×

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 Studio Begins Requesting Canadian ISP's Subscriber Info

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-be-careful-not-to-learn-anything dept.

Canada 172

New submitter Nerdolicious writes "Ars Technica reports that Voltage Pictures, the studio behind the infamous Hurt Locker debacle, has requested subscriber information for thousands of TekSavvy customers in relation to alleged copyright infringements. In their official blog, TekSavvy clarifies the situation and provides further reassurance that they will not release any private customer information without a court order. They have also posted the legal documents containing both the official notice and list of films that are the subjects of the alleged infringements. However, several questions remain to be answered: will Canadian courts be amicable to these tactics after changes to copyright law were made specifically to prevent the predatory legal entanglement of Canadian citizens? Will the studio actually attempt to pursue the situation beyond the proliferation of threatening extortion letters? How would the already-clogged courts react to what amounts to denial-of-service attack on the judicial system?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

172 comments

Fuck Hurt Locker (5, Insightful)

cormandy (513901) | about a year ago | (#42255017)

I am not a movie pirate and I have never seen this movie, but this bullshit makes me not want to see it. Fuck the Hurt Locker.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (3, Interesting)

Bradmont (513167) | about a year ago | (#42255071)

It actually makes me want to torrent it, even though I don't torrent movies, or have any interest in watching it.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (1, Interesting)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#42255187)

Same.

In fact, it almost makes me want to torrent it, then burn piles of dvds and leave them out on street corners with signs saying "free movies!"

Certainly doesn't make me want to watch it, though.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (2, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42255269)

You'd be giving them free publicity. The movie isn't worth watching. It's slow. It's boring. There isn't that much suspense. It's yet another war movie where an invincible person traipses through a war zone and comes out on the other side affected by what he saw. Yawn. I don't remember where I saw it, but I do remember that I did not pay to watch it, but even then, it wasn't worth the time spent to watch it.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#42255205)

It actually makes me want to torrent it, even though I don't torrent movies, or have any interest in watching it.

Maybe that's the point. It's such a shitty movie the only way to get publicity for it is to say "We're suing the pants off people for this!" It makes it sound like it's valuable. Like they're wasting millions of dollars and throwing armies of lawyers at it because it's worth defending. The reality is... it's a shitty movie and there's way too much marketing research saying that people who pirate are also their most reliable customers. If you wanted to get your sales numbers up... what better way than to get your most reliable customers to say "Hey, I see smoke over there. Must be a fire, let's go check it out!"

Never believe the reason 'they' state (the generic ominous 'they', which applies to any group with an agenda); You look at the effect. That's almost always the reason for the action taken. The few times it isn't, they stop right away and spin the hell out of it... which us laypeople refer to as a Fuck Up.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#42255539)

It makes me want to switch ISPs to TekSavvy. Luckily, I just did exactly that. Imagine, an ISP both following the intent of the law and standing up for its customers.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255083)

If it's on your Netflix some of your money is going to them anyway. I saw a couple of Uwe Boll movies on there a while ago and that really pissed me off.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (2, Interesting)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year ago | (#42255211)

Not missing much - it's a pretty crapy movie over all.
It's basic premise is based on Captain Willard's intro sequence in Apocalypse Now.

I'd wake up and there'd be nothing. I hardly said a word to my wife, until I said "yes" to a divorce. When I was here, I wanted to be there; when I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle. I'm here a week now... waiting for a mission... getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around the walls moved in a little tighter.

But they wait till the end to show you that. So it ends up being all about this jack-off who works as a bomb squad expert defusing IEDs and what not who keeps re-enlisting for another tour because it's all he can deal with any more. He's little more than a caricature of a risk junky with a death wish.

The plot consists of a few people dying, David Morse making a brief appearance as a gung-ho Colonel filled with bravado in homage to Duvall's Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore, how relatively untrained US regulars are able to out shoot and outlive highly trained SAS in a fire fight against a few insurgents holed up in a shack and how he risk of getting blewn-up is a hellofa rush.

