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!

Hurt Locker Lawsuits May Reach Canadians, Too

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the heat-rises dept.

Canada 159

First time accepted submitter so.dan writes "Canadian copyright guru Michael Geist reports that the 'File sharing lawsuits involving the movie the Hurt Locker [that] have been big news in the United States for months... are coming to Canada as the Federal Court of Canada has paved the way for the identification of subscribers at Bell Canada, Cogeco, and Videotron who are alleged to have copied the movie.' This is the first I've ever heard of MAFIAA lawsuits beginning to succeed in Canada. The move seems to target larger ISPs. Are subscribers of smaller ISPs — who must lease their lines from the larger ones such as Bell — relatively protected from such invasions of privacy due to some sort of technical difficulty in determining the names of subscribers? (Please excuse my technical ignorance)."

cancel ×

159 comments

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

What's the point? (3, Insightful)

WhatAreYouDoingHere (2458602) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364612)

You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

No (2)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364618)

Are subscribers of smaller ISPs — who must lease their lines from the larger ones such as Bell — relatively protected from such invasions of privacy due to some sort of technical difficulty in determining the names of subscribers? (Please excuse my technical ignorance)."

Short answer: no

Longer answer: not likely

Re:What's the point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364740)

Hurt Locker wasn't a bad movie. Of course, I've only seen it once I could rent it.

Re:What's the point? (1, Insightful)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364816)

It wasn't a good movie. It wasn't a bad movie. It was just a movie.

Re:What's the point? (2)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365226)

I enjoyed the acting and cinematography, but as a war movie it rates below "In The Army Now" in terms of realism. You'd be hard-pressed to find a scene in that movie that wasn't completely unrealistic.

Re:What's the point? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365526)

Now you're being unfair. The credits looked quite credible.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37366366)

I'm not sure if that counts as a scene by most standards.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37366430)

Pauly Shore was brilliant in that movie!

Hurt Locker was too suspenseful. The thought that at any moment they could all die is so unrealistic. I can't find any evidence of anyone who ever DIED in a war, especially in Iraq by an IED.

Re:What's the point? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37366742)

That's why we call them movies and not documentaries.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364742)

The producers think they are entitled. Their arrogance will be their downfall in the Canadian courts, at least till C-32 gets shoved down our throats.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | more than 2 years ago | (#37366408)

Or until we kick out the Tory bastards in about 4-5 years.

Re:What's the point? (3, Interesting)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364744)

You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

They actually made an excellent movie.

However it was not available for purchase for 99% of the people who wanted to watch it, so people pirated it.

Shocking right?

Re:What's the point? (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365550)

The main reason for illegal copying, actually.

Take a look at how often TV shows get copied. TV shows, the very same you get to see on TV for free anyway. Now, why would people do that?

First, because they're not available at all where they live. It took 3 years to get Big Bang Theory where I live, and for the longest time it didn't look like we'd get it at all. Same for IT Crowd. And I'm still waiting for Mongrels (and it's not bloody likely I'll ever get to see it on TV).

Then there's the delay for non-US people getting shows. We're at the very least one season behind. More often, more than one. Sheen's freak out, causing an interruption in Two and a half man still hasn't hit us. And it won't for some time, the writer's strike just recently caused us to watch reruns. Not to mention that they often mess up the order and that we almost certainly don't get to see "season themed" shows (for Halloween or X-Mas) when they're appropriate.

And finally, the often atrocious dubbing. I won't go into detail, but a lot of jokes and often even the meaning get changed and mangled in translation. Simpsons are notorious for it, but for almost all shows, once you've seen the original, you realize just how crappy the dubbing is. And there's no chance in hell that you could simply forgo it.

Now, of course one could argue to get the show DVDs. And if they're available, I'll certainly take that option gladly. But they often fail for the same three reasons: Shows that weren't on TV yet are often "not available in that country", it takes ages for it to become available on DVD (we're literally talking years here) and it's often a matter of luck whether you can actually get a non-dubbed version.

Fix that and "piracy" will drop instantly.

dvd pricing is also an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37366486)

You forgot to mention that when shows finally does appear on dvd, the price is typically 100-200 USD per season, which is quite expensive...

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365682)

Yet another "war" movie that tries to pass itself off as realistic when in fact it is highly inaccurate.

Re:What's the point? (1)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365810)

Could you elaborate on this?

The movie is readily available at both Amazon and Walmart, and other retailers.

