Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Judge Prevents 23,322 Filesharing Does From Being Sued For Now

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the bucks-better-be-on-warning dept.

Piracy 199

An anonymous reader writes "The Judge overseeing the US Copyright Group's lawsuit against 23,000 individuals sharing 'The Expendables' has shut the door on progress. In a ruling made yesterday, the judge has ordered the US Copyright Group to show cause as to how all 23,322 fall under his Court's jurisdiction. Considering the US Copyright Group's failure in the past to show cause on jurisdiction, this could be the beginning of the end."

cancel ×

199 comments

I Can Has Subject Title? (4, Interesting)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375566)

Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone say what "23,322 Filesharing Does" are?

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375590)

John Does

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376512)

No he doesn't.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0, Redundant)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375596)

Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone say what "23,322 Filesharing Does" are?

a typo.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376466)

It's actually not. They are refering to "John Doe" in a plural sense.

And I really don't like it. It completely screws up whatever part of the brain does language parsing. I practically get like a mini-headache every time I see "Does" used like that.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36377006)

To me I would classify "Does" as being both "John Does" AND "Jane Does". Males are not the only people who use filesharing. In this case, "Does" is much shorter than specifing John and Jane.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375600)

"John Doe" is a generic term for an unidentified or unknown individual, in this case shortened to "Doe".

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375638)

I'm damn glad I didn't say anything about bucks, hunting season, or road kill then. Thanks for explaining it, the title really could have been worded better.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376506)

I'm damn glad I didn't say anything about bucks, hunting season, or road kill then. Thanks for explaining it, the title really could have been worded better.

Hunting season?

Rabbit season! Duck season! FIRE!!!

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375826)

For the British folk, maybe this would be better:

"Judge Prevents 23,322 Filesharing Smiths From Being Sued For Now"

Smith as in John Smith :-)

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375880)

punters?

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (2)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376160)

Just like "Peer" is a generic term for an unidentified Internet user in Norway.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376438)

and Gynt is generic for arsehole?

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375610)

Does, as in John Doe. Very poorly worded.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375614)

23,322 unnamed (read: unknown and unidentified) defendants. When a person is unknown, they are referred to as John/Jane Doe.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375620)

Pardon my ignorance, but can anyone say what "23,322 Filesharing Does" are?

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375642)

Doe, a deer, a female deer.

Deer are notorious for running file sharing software, it's actually what got Bambi killed.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375960)

Exactly my thought.

Bambi's sharing Disney movies on eMule!!

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376990)

Doe, a deer, a female deer.

Ray, a drop of golden sun

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36377292)

Doe, a deer, a female deer.

Ray, a drop of golden sun

You've just been Rogers-and-Hammerstein rolled !

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#36377144)

I thought Godzilla stepped on him.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (5, Funny)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375648)

Downloaders on a deer-to-deer file-sharing network.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375676)

THIS.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375690)

I had no-eye-deer that was how it worked.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375816)

Imagine how many bucks the MPAA could have made if it were not for these people.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376054)

The MPAA doesn't make money on films. In this case the money would have gone to Lionsgate, the distributor, then Nu Image and Millenium Films, both smaller companies known for downscale genre fare and many direct-to-DVD films. And then to Avi Lerner and the producers, then the upfront split that Stallone and Willis probably got (Stallone also directed), and then royalties to all the actors, the writers (including Stallone) and Brian Tyler, the composer.

The reason you're seeing these lawsuits from shops like Voltage Pictures, of The Hurt Locker fame, and Nu Image is because they're tiny and don't make a lot of money, and just can't afford (in their eyes) losing so much money. The big studios treat it like spoilage at a grocery store, but these are really small companies that make payroll with box office money.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376116)

>serious answer
>pun thread

*whistle*

--
BMO

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (4, Funny)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376192)

I get enough pun threads on Reddit. I come to slashdot because there's usually some semblance of intelligence.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376632)

You must be new here.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36377510)

Well, there is "some" here. But he didn't say anything about "all."