And that's about it.

Frankly I'd have liked it better if it featured a Humvee odyssee up the Highway of Death to find a Colonel Kurtz character leading a group rebel Kurds holding their own against both the US Allies the Insurgents with Kurtz' command being terminated during the goat slaughtering for a Ramadan feast.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255337)

I've never heard of it until it won some award, but the title sounded retarded to me so I passed. Then they started to sue everyone who seemed to have watched it, so really if that is their angle at making money by suing people who've watched it.

They are hollywood's Metalica, so fuck them all.

Re:Fuck Hurt Locker (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#42255525)

they're already fucked. these guys are so mislead that they'll be lucky if they can even get an ISP to comply - which they won't.

This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255073)

I own this movie, it sucks. It's not terrible but it's certainly not good.
This review off rotten tomatoes says it all
"Lacking a narrative arc. There's no central conflict to keep the audience interested. Instead it's just repetitive unrealistic war scenes, and it really drags throughout its long running time. Yawn."

I'm confused by all the good reviews.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (0)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42255241)

To be honest, the Rotten Tomatoes reviewer sounds like the sort of convention-bound scold that's been ruining movies for a decade now with corporate focus-group storylines dumbed down for a room-temperature IQ audience.

Fair Disclosure: I was a sound effects editor on Hurt Locker and my supervisor won two Oscars.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (2)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#42255321)

It's worth noting that Hurt Locker is not one of the films that Voltage Pictures is threatening to sue TekSavvy customers over. I'm not sure why nobody else has picked up on this.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255425)

It's worth noting that Hurt Locker is not one of the films that Voltage Pictures is threatening to sue TekSavvy customers over. I'm not sure why nobody else has picked up on this.

It's not that they don't want to sue over it, they're just too ashamed to admit it belongs to them.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42255565)

Yeah but I've been reading people dig on HL for weeks now leading up to ZD30's release, I'm fed up! :)

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (3, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#42255963)

Well, I did not enjoy Hurt Locker, much for the same reasons as that reviewer you were mentioning earlier, and that doesn't lead me to believe I would enjoy Zero Dark Thirty, but none of that (on anybody's part) is really relevant to the topic at hand (Voltage Pictures attempting mass lawsuits in Canada).

It's an interesting scenario. The Canadian government has indicated that it crafted our new copyright laws (which just entered into effect) specifically to discourage exactly what Voltage Pictures is attempting to do. There's also the question of if the alleged infringement would fall under the old law or the new law, since the law went into effect only a few days ago. Voltage Pictures' claims indicate they're seeking damages far in excess of what is allowable under the law, so that would seem to indicate that they're either intending to try to get damages under the old law, or that they're going to try to claim the alleged infringement was commercial rather than personal (different limits, above what Voltage Pictures is threatening, apply to commercial infringement under the new laws).

Nobody on any side really knows what's going to happen (because Canada's new copyright law is only days old), so this really is virgin territory in every respect.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42256303)

The monetary goal here is extortion through threat of litigation, not litigation itself.

If Voltage asks for a settlement of a few thousand dollars rather than a court case, like they've done in the USA, they might get laughed at by those who know Canadian law. For the majority of people though, they don't know about that. The simple mention of the millions of dollars of damages successfully awarded in US cases would scare almost the same percentage of Canadians into settling as of Americans who do likewise.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42256477)

A factor is that if you commit a crime, the laws in effect at the time of the illegal act are the laws under which you may be prosecuted. At least that's how federal laws work in the US. You can't do something, and then, ex post facto, the legislature changes the laws to make the act legal or illegal -- they can make something legal, but that doesn't relieve your liability, though in criminal cases you'd usually get a pardon...

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

fuzznutz (789413) | about a year ago | (#42256913)

You can't do something, and then, ex post facto, the legislature changes the laws to make the act legal or illegal

Really? What was all that bullshit granting the telecoms immunity for their little indiscretions all about then?