Re:What's the point? (2)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365860)

The movie played at various film festivals and was released in italy, then they soft launched in the US. At this point there was huge demand to watch the movie but absolutely no legal way for 99% of the people to watch it.

I would guess that it's probably one of the most pirated movies of all time.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37366750)

> but absolutely no legal way for 99% of the people to watch it.

Solution: don't watch it.

Your life will not be changed by watching a film. Go for a walk or build a model kit.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364782)

Boycott the directors and producers. I didn't download this garbage, so i'm independent ... but we need to send a clear message to them.

Re:What's the point? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364866)

Or you could do something that'd actually help.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Warlord88 (1065794) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364950)

Like what?

Re:What's the point? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365576)

Even just bitching about it on-line is more effective. When you boycott movies etc it doesn't cause a drop in piracy, so they just say "See! People are robbing us blind!"

This is not a 'boycott' situation.

Re:What's the point? (1)

dryeo (100693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37366342)

AC below this had a good idea, start suing the movie studios for wasted bandwidth. While about it, start suing the ISPs for marketing the bandwidth as ideal for pirating when it turns out there is nothing worth pirating.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364784)

You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

No kidding. After hearing all the hype, I recently borrowed it from my local library, and I spent the entire movie bored out of my mind. The acting was fine, but the writing was awful and the story was disjointed.

Just like with Indiana Jones 4, if I had downloaded it I'd be suing the producers for my bandwidth back.

Re:What's the point? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364872)

Are we talking about the movie The Hurt Locker that won 6 Academy Awards including one for best screenplay? That's the one with awful writing and disjointed story? http://www.thehurtlocker-movie.com/ [thehurtlocker-movie.com]

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364940)

Are we talking about the movie The Hurt Locker that won 6 Academy Awards including one for best screenplay? That's the one with awful writing and disjointed story? http://www.thehurtlocker-movie.com/ [thehurtlocker-movie.com]

yes it won some popularity contests... that means it must be good, right? and anybody who didn't like it must be misguided in the face of all the authority of popular voting, right? large masses of people always pick the very best of the best, don't they? of course they do. that sure is better than having your own refined tastes.

god damn you're a lemming, sheep, mindless imbecile if you think the purpose of the Academy Awards is to do your thinking for you.

Re:What's the point? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364982)

Hey, I haven't even seen Titanic or Avatar so I'm immune to lemming, sheep or any other mindless criticism. And I don't watch the Oscars.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365214)

it doesn't matter if you watch the Oscar's. You cited them as a reason the movie is great. The movie was OK. But EOD does not ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, actually work like that. It was fake Hollywood garbage. Which is fine. Except it was an OK movie. It won because it was about Iraq and so the voters voted as they had to. Other than that, I agree with the parent, it was Hollywood garbage when it could have been a great movie about EOD work in the war. Instead it was about fake EOD in the writer's fantasy land.

You want a good war movie then rent Blackhawk Down. It took Hollywood leeway with dialog and other cinematic elements but fundamentally that is what happened.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365360)

Hey, I haven't even seen Titanic or Avatar so I'm immune to lemming, sheep or any other mindless criticism. And I don't watch the Oscars.

So by your own admission... the awards a movie has gained mean nothing. Glad you finally admitted that. It saves me a lot of time invalidating false logic.

So then, you retract your previous comment that anyone should be influenced by the Academy Awards? Or are you really too prideful to admit you should not have pretended like this was important? Those are your only two remaining choices after your admission.

Re:What's the point? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365458)

Somehow I'm defending a movie I haven't even seen. Remind me not to do this. I was merely suggesting that others had a vastly different opinion.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365838)

Somehow I'm defending a movie I haven't even seen. Remind me not to do this. I was merely suggesting that others had a vastly different opinion.

No. Don't play stupid please.

You were suggesting that someone should think twice about holding the opinion that it sucks because "others had a vastly different opinion". Any way you look at it, this is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. It's false. It is equivalent to saying that popular is always good so a popular award must settle the matter. It means nothing. Your post meant nothing because of it, despite your intentions.

That's what you should be reminded not to do. It's not a matter of "defending the movie" on its merits. It's a matter of how merit is measured. Don't twist these -- it only confuses the naive.

Re:What's the point? (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365302)

Too bad the movie was about preventing things from blowing up or you would have liked it.

You sound like a: OOOO YA, It blowed up real good! hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk! Now thars what I call a goooood movie. It would be even better with a CGI car chase that ends with a car blowing up reaaallll good!!