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376454)

When a piece of gear downgrades your Bluray to 480p it's suddenly a vast government conspiracy that merits paragraphs of whingeing about freedom and the right to access "my movies." But when a small business loses hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue because people are too friggin' cheap to go watch something on Instant Queue, it's a moment for lolz. Noted.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376740)

You must be lots of fun at parties.

Say hello to your new status. Plonk.

--
BMO

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36377210)

Went to a party recently, my director on Dance of the Dead [imdb.com] remarked that both his features now were available on FilesTube!

When you actually know and work with the people who are supposed to get paid for this stuff, and your paycheck comes from that money too, it sorta rubs you a different way.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376178)

MPAA? I know what you mean, but the distributors would have made the same amount as before. These people weren't going to see it in the theater anyways, or they would have done that rather than downloaded a crappy pirate copy just to check it out.

It's like saying if I put a copy of the Expendables on the background of a party, Lionsgate is losing $20 for each person who took at look at the screen.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376320)

Which is exactly the position they claim - why do you think bars have to have a license to play music in the background, even though the average bar isn't full of audiofiles listening intently to the music, it's mostly incidental.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375868)

Downloaders on a deer-to-deer file-sharing network.

...who were about to be sued for a lotta bucks.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (2)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376010)

If they asked for not only 100 male deer but also that many female pigs they could potentially cash in for as much as a hundred sows and bucks.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375914)

BAHRAMYOU! We ewe's are in the network, chewin' on your grains!

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376620)

so that's what the vegan zombie said....'grains'

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375938)

Doe a deer, a file-sharing deer... Ray, the guy who sued the deer! Me the guy who laughed at Ray...
Far is how long this will go in court...
So they shared a lame-assed show!
La the only thing we know...
Tea the bagging that will be....
and that will bring us back to dough dough dough.....

Alternate title: (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376256)

Runaway legal system brakes in time for 22,000 filesharing Does.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376472)

deer-to-deer? that answer is flipped around and backwards

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375662)

"Doe" as in "John Doe" as in they are anonymous for the time being, because USCG has not been able to determine who they are.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376052)

No, and I cannot say with certitude that one of them is not me.

Re:I Can Has Subject Title? (1)

hoytak (1148181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376888)

It's the new slogan of the pirate bay, similar to Motorola's "Droid Does" slogan. The 23322 is elite speak for zeezz, but you'd have to get them to explain that one.

Woo! Hoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375578)

Arrrrgghhh, start downloading, me mateys!

Re:Woo! Hoo! (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375974)

Arrrrgghhh, start downloading, me mateys!

...

Start?

Awful Headline (1)

heptapod (243146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375586)

"Judge Prevents 23,322 Filesharing Does From Being Sued For Now"

Reads more like a word salad. "...Filesharing does what from being sued for now?"

Perhaps it should be changed to John Does, janitors?

Ridiculous (3, Informative)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375608)

I wonder how many people they still will sue until they realize that piracy can't be stopped anymore except by shutting down the whole Internet.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375654)

Shutting down the whole internet wouldn't stop it either.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376914)

People have been forever. Shakespeare was a pirate. As were most playwrites of that age. They would literally sit in the audience and copy the play down as it was being performed.

As if they want to stop file sharing? (3)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375716)

Damages awarded in lawsuits are so lucrative that people like USCG would never want to see an end to file sharing. Their business is making money by suing people, and they are getting bad directors like Uwe Boll on board. If people suddenly stopped sharing movies, USCG would go out of business, although they might try a few lawsuits anyway just to keep themselves propped up (e.g. people discussing a movie's script on a forum).

Re:As if they want to stop file sharing? (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376272)

They only make money by keeping costs down. To keep costs down, the USCG takes shortcuts like suing a whole group instead of individuals. The filing fees saved are potentially in the millions. Unfortunately for them, that is not always proper. You can't lump people in groups for your own convenience; now they have to show that at they very least, that all 20,000 John Does are in the Court's jurisdiction.

Great news (1)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375612)

I'm pretty happy that this is going in the right direction. While I don't live in the United States, I'm hoping if these things are shut down there, they may be less aggressive on neighboring countries in enforcing such crude copyright laws..

