's just that simple.

Re:This won't go anywhere (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34407932)

Yeah! Because Coporations are all Coporation-y and evil. By god, please stop demagoguing. If it bothers you so much, just move to some isolated hippie commune and barter for internet access.

Yeah, some companies suck ass. The RIAA sucks. Comcast sucks. But there are many many many other wicked corporations that don't spend their time harassing people. You act as if a company is a person. It's not. It's made of people. I work for a business. Most people here do as well. We're not evil. On the whole, life is a lot better today with them than without them.

Matt Da-mon...

Re:This won't go anywhere (2)

skywire (469351) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408814)

Take a deep breath, and go back and read the parent post. Nowhere did he even hint that all corporations are evil. He merely alleged that certain parties presume that all corporations are good. Then apologize.

Re:This won't go anywhere (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409566)

All publicly traded corporations are beholden to the shareholders, and legally required to protect their interests above all others. That makes them do evil things. You know them by their actions.

All businesses that are not cooperatives are taking advantage of their employees and are thus inherently evil. But that's even more a matter of opinion.

Re:This won't go anywhere (-1, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408338)

the spirit of the law is that big corporations and corporate are implicitly responsible, good and therefore in the right. When they don't like what a young person does that young person is in the wrong. It's just that simple

What a bunch of whiny bullshit.

Plenty of large companies get their asses handed to them in court. And plenty of "young people" are, indeed, busy ripping off entertainment so they don't have to spend their Double Skinny Grande Half-Caffe Latte money on the movie they want to see. The funny thing is that you don't even see the irony in making absurd, sweeping generalizations as you complain about being on the recieving end of absurd, sweeping generalizations.

Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.

"Young people" who leech off of the creative people whose work they want are in no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so.

Re:This won't go anywhere (2, Insightful)

hldn (1085833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408992)

Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.

"Young people" who leech off of the creative people whose work they want are in no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so.

what a bunch of whiny bullshit.

Re:This won't go anywhere (5, Insightful)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409074)

It is incredibly ironic that I stated that court cases are largely judged by who the parties are, and you argued it by saying I don't have a right to make my point based on who I am and what you imagine my accomplishments are. You are illustrating the kind of thinking that I am referring to and I thank you for that.

Furthermore, I wasn't complaining about being on the receiving end of anything; I am an uninvolved third party in this dispute. You are complaining about "young people" and making a sweeping generalization that they buy expensive coffee.

You are simply not talking about the laws that this legal case involves. You are instead saying that young people in disputes with businesses deserve to be "spanked." And shouldn't "complain" (which in this case means exercise their legal rights based on the laws as they are written).

Re:This won't go anywhere (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409636)

you argued it by saying I don't have a right to make my point based on who I am and what you imagine my accomplishments are

Really? Which words did I use that say that, exactly?

You are instead saying that young people in disputes with businesses deserve to be "spanked."

Really? Which words did I use that say that?

You are complaining about "young people"

No, I'm responding to your invocation of them as what you describe as victims of a court system run by, apparently, people like musicians who decide to invest some of their money to form a record label, and who do like almost every industry, and pay a trade association to handle some of their collective legal, political, and public relations issues.

Re:This won't go anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409240)

In other words, you can't complain or critique something you haven't done yourself? What a bunch of crap. Well, I guess I can't form an opinion on any movie I've ever seen now, since I've never been involved in movie production.

Re:This won't go anywhere (0)

abigor (540274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409272)

You have made a factual and mature post that references actual reality. Prepare to be modded down!

Re:This won't go anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34408686)

Yo dawg, I heard you hate business entities...

New Hollywood business model (5, Funny)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407668)

1) Release low-budget, badly-written & directed crappy movie to the public
2) Give it time to be distributed illegally on the internet
3) Find those who have supposedly shared it
4) Sue everybody, but count on only some people paying to settle out of court and collect fines
5) PROFIT!

Sounds great, I hope they keep it up (1)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408126)

People that support the worst of big screen garbage in any form should be reprimanded. They have probably seen a few of these movies in the theater.

Netflix streaming is only $8 a month and has a lot of great works from small producers. The pirates should be fined and the funds should go to student film projects.

Re:New Hollywood business model (1, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408548)

How to circumvent the above business model:

1. Don't download movies you haven't paid for.

Re:New Hollywood business model (5, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408640)

Even if you already bought the BetaMax, VHS, DVD, HDDVD, BluRay media before?

Re:New Hollywood business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409288)

Because no innocent person has ever received one of those letters and realized that it was cheaper to just admit to something they never did than to fight it in court.

Re:New Hollywood business model (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408584)

You forgot the step whereby you allow a third party to do you farm it out to a third party for enforcement.

I still have no idea why the US Copyright Group has any standing to sue anybody ... did the copyrights get transferred to them? Or, are they just suing for some bizarre reason?