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365852)

I don't know about GP, but I watch movies to see shit that CAN'T or DON'T happen in every day real life. I hate drama and war films especially because they're fucking boring. Yes, I want to see spaceships blasting each other with lasers. I want to see people doing impossible stunts and fights. I want to see lots of shit blowing up in strange ways.

When I want to see drama, I'll just let real life provide that. If I want to learn about some war, I'll read a book or watch a documentary on it.

Re:What's the point? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364962)

How could you possibly get +4 insightful? The Hurt Locker is one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade. Its awards have their own (long) Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] . It has a 97% (!) amongst critics and 83% amongst users at Rotten Tomatoes, got a 4-star review from Roger Ebert [suntimes.com] , and it made something like triple its budget [boxofficemojo.com] . The mods must be crazy. I guess I can hope they accidentally clicked "Insightful" instead of "Troll".

Re:What's the point? (0)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365022)

bad movie

one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade

This may come as a shock to you, but no amount of awards, acclaims, and raving reviews will make a movie good.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365064)

This is true. However, in this case a limited release run did not help their numbers. It was in less than 70 theaters I believe.

Home entertainment systems have changed the ticket going masses. They will wait it out for a 'ok' looking movie. For something that looks cool they might go to the theater.

Hurt locker looked like an 'ok' movie to me. I think they were going to rush it to DVD anyway. I have not seen it. But of the people who I know have seen it recommend it. Since it looked like an 'ok' movie. I probably would just snag it on netflix if I felt like watching it...

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365496)

On the other hand: you are much more likely to have bad taste or poor judgment compared with a large sampling of film critics and awards-givers.

Re:What's the point? (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365532)

Duh. You managed to completely ignore the high correlation between lots of accolades and "goodness" while coming up with an almost tautological and content-less one-liner. This is why I hate computer geek culture. There's always another smug idiot ready to bless the world with his unique insight, since he really does have insight in the computer world, and the real world is the same, right?

Of course objective measures of a subjective phenomenon are imperfect. That should be obvious to anyone. Unless you say why the measures I've provided are imperfect in this particular case, you've added nothing to the discussion but my raised hackles.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365092)

It's an flawed movie directed by a woman. That equals genius for old pansies like Ebert.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365094)

How could you possibly get +4 insightful? The Hurt Locker is one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade. Its awards have their own (long) Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] . It has a 97% (!) amongst critics and 83% amongst users at Rotten Tomatoes, got a 4-star review from Roger Ebert [suntimes.com] , and it made something like triple its budget [boxofficemojo.com] . The mods must be crazy. I guess I can hope they accidentally clicked "Insightful" instead of "Troll".

yes. appeal to popularity is your God, your Lord and Master. no sacrifice made at the altar of this God is too great. anyone who disagrees with popular opinion must be a total idiot. we must make appeals to the authority of popular taste whenever possible.... nevermind how fickle and malleable this is. that's just, details. we've got sales to make, god dammit.

Popularity Contest? (3, Interesting)

mevets (322601) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365186)

Boxoffice mojo claims it was the #116 in popularity in 2009. Going by popularity, it got its ass kicked by "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The squekquel" ( no I didn't make that up ); and nudged by a few million dollars by "Astro Boy".

I haven't seen any of them; but I think I might go with the experts on this one.

Re:Popularity Contest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365798)

Shawshank Redemption was #51 in 1994, The Big Lebowski was #96 in 1998, Office Space was #121 in 1999. Box office popularity has nothing to do with the quality of a movie.

Re:What's the point? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365610)

I appealed mostly to professional opinions in the form of awards and professional film critics' opinions, though I also included the user rating from Rotten Tomatoes. Should I believe the random person on /. who called it a bad movie without providing any hint of evidence, or should I believe the pages of professional reviews I linked, or the vast majority of positive random people's reviews?

By all objective measures I can think of, this was a good movie. It got many awards, some of which are the highest honors in film; it is extraordinarily popular amongst critics and very popular amongst regular people; it was a box office success. I am not saying everyone agrees--the 3% of critics and 17% of users on Rotten Tomatoes who didn't give it a particularly high rating fall into that category. You can't please everyone, and that's fine. I'm sure some people have legitimate reasons for disliking the film.

The person I was replying to can have his opinion that the movie was bad. However, their main point was that the makers of the film were upset about making a bad movie, and so sued everyone over it. That's just preposterous--who could possibly be sore over making the Best Picture winner?--and somehow it got modded insightful.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365750)

Well hey, Kanye West and Lady Gaga got all sorts of awards too. I guess they must be musical geniuses.