Re:Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375818)

You're such an optimist. Cracking down on frivolous stateside lawsuits may very well displace all the **AA aggression so it spills over onto you folks even more-so.

Re:Great news (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376414)

Even more likely: they'll just lobby for the law to be changed to cover this situation. The judge has to follow the letter of the law, if a new law allows John Does to be named without establishing jurisdiction, his hands will be tied.

Re:Great news (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375844)

That's where you are wrong. The 3-strikes, laws we keep hearing about would never pass in the US so easily. It is easier for the US government and US companies to influence foreign government than it is for the US government to influence its people.

In a way, it speaks well of the US people, not not really... we rolled right over when it came to terrorist laws didn't we? But worse than that -- saw a news story about certain parts of town where violent things have occurred. The news people played comments by people demanding more police and cameras and other measures to "keep us safe." So we still have a long way to go (or have slipped way too far down that slippery slope). You will find people of the US not worried about losing freedom, but they are worried about losing convenience!

Re:Great news (2)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376898)

That's where you are wrong. The 3-strikes, laws we keep hearing about would never pass in the US so easily.

Until some Senator or Representative that's been bought ... er I mean to whose campaign the RIAA or MPAA contributed generously ... slips it into a 1500 page "flags for orphans of members of the armed forces killed in action" bill right next to the hundred other "trivialities" that other members of Congress have stuffed into the bill 15 minutes before the vote.

Goodbye Red Flag law (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375634)

Does==John Does

- It is my sincere hope that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act goes to the same hellhole as the "red flag laws" that required drivers of horseless carriages (cars) to be led by a pedestrian, waving a red flag or carrying a lantern.

Hopefully the repeal won't take 30 years again. Hopefully enough citizens will get pissed-off about receiving $5000 extortion letters (or million-dollar lawsuits) and demand the DMCA get nullified.

I'm a file sharer/downloader (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375704)

Every time I read a story like this, I get a sinking feeling, but then I realize it doesn't apply to me. Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like. Also, I tend to avoid some of the massively popular torrents for that very reason. "Expendables?" Yeah, never even saw it, let alone downloaded it. My musical taste is kind of old too. While it's true that for me to download, someone else must be sharing it and therefore has "some" popularity, I'm still probably in a 1% group while everyone else is in a 90% group.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375766)

Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like

...because there are so many people in the world who like Teen Anal Nightmare 2 or Batman XXX: A Porn Parody? The fact that something is unpopular is not a protection from these lawsuits.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/a-new-record-9729-p2p-porn-pushers-sued-at-once.ars [arstechnica.com]

Luckily, these lawsuits were stopped by the judge as well, because of how completely absurd it is to sued thousands of people across different jurisdictions in the same court room.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376074)

Are you implying that Teen Anal Nightmare 2 is unpopular?

I'd actually be somewhat surprised if it wasn't nearly as popular as some current blockbuster movie like The Expendables...

Considering how many computers I get to fix that have massive porn browsing in the history list, and frequently various porn videos saved in "My Videos", too. And anything involving "Teen" seems to be more popular than other genres like "Grandmas"...

I don't think your assumption that porn == less popular is a valid one.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375786)

Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like.

No one liked The Expendables, or even Hurt Locker. That didnt stop the copyright holders from suing people.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376058)

The Expendables was a pretty bad movie (why the f*ck is movie underlined as a typo in Chrome?). I am glad I streamed it off the net rather then pay for it. If I actually paid money to see it then I would have been really disappointed.

The Hurt Locker on the other hand, I found it to be enjoyable. I would pay to see it again (as a dvd on sale, from a rental shop or from the library - gotta love how libraries have dvd movies).

Well, tbh, screw the rental shop, our local Video Ezy has pretty much any popular movie from the past 5 years or so as either new releases or recent releases and charges more to rent them...

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376402)

(why the f*ck is movie underlined as a typo in Chrome?)

You are probably using a British English dictionary. Movie is an American word. Brits call it "film".

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376428)

why the f*ck is movie underlined as a typo in Chrome

At a guess, they're trying to court Apple's hipster douche demographic. It's a film, you philistine.