Fraud fraud fraud (5, Funny)

Eudial (590661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407696)

That's a lot of fraud. I can see how this must have happened:

Man: Well, what've you got?

Prosecutor: Well, there's extortion and blackmail; extortion racketeering and blackmail; blackmail and fraud; extortion and fraud; racketeering extortion blackmail and fraud; extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud; fraud indecent exposure fraud fraud criminal negligence and fraud; fraud misuse of police property fraud fraud racketeering fraud extortion and spam;

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud...

Prosecutor: ...fraud fraud fraud criminal negligence and fraud; fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud traffic violation fraud fraud fraud...

Vikings: fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud!

Prosecutor: ...or international terror conspiracy to overthrow the government with an insurgent army funded with drug trafficking and armed robbery and fraud.

Wife: Have you got anything without fraud?

Prosecutor: Well, there's fraud indecent exposure extortion and fraud, that's not got much fraud in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY fraud!

Man: Why can't she have racketeering extortion blackmail and fraud?

Wife: THAT'S got fraud in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much fraud in it as fraud extortion traffic ticket and fraud, has it?

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

Wife: Could you do the extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud without the fraud then?

Prosecutor: Urgghh!

Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like fraud!

Vikings: Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Prosecutor: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Prosecutor: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud without the fraud.

Wife: I don't like fraud!

Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your fraud. I love it. I'm having fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud extortion fraud fraud fraud and fraud!

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud. Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Waitress: Shut up!! Extortion is off.

Man: Well could I have her fraud instead of the extortion then?

Waitress: You mean fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Fraud fraud fraud fraud. Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud! Fraud fra-a-a-a-a-ud fraud fra-a-a-a-a-ud fraud. Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Fraud fraud fraud fraud!

Re:Fraud fraud fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34408656)

tldr

next time make your jokes shorter

Re:Fraud fraud fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34408938)

tldr

next time make your jokes shorter

Your loss, man.

(sorry, I know you stopped reading after "Your l" and you saw something shiny on the ground)

Re:Fraud fraud fraud (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408864)

If anyone had even a clue of what you were talking about, they might join you and I in a laugh, unfortunately since the last spanish inquisition, no one has a real sense of humor

>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzip...someone mention Spanish Inquisition???

Re:Fraud fraud fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409122)

Towards the end of that I start reading Freud and wonder - what does that say about my mother?

Re:Fraud fraud fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409534)

It was almost perfect..... ...but you left the word "spam" in exactly once.

FAIL!

They won't share any evidence (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407754)

The funniest thing is that the lawyers apparently are not willing to share the evidence of the copyright breach with the users, and have ordered them to not delete any files from their system.

If I were a user who actually HAD downloaded the move (and it could be traced to my drive), this would be the perfect time to "accidentally" take a hammer to my hard drive and rebuild the system.

If they don't have any evidence, then neither do I.

Re:They won't share any evidence (1)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408744)

Hammer? be thorough about it. Open up the drive, remove the platters, and use an angle grinder on each shiny surface.

Re:They won't share any evidence (2)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409570)

That would be an excellent way to get a conviction for obstruction of justice. Which is a felony, I might add.

I mean... if they order you not to destroy any evidence, and you deliberately do...

The firm of... (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407784)

Sounds like a Leisure Suit Larry level: The firm of Done That, Grubby and Deceiver would like to sue you? Do you accept?

Nice list of charges... (4, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407792)

...but such a shame that it pretty much adds up to an admission of guilt. Anyone who had genuinely not downloaded the movie would surely have included slander and/or libel in that list.

Re:Nice list of charges... (5, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407900)

You have qualified immunity for statements made in legal proceedings (or in actions leading up to possible legal proceedings) such as demand letters. Furthermore, in order to slander/libel someone you need to make the statement in the presence of another person. If I send you a letter saying you're an idiot, that's not libel unless I show the letter to other people.

Re:Nice list of charges... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409016)

Calling someone an idiot can't possibly be defamation.

I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info (4, Funny)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407838)

Without it, I'd have not been able to get my people in on this so fast.

We wanted to go with a Federal RICO suit but instead decided a larger levee of smaller charges would be far more effective.

Now sit back and watch the show, people. USCG is about to get their ass torn up like EA, and I'm only providing financial support this round, I'm not even named in the suit.

Re:I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info (4, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408120)

I would not get too optimistic; Courts frequently don't like shotgun pleadings and this complaint certainly qualifies. And some of the claims seem a little dubious.

Serious Problems With Central Claim (5, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34407990)

I'm rooting for the guy, but he has made a serious blunder.

USCG registered Far Cry's copyright on behalf of the German studio that owns it in January 2010. Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009. That would be copyright fraud, and would completely invalidate all of USCG's lawsuits, and could possibly land them jail time. However, Far Cry was released in April 2009 in the Netherlands. The US release was, in fact, November 2009.