Re:What's the point? (1)

drgregoryhouse (1909704) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365802)

The movie is acclaimed for its "realism". However as a trained national serviceman, I stopped watching after the part where the sergeant ordered his men individually into dark alleys. I would shoot the sergeant on the spot for endangering the lives of his men if I were there. Not a good movie IMO.

Re:What's the point? (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37366734)

Hurt Locker is not the only one [wikipedia.org] with a long page of awards...

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365142)

You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

A bad movie? It won best picture. It struggled in the theaters so they are concerned with lost revenue. If it doesn't make a profit it could be the last of it's kind. It was an indy film not main stream Hollywood. What's "Insightful" about bashing an award winning film? It sounds more ignorant than insightful. What's so wrong with paying filmmakers so they can make more movies? The Good Fairy doesn't make movies, money makes movies. And no a bunch of fans aren't going to make Hurt Locker in their garage. Hey if everyone hates the film why did so many download it in the first place????

Re:What's the point? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37366024)

A bad movie? It won best picture.

Yeah, and? It was a war movie directed by a woman.. of course it was going to win awards.

It struggled in the theaters so they are concerned with lost revenue.

Because it was a bad movie.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365292)

It is actually a great movie, but one of the four producers (Nicolas Chartier) is kind of a nut and he is specifically is behind these lawsuits.

- TWR

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365312)

"You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else."

You have no idea what you are talking about.

It was a damned good movie.

I paid to see it in a theater, and I would pay to rent it again.

The subculture of idiots like you who think everything should be free
ought to all have their reproductive organs removed, because scum like you
are nothing but parasites on the rest of humanity.

"Free" doesn't pay the bills, you sorry sack of shit.

Re:What's the point? (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365390)

it is a rhetorical point but if everything is free there are no bills to pay....

Re:What's the point? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365404)

The subculture of idiots like you who think everything should be free

I didn't see him mention anything about that.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365480)

You have no idea what you are talking about...It was a damned good movie.

Different strokes I guess. I downloaded it and didn't even watch it to the end. Ugh, what a stinker! I'm thinking about suing *them* for cruel and unusual punishment.

Oh yeah, I'm a Canuck - I say bring on your weasel-worded lawyers.

Re:What's the point? (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365466)

Don't know, but if I thought I could make millions by suing downloaders of something I made, I would be seriously tempted as well. Who wouldn't be?

Re:What's the point? (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365500)

More like... The Butthurt Locker.

THANK YOU THANK YOU i'll be here all week.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365622)

Yes, it was so horrible that it was worth watching it without compensating the producers in any way. Screw you. If you do not have the money to pay for it, do not buy it. Do not steal it. Do not equate this with a companies equatable treatment of the 'artists'. This has nothing to do with that. This is purely against people who pirated a work solely because they did not want to pay for it. For F-sake, they could rent it for $1 a night. As someone that actually works for a living and prefers to be compensated for my what I do, this comment is ignorant, naive, and full of stupid.

Re:What's the point? (1)

Zalbik (308903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37366264)

You made a bad movie.

A word of advice: If everyone else loves the movies you hate, then maybe, just maybe, you have bad taste.

Note: This also works for books, television, music and fashion, but unfortunately not for Slashdot posts.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37366642)

That's a moronic thing to say. The majority is not always right.

It will last as long as it is profitable (2)

stretch0611 (603238) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364616)

FTA: "The ISPs were given two weeks to respond and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses."

Once ISP expenses cost more than the expected settlement amount, this nonsense will stop in Canada.

Re:It will last as long as it is profitable (2)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364658)

FTA: "The ISPs were given two weeks to respond and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses."

Once ISP expenses cost more than the expected settlement amount, this nonsense will stop in Canada.

I disagree. I don't think these lawsuits are about making money for the studios as much as they are about deterrence.

Re:It will last as long as it is profitable (3, Funny)

TheReaperD (937405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364836)

I disagree. I don't think these lawsuits are about making money for the studios as much as they are about deterrence.

I somehow don't think it will deter Hollywood from making bad movies again. ;)

Re:It will last as long as it is profitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364768)

Also, the movie corps. could sue the ISPs for over charging for finding the offending Home Address to their subscribers.

Re:It will last as long as it is profitable (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364880)

Does that mean we can sue the ISPs for over charging for providing us with internet access too?!