*cue flames about "Casablanca" being a film and "Expendables" being a badly-written, overproduced pile of pandering trash*

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376078)

They had to find a way to make some money out of that thing..

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (1, Funny)

gazbo (517111) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375804)

Hipster poster is hipster.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376206)

Your post of an idiotic old meme is stupid, seriously instead of acting like Pavlov's parrot you can string together your own sentences, try it sometime.

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (2)

PIBM (588930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376056)

That`s what 90% of people think!

Re:I'm a file sharer/downloader (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376494)

I get a sinking feeling, but then I realize it doesn't apply to me. Turns out, I don't download stuff other people like.

If it weren't for the MAFIAA, I would never have started watching foreign films. Early on I figured the risk of getting popped in the USA for downloading a Korean or Japanese film was pretty much null. So foreign films were pretty much all I watched for over half a decade. Turned me on to some really great cinema too.

The real crime was... (5, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375776)

The real crime was making that movie. It was terrible. Predictable, trite, and itself a stitched-together copy of all the "hottest" moments of dozens of other successful action films.

The studio should be prosecuted for making such a bad movie. The people sharing it only committed the crime of making people think it was worth sharing. If there were 22,000 people sharing it, that means millions watched it, and thus the equivalent of at least a handful of human lifetimes evaporated in a puff of wasted time. Poof.

The essential irony is that the title of the movie should be a dead give-away. The whole thing was expendable.

Re:The real crime was... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375912)

Really? It wasn't a critique of how modern ageism affects people after retirement? It was actually just entertainment? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. I expected better from an industry that call itself the entertainment industry.

Re:The real crime was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375964)

It'd be amusing to see the defendants counter sue as a class action lawsuit.

Re:The real crime was... (2)

c (8461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376042)

Speaking of irony, it sounds like you actually watched the entire movie... you didn't give anyone actual money for that "privilege", did you?

Re:The real crime was... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376062)

Until now I had never even heard of that flick...

Re:The real crime was... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376360)

And yet it made more at the box office than Scott Pilgrim (which I bothered to actually buy a movie ticket for, Expendables was a Netflix rental when I had nothing else worth getting in my queue - goes down easy with scotch), which apparently Universal took a bath on in theater sales, just saying.

Re:The real crime was... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36377350)

Take any one of the leading men in that film. Are you really expecting to walk into film featuring Stallone or Crews or Lundgren and get high art? It's a goddamned action movie. Does a lot of shit blow up? Check. Does the body count go into the double or even triple digits? Check.

I actually enjoy action movies, because it's trashy, violent entertainment. I usually figure out the end plot of most dramas, so I need either comedy or lots of explosions to distract me.

What is the the Copyrights holders solution (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36375828)

I am an agaisnt the unconstitutional high fines for copyright infingement. But this trend may not be a good thing. How exactly is a copyright holder supposed to protect their works in court if they can't get past this step? What do they need to show? I think this will have a legislative solution if it holds. Where the legislative solution is a special federal court that has jurisdiction over this step of the process.

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution (3, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376046)

They need to show that the people they are suing are under the jurisdiction of the court. Which should be pretty trivial, though of course in reality would mean filing a lot more suits in various courts instead of one big one.

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution (4, Informative)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376134)

They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.

The problem, as the judge sees, is that the rightsholders take every IP address, regardless of where it's located, and sue them all in one court, in order to get subscriber details from the ISPs involved. Well, the judge is basically saying, and rightfully, I would think, that someone who lives in North Carolina shouldn't be sued anonymously in California, just because the USCG has a buttload of lawsuits to file.

Basically, the USCG is trying to save money by filing all lawsuits together, rather than in the appropriate courts. The judge is saying they can't do this.

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376526)

>They can get past this step, if they do the legwork necessary.

The thing is, they can't.

Because the court also vacated discovery. No more discovery. That's it. No more subpoenas will be written trying to attach an IP to a name.

They have to work with what they've got. Which ain't much. This dooms USCG, which I hate to type because it's also the initials for a worthwhile institution called the US Coast Guard

US Copyright Group was just told to go suck on lemons by the court.