The case basically unhinges after that, and the only argument he really has left is that the majority of law-suits by USCG were for either issued before November 2009 (limiting maximum penalty to actual damages - or about $25), or were for infringement occurring before November 2009. In both cases a $1500 settlement threat could be considered coercion. That would mean the racketeering claim might still stand, but I'm not sure anything else would. I don't think an offer to settle for $1500 even though the maximum penalty is about $25 is illegal, and I don't believe insinuating a $300k per item penalty is illegal, since I believe what is stated in the settlement offer is factually correct (there have been $300k+ judgments before, but in these types of cases the statutory damages have limits to about $7k, if I remember correctly). The combination and the fact that they send these letters to people they know cannot afford representation, combined with the fact that they have never, ever sued anyone who rejected their offer, should make the racketeering case a decent option.

He is also attempting to push the issue that these mass-multidefendant lawsuits are frivolous and waste the court's time - the exact charge USCG leveled against the lawyer selling DIY motions to dismiss kits. That might be fruitful too (it's the one I really want him to win).

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim (2)

oojimaflib (1077261) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409022)

From the complaint:

45. An application for a registration of copyright in a published work requires a statement of the date of first publication; the nation of first publication should also be given. Specifically, under the Copyright Office’s guidelines an application covering a work first published outside the United States should state the date of first publication there, and should be accompanied by a copy or phonorecord of the foreign edition as first published.

IANAL, but whoever wrote the motion is, and they seem to think that it's the date of first publication of any (presumably Berne) treaty country that counts.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409620)

That's not what it says there. It says there that the date must be recorded.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409094)

I don't know, he does probably have an argument, as the netherlands was the first publish point

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409504)

USCG registered Far Cry's copyright on behalf of the German studio that owns it in January 2010. Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009. That would be copyright fraud, and would completely invalidate all of USCG's lawsuits, and could possibly land them jail time. However, Far Cry was released in April 2009 in the Netherlands. The US release was, in fact, November 2009.

That's not how I read it. I read it as the movie first being "published", by definition, in October 2008 in Germany, which was the world premier. Since the movie was distributed to theaters for the purpose of public showings, that qualifies as publication. Therefore, to answer this question from the copyright office:

If the material has been published or publicly distributed, please give the
date of the first publication or earliest distribution and the nation of the first
publication or earliest distribution.

The correct answer is clearly "October 2, 2008" and "Germany". The answer is not "November 24, 2009" and "United States". Many of the infringements happened prior to November 2009, so obviously people were not downloading the US DVD edition. The lawsuit further alleges the law firm knew this, and knew that if they put the later date they could effectively extend the copyright term and satisfy the 90-day requirement to receive more settlements.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409516)

The US release was, in fact, November 2009.

However it was released in April 2009 first. Did they make a new version for the US?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0400426/releaseinfo [imdb.com]

If that trick worked you could extend your copyright for 10-20 years extra. But just holding off publishing in some countries.

Date of first publishing is usually when the clock starts ticking. Doesnt matter much where.

For example many Elvis albums are public domain in Europe. However they are still under copyright here in the united states. But that is only due to the differences in copyright laws between the countries. The date it was first published still holds sway over it all.

Piracy is not the answer (5, Interesting)

judeancodersfront (1760122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34408610)

Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.

Netflix streaming is only $8 per month and turns people on to smaller producers.

Hollywood and other big producers make the bulk of their funds from theater and retail blu-ray/dvd sales. The profits from Netflix are pennies on the dollar in comparison. Support Netflix, not piracy.

Re:Piracy is not the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409194)

Why not both?

Re:Piracy is not the answer (4, Insightful)

Troggie87 (1579051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34409586)

Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.

Lets be careful about using the word unethical. Illegal certainly, and for arguably good reason. Ethics is another thing entirely. Simply being "the law" doesn't lend much (if any) ethical weight to an idea.

What I really hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409172)

What I really hate is the "all p2p is for stealing other peoples stuff". No! I download new operating systems (UBUNTU LINUX) over P2P. Ubuntu offers torrents, and its the most efficient way for thousands of people to get a copy quickly (its more efficient on the internet too). But brownshirt nazi outfits like Dewey Sokkum and Howe go after any IP address found on P2P networks. Is the content I'm downloading illegal? No. Am I stealing someone elses stuff? No! Ubuntu wants me to download, P2P is just the carrier. But according to Dewey Sokkum and Howe, I'm a crimminal, because they cast a big net and I happened to get caught? What the hell! They would go after someone like me, BASTARDS!, and then commit their own illegal act, and then claim 'oops, made a mistake'. No. Fry them. They stole from thousands. They are cheerful to steal from others, in the name of keeping people honest. They broke the law. They would be cheerful to prosecute anyone. Now its their turn. Bernie Madoff did something like this. He got 150 years. These guys.... can we hope for at least 15?

There was a Farcry movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409232)

Hmmmmm, I'll have to go download that!!

Oh, and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34409400)

Don't forget jaywalking.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...