Send 'em all back (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364620)

If we sent ALL the knee grows back to Africa (they seem unhappy here anyway, always bitching about this and that) and suddenly crime rates went way down, inner cities became pleasant safe places to live again, tax expenditures on public subsidized housing and other forms of welfare went down, politicians stopped getting elected because they happen to be black so all the kneegrows mindlessly vote for them like lemmings, and generally the nation entered a new time of prosperity and wellbeing... what would you liberal types say then? I'd really like to know.

You do know they contribute little or nothing to anything. Sure some blacks may be productive but overall they are a net drain on the country. Oh and many of them would hate you for being white no matter how not-racist PC you are. SO what would you say if we did that and everyone had a better life because of it?

Culture (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364638)

Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's a culture problem reinforced by ethnic identity politics. From BOTH sides of the equation.

Re:Send 'em all back (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364650)

I feel the pull of your trolling all the way form the southern hemisphere.

Re:Send 'em all back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364656)

Don't forget about the money-grubbing jews and their never-ending quest to conquer their brown neighbors.

Re:Send 'em all back (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364672)

knee grows

Oh, look, honey--Junior made a funny. Isn't he just the cleverest little fellow.

MAFIAA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364626)

We should also go back to spelling it as micro$oft in the summaries, too!

Re:MAFIAA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364736)

It is the real acronym... http://mafiaa.org/

Re:MAFIAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364762)

Poe's law.

Re:MAFIAA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364764)

Actually, we should rather drop the last "A". I worked with lawyers and people in the industry and studied the whole way they work.

Imagine a gang that told everyone they needed "protection" so much, that people actually started to believe it.
That's what the media industry did.
They told everyone that you could "own information" so much, that people actually started to believe it.
Even here on Slashdot. Even though everyone who seriously thinks about it, realizes that it's actually physically impossible to own information. (Takes a bit more explaining, and diving into the depths of quantum physics. the definitions of "ownership" and so on, so I'll leave that as an exercise for the skilled.)

Beware, as this is completely unrelated to the fact that of course somebody should get something in return for their work. But that's the point: For their work. Work in the physics sense. Their service of making that information.
And here's the key: Not for the information itself.

So they made up an imaginary "ownership", and then threaten to hurt you (through lawyers, but nonetheless destroying lives) when you don't pay up an imaginary amount of money.

If that isn't the a protection racket, making them organized crime, to you, then I don't know what planet you're from.*
I, for one, am gonna put them behind bars where they belong.

___
* And the amount of cocaine and prostitutes I have seen going around on their "meetings" don't help it either.

They likely made a deal with those ISPs (5, Interesting)

static416 (1002522) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364716)

There was a previous case involving BMG that was stopped because CIPPIC intervened and showed that you can't plausibly identify an individual based on an IP address, and that there were huge privacy violations involved in just handing over subscriber information. http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2011/09/hurt-locker-lawsuits-about-to-detonate.html [blogspot.com] We have a Privacy Act here in Canada that is supposed to prevent these sorts of things.

In this case the Voltage (movie production company) moved so fast that there was no chance for anyone to intervene, and the ISPs didn't put up any kind of fight, so the court process was mostly a formality. On top of that, Bell, Cogeco, and Videotron provided all the subscriber info within two weeks of the ruling.

Two weeks is a very short time. With the same situation in the US, I think Comcast and Time Warner said that it would take them months and months to find all the information.

My guess is that Voltage approached Bell, Cogeco, and Videotron much earlier and made sure they would not be putting up a fight. And possibly even got them to start collecting the information early. By making sure it moved quickly they minimized the chances that CIPPIC could get involved and block it as they did before. This is why they didn't include other ISPs, they wanted to make sure the ISPs they were dealing with were just going to just go along with it, and smaller providers like Teksavvy would have very likely stood up for their customers and drawn CIPPIC into the battle with them.

Now that they have all the information they need, I'm sure that individual suits will start. But the situation in Canada is a little different than the US, and the suits may not work as well. Here we have something of a precedent showing that this information should not have been provided in the first place. Furthermore, if the defendant is able to win, Voltage will be forced to pay the defendants legal fees so it's not quite the same extortion racket it is in the US.

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364832)

I really don't understand why ISP's aren't fighting this. Once p2p traffic goes down, they lose a lot of the high-paying customers, and the investments for the infrastructure will be harder to recover.

In a world, where a few percentages mean the difference between profit and bankruptcy, I find all this pretty puzzling.

It doesn't seem a deterrent. If they were interested in changing things, starting with the government would be the obvious solution, then work their way down to the consumer. Mass lawsuits do nothing but piss-off people and alienate them. It seems it's pretty much a trend for American firms, rise fast, recover initial investments, then make profit any way possible, regardless what wrecks are left behind.