--
BMO

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376802)

No more subpoenas will be written trying to attach an IP to a name.

And for a good reason. You can't really be sure that the person who did the downloading is the same person who owns the IP.

And that's just too bad. The burden of proof is on the accusers, and if they fail to prove their claims (which they most likely always will), then they are simply out of luck. I don't really have any sympathy for people trying to make a business out of suing people because they downloaded copyrighted material which, at most, caused a potential loss of potential profit. Not exactly a huge priority.

Re:What is the the Copyrights holders solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376486)

Out of curiosity, how is it "unconstitutional?" Where in the constitution does it say that there is a limit to what dollar amount someone can sue for?

Keep in mind - the 8th Amendment doesn't specify what "excessive" is. For you it may be $1,000. For others it may be $10,000. (Of course, for the record labels, no amount is excessive)

Also, it's *very* rare that a copyright infringement is considered a criminal case. It's almost always a civil case.

Jurisdiction (0)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375886)

This completely dodges the point I hoped to see addressed: whether copyright law as written stands on constitutionally firm grounds.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376286)

And it will never be addressed, because it simply doesn't matter. The law only applies to people who can't defend themselves, never to the people who prey upon them. John doe warrants and other 'unconstitutional' regulations are already being used in other ares like 'terrorism' and drugs.. The industry will ultimately get its way here, and the SWAT teams will be knocking your door down soon enough

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376634)

Eldred v. Ashcroft settled that one pretty firmly, and not in the direction that you wanted it to. Move on.

Now Trade Your BlackBerry (0)

Angelasharpelle (2233482) | more than 3 years ago | (#36375990)

Did you trade things as a kid? Baseball cards? Stickers? How about trading up your current BlackBerry smartphone for a newer model? For a limited time,we’re giving you the chance to trade up to a new BlackBerry and get up to $120 back for your old one. http://spicenewz.blogspot.com/2011/06/trade-upto-new-blackberry-experience.html [blogspot.com]

Question (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376014)

Was this because watching that movie is punishment enough?

So basically... (2)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376152)

the lawsuit is in danger of suffering the same fate as the movie - falling into complete obscurity. Talk about self referential.

Crossley declaired bankrupt (5, Informative)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376158)

Pertinent to the story, just spotted this in the news:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367885/acs-law-solicitor-is-bankrupt [pcpro.co.uk]

Blackmailing filesharers didn't turn out to be the money-spinner he anticipated it to be...

Re:Crossley declaired bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36376492)

Hey Crossley, here are you come-upins you sleazy fucker!

And since you are broke now, consider these pro bono come-upins!

Re:Crossley declaired bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36377272)

That link has more to the story.
How'd he afford to drive a Bentley and live in a nice house [pcpro.co.uk] ?
I wanna be "bankrupt" too!

Expendables? (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376208)

Until this post I'd never even heard of that flick. I think I'll download it when I get home...

Pissing off the Judge... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376236)

... is generally a bad idea.

He's the guy who says what you can get away with. If you're the plaintiff in a lawsuit, you don't want him holding you to strict rules. You want a "we're all just amicable people trying to figure out the answer here" kind of deal.

Not this.

This copyright group is toast.

One wonders what Judge Learned Hand would have said in a situation like this. It would have been colourful.

--
BMO

Sued for pirating The Expandables? (1)

fafaforza (248976) | more than 3 years ago | (#36376434)

Of all the movies you can pirate, can you imagine getting sued for watching that turd? The viewers should be the ones suing the studio -- to get their money back!

This article is innaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36377188)

I think I saw a doe on the side of the road with a burnt dvd by its hoof, the number should now 23,321.

Whew.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36377280)

For a moment, I thought I was on the list. Then I remembered I PAID to see that movie, but the experience had degraded in my mind to the level of a torrent.

Re:Whew.. (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36377422)

Maybe they wouldn't have lost 20% of their profit on that movie if they didn't have to overpay Arnold Schwarzenegger for his 30 second role in the film?
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...