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (3, Interesting)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364868)

I really don't understand why ISP's aren't fighting this. Once p2p traffic goes down, they lose a lot of the high-paying customers, and the investments for the infrastructure will be harder to recover.

They don't want those customers. They want the people paying $200/month for HDTV and their video on demand (where they charge $5/movie, not that silly unlimited business from netflix) service.

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365406)

I really don't understand why ISP's aren't fighting this. Once p2p traffic goes down, they lose a lot of the high-paying customers, and the investments for the infrastructure will be harder to recover.

Each of those companies is involved in 100$/month TV subscription, they hate the fact that they have to deliver the Internet, if they could they would charge for the service but never deliver it...

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (1)

Chelmet (1273754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37364862)

Wait; in the US, if you sue someone and lose, you don't have to pay their legal fees? Is that right?

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365034)

That's right. It's a little ridiculous. They're trying to introduce a law at the moment, so those who bring frivilous lawsuits (ie, those with no merit that they know they're going to lose) have to pay the fees for the other side. The legal establishment is fighting extremely hard to stop this, and being quite powerful they probably will succeed.

Frivilous lawsuits are their bread and butter. They convince some ignorant sap that they'll win a court case which they (the lawyers) know they'll most likely lose, go to court, lose, and then bill their ignorant sap. If said ignorant sap knew he'd have to pay the opposing side's legal fees if he lost, he'd be far less likely to take the case to court. At the moment, there's no disincentive, as his lawyers can say "the most it'll cost you is x (our charge) and if you win, you stand to gain .. ONE MILLION DOLLARS".

IMO, damn straight folks should have to pay up for clogging the legal system with lawsuits that have no merit. Sure, if someone loses a lawsuit that is "fair" - ie, those that do have at least some merit - then no, don't charge the legal fees from the opposite side. But frivilous lawsuits that if taken to court are unwinnable and were only raised to try and get a settlement, sure - charge them the opposing legal fees. Fine them as well. Damn vultures.

Why should an innocent party on the receiving end of a frivilous lawsuits have to pay ANYTHING to defend himself? Those bringing the case against him purely in the hope of getting a settlement because it'd be "cheaper than paying lawyers fees" are the scum who should be paying up. In fact, it would pretty much stop that kind of case - which is why your lawyers and all their lawyer friends will be trying their darndest to convince you this law is a bad idea.

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (1)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365258)

The court can always charge a side with legal fees if the lawsuit is without merit. What you actually want is universal fee shifting. Sounds great until you consider every company will pay their attorneys 1,000 dollars an hour. No suits will be brought.

As an attorney I think you're on to something and should push this as hard as possible. However, be aware that your idea give companies even greater power. Right now it's everyone pays their own fees with fee shifting in certain statutory situations and meritless cases. But if you had your way I could work 100 hours a year and make 100,000 dollars since companies would just use my fee as a intimidation tactic. Fine with me, but bad for you.

I guess if you don't care I don't.

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365374)

No, the law doesn't propose universal fee shifting. And no, that's not what I want.

At the moment courts *can* award for meritless cases, but also don't have to. Frequently cases are simply dismissed without any fee shifting, and two sets of lawyers go home happy. The law being proposed makes fee shifting mandatory in frivilous cases. It doesn't apply to cases which aren't frivilous, so there's no balanced equation which means no cases can be brought, as you're suggesting. It simply means that there'll be a disincentive to bring a case you know you can't win.

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (2)

Loadmaster (720754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365452)

It doesn't apply to "cases which aren't frivolous?" Awesome, who decides what's frivolous and what's not? I thought I knew frivolous cases from reading newspapers. Then I went to law school and actually read the cases. Give me an example of what you consider a frivolous case.

And court fees are always the domain of the court. I do 8th amendment/1983 actions which allow fee shifting but doesn't require it. What you really want is universal fee shifting. And that's OK, my Advanced Civil Procedure Professor wanted it as well. I just disagreed with the results of such a measure. The UK does have it if you want to see it in practice.

Here's my professor's Amazon page for his books:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Robert%20Hardaway [amazon.com]
No, he couldn't remember anyone's name, but he knows everything about law. Even if he's wrong about universal fee shifting.

Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs (1)

telso (924323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365418)

Depends. The English rule [wikipedia.org] , used in most common law and Western jurisdictions for civil cases, except state-level cases in the US, allows the judge to award costs [wikipedia.org] to the prevailing party (FRCP [wikipedia.org] 54 causes this to apply to federal civil suits in the US). The American rule [wikipedia.org] is used for state-level civil suits, and requires each side to pay its own legal fees. (Of course, there are exceptions.)

The rationale for awarding costs is obviously to dissuade frivolous litigation; you're going to be badly hurt if you lose. This could conceivably reduce the mounds of ridiculous lawsuits that come out of the US. On the other hand, allowing the awarding of costs means that people (especially those who have been badly wronged and desperately need compensation) are much less likely to initiate valid lawsuits for fear that they would be even worse off if they lose. Further, after years of litigation, parties may be loathe to settle as then they would not be able to get costs, so will turn down reasonable offers on the hope of getting costs. (I also remember a case (possibly regarding libel) in which one party was found guilty but the judge thought the claim was baseless even if technically correct, so awarded the party one dollar in damages. However, in this case the rule was that the losing party automatically paid the winner's attorney's fees, so the judgement was still for hundreds of thousands.)

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and you can find proponents of each; it's not as clear cut a case as it seems on first glance.

JEWS control Canada and the U.S. ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37364928)

And JEWS run Hollywood... and Congress.

Understand now?

When was the last time you saw a Jew doing manual labour? You know, building a house, digging a road, planting and picking crops, etc.

How about never.
So WHO does all the hard work, while the Jew lives in luxury? YOU do, and your children.

Big ISPs = larger number of defendants (2)

jimmyswimmy (749153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365096)

In answer to OP's question, I suspect that the movie mafia are going after downloaders at large ISPs because the payoff is bigger - they get one process going through one legal department, and a number of names and addresses of suspected downloaders is produced, after which they send out ransom letters. At smaller ISPs, there are fewer targets to send letters to, so the cost is proportionally higher per target.

So in a sense, you could say that customers at smaller ISPs are safer, depending on the movie organizations' intent - if they want to make money off people and get a lot of big settlements to make news, they would focus on large ISPs and their customers. If they want to thoroughly scare people, they'll go after everyone, independent of the cost of doing so.

Re:Big ISPs = larger number of defendants (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365666)

I SUSPECT the first person they hit up counter sues because they violated canada's privacy laws and turns the tables on the MAFIAA since even lawsuits they have won by default judgement or now being made into loses.

How about a boycott? (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365146)

How about someone makes a database that lists everyone in every one of these movies they sue over and boycott any works by those studios, the actors, even down to the crews that work in them. If any of those people are in a movie or related to it in anyway; it's boycotted. The real power is in the consumer, not the courts, not the studios.

Re:How about a boycott? (3, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365324)

Oh goodie! A call for a boycott - because those work so well when there's still millions who won't join in on said boycott :D /sarcasm

Let's give it a shot, though...

Starting with the production companies...
Voltage Pictures - not much to boycott there.
Grosvenor Park - no watching "Love in the Time of Cholera", "Disaster Movie" (no loss there) or "Righteous Kill"
Film Capital Europe Funds - again, not much to boycott.
First Light Production - no "K-19 The Widowmaker"
Kingsgate - zilch

Ohhhh... this one should get some teenage girls going "omg I have to boycott them!? noooooooeees":
Summit Entertainment - That's right, no more watching the "Twilight" saga, the "Step Up" series, "Push", "Knowing" (ot: great opening sequence), "The Brothers Grimm", "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", "Memento", "Vanilla Sky",

I guess we'll leave the distribution companies be, but just for kicks, they include Warner Brothers Pictures, Lionsgate Home Entertainment, Summit Home Entertainment, Universal Studios Home Entertainment. Including them, and the other distributions, means you can now put more than half of the movies made, EVER, on your boycott list. That shouldn't be too hard, eh.

Oh, another good one..
Effects: Company 3 - They have worked on, among other, "Tower Heist", "Conan the Barbarian" but also the "Transformers" series, the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series, "X-Men: The Last Stand", "Sucker Punch", "Rango"... shit, they go all the way back to "Being John Malkovich". That's 202 more movies - many of which quite popular - that you can add to your boycott list.

And we haven't even gotten to the fact that you want the crew to be included. You do realize that eventually, it's entirely likely that you will have put, say, 95% of all movies out of Hollywood - and whatever bunch more that the distributors and investment companies etc. touch outside of Hollywood - on your boycott list, right?

Yes, the real power is in the consumer. The question however is not whether the consumer has the power to bring down corporations; that power is a given. The question is whether that consumer has the power to stop themselves from enjoying entertainment just because somebody on Slashdot is entirely deluded on the feasibility of boycotts in general, and especially those scoped as large as you just have.

If you just want to boycott the studio that's actually doing the suing, rather than some make-up artist who would give you puzzling looks as to what the hell you're on, then boycott Voltage Pictures.

But, again, there's just not much to boycott there, even though I guess their list is growing:
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0179337/ [imdb.com]

Re:How about a boycott? (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365692)

Good points, I am just frustrated, and that doesn't make for good suggestions.

Re:How about a boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365770)

If you're just going to boycott one given company, you're not going to get very far. Every movie made is its own corporation, legally. Yes, part of making a movie is starting a little corporation just to make that movie. And that's how they never make any net profit; Welcome to Hollywood accounting.

AC

Re:How about a boycott? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365382)

Well, since 99.9% of the movie going public could really care less, it would be a waste of effort.

Re:How about a boycott? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37366118)

How about someone makes a database that lists everyone in every one of these movies they sue over and boycott any works by those studios, the actors, even down to the crews that work in them. If any of those people are in a movie or related to it in anyway; it's boycotted. The real power is in the consumer, not the courts, not the studios.

Your idea is not without merit but you need to take it all the way. Boycotting a company is a futile gesture, as you recognized in reply elsewhere, but I do agree with your initial statement that the real power is in the consumer. The problem is that the consumer must cease being a consumer to realize their power, something that is a little too difficult for most consumers to come to grips with. The media cartels only have power when you participate in their system, and given the lack of vision they've displayed throughout our transition to a post-scarcity economy (anything that can be digitized and replicated with a cost approaching zero has no real economic value) it is very hard to believe their system will be able to continue for much longer. Opt out now, and together we'll bring about their end all the sooner.

STOP BUYING SHIT.

I thought that we were not getting sued... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365176)

Because of certain laws, not because they simply never got around to it yet. now this seems to be saying that Canada has been illegal movie download litigation free simply because they have not bothered to sue anyone yet?

I am not sure about movies, but I know we are allowed/semi allowed to pirate music because the government taxes all MP3 players expressly to pay for the loss of profits that piracy costs the artists.

Re:I thought that we were not getting sued... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37365320)

Well, the government is already quoting American text, referring to it as "illegal downloading", before they've actually criminalized (made it illegal) it. The Hurt Locker litigation team are probably just trying to get their ducks in a row, to facilitate the prosecution of Canadians (aka "Radical Extremists" - James Moore) when King Harper declares His Way (which will probably be made retroactive, based on this action).
Boy, wouldn't Canada be great if we wholly adopted American laws and procedures?

Re:I thought that we were not getting sued... (3, Informative)

adonoman (624929) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365594)

Movies != music. Music is treated specially in Canada's copyright legislation.

I downloaded it, but didn't watch it, am i guilty? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365580)

I downloaded the movie, but never could watch, it well, just sounded way too dumb.

So am I guilty?

It got deleted, never watched.

Obviously I'm somewhat guilty of having bad taste, but I deleted the movie before it damaged my mental capabilities, so does that take some of the downloading shame away?

Wait, I should sue the movie makers for putting out a movie that i wasted time downloading but not watching.

Another Hurt Locker Thread (2)

winmine (934311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365632)

Comments that say the movie sucks will get modded up.

Comments that defend the movie will stay below sea level moderation.

This is because some people associated with the movie decided to pursue a civil copyright lawsuit.

The summary will say the MPAA is involved. This will be false.

No analysis of the movie, or any new analysis of copyright law will occur.

Re:Another Hurt Locker Thread (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365958)

No analysis of the movie, or any new analysis of copyright law will occur.

To be fair, the flaws in the latter are well-known and have been for quite some time. Naturally no explanation of this would be complete without an understanding of how political power works and thus, how it got to be so flawed in the first place and what must first be corrected before the laws will change.

I suppose the movie is open to novel forms of analysis... but the second half of that statement may as well be a tautology.

What would happen if.. (1)

jargonburn (1950578) | more than 2 years ago | (#37365918)

As a nation, Canada just said...."No." to this. To America's absolutely nutso attempts to punish the misdeeds (arguable) of a minority at the expense of the majority. I doubt it will ever really happen here in the States...but maybe there are other countries that don't subscribe to this particular brand of insanity?

have been big news in the United States (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37366172)

no

Eastern Canada... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37366424)

More and more, eastern Canada becomes more "USAian". I also find the lack of my ISP's(western Canadian) name being dropped both curious and awesome.

Western Canada...FTMFW. ;)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>