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

tixxit (1107127) | about a year ago | (#42256921)

On the other hand, this law was just the gov't putting its money where its mouth is after years of saying they have no interest in non-commercial copyright infringement. Even if the old laws are used, I don't think Voltage will find much sympathy in Cdn courts. At least, that's what I hope!

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42255323)

Hurt Locker sucked. It was long, slow, and had no plot or suspense. I hate how the "new cinema" makes movies and things that have no plot and bash anyone that doesn't "get it" as being the one with the problem. Yes, the general movie formula is getting tired. JJ Abrams is doing nothing that wasn't done 2500 years ago in Greece. He's just doing it with more overt play to known emotional triggers. But the Hurt Locker going for the longest plotless short ever is still worse than the worst JJ Abrams or Jerry Bruckheimer crap.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42255493)

I hate how the "new cinema" makes movies and things that have no plot and bash anyone that doesn't "get it" as being the one with the problem.

It's not very new, the structure of the film is what you'd call episodic or maybe picaresque. It's certainly attested in Kubrick (viz. Barry Lyndon, and the 250 year old book it's based on), and even earlier works like Sullivan's Travels or many, many C. B. DeMille spectacle films. Also, using some perceived slight from a bunch of film critics as an excuse for not liking a film is pathetic. Remember, film critics are usually the ones who tell you you "don't get it," not filmmakers.

Your criticism is a recurring one but I think the real problem is that people find the Renner character to be inaccessible. Not a cypher -- he's clearly smart and motivated -- but some audiences have difficulty accepting that what motivates him is sorta closed-off, and I think a big part of "getting" the movie is the process you go through trying to figure him out. He's a true chaotic neutral and that seems to rub people the wrong way, they really would prefer a typical protagonist who either comes with a clear motivation or leaves with one.

You can read Renner's character, in this way, as symbolic or analogous to America's motivation in the Iraq war in general - I like this reading, but I in no way represent it as Kathryn's intent. For that, a place you might start is by reading the quote she uses at the beginning, and then reading the book it comes from, War is a Force the Gives Us Meaning.

JJ Abrams is doing nothing that wasn't done 2500 years ago in Greece.

With all due respect, Aristophanes wasn't ruining the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship in the service of creating shallow popcorn movies.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (0)

r1348 (2567295) | about a year ago | (#42255431)

No surprise here: the movie is clearly constructed as an Oscar-bait, with a very apologetic view on that unholy mess that the Iraqi War still is, leaving middle-class, Democrat-prone audience with a reassuring feeling that "we did not screw up THAT much in the end...".

However, compliments on the good job done on sound effects.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42255553)

with a very apologetic view on that unholy mess that the Iraqi War still is. leaving middle-class, Democrat-prone audience with a reassuring feeling that "we did not screw up THAT much in the end...".

What makes you say that? How did you feel the film mitigated the cause or conduct of the war?

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (2, Interesting)

r1348 (2567295) | about a year ago | (#42256139)

First of all, it never questions the reasons of the war.
From the very beginning it pushes the audience towards sympathy for the American soldier, as in displaying apparently innocuous Iraqi men detonating IEDs and so on, giving a ready justification to any psychopathic behaviour of the soldiers because "the enemy is everywhere".
In a complete reversal of moral values than in say, horror movies, the audience is pushed to stand on the hunter side instead of the hunted, to worry about the danger that Baghdad's alleys pose for the soldiers instead of the danger that the soldiers pose for anyone else around them. Ultimately, the audience is led to identify itself with the soldier about to shoot someone out of stress induced paranoia, rather than with his victims.
While I can understand that the director wanted to point out the state of mental stress of the soldiers in a war zone, a whole movie exclusively about that comes out as unbelievably American-centric in the eyes of the whole conflict.

Ask yourself: do you remember the name of a single Iraqi character in the movie?

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42256647)

First of all, it never questions the reasons of the war.

Why must a film question the war? I've seen films that question the war, and frankly they're polemical and insulting, even when I agreed with them.

From the very beginning it pushes the audience towards sympathy for the American soldier,

Why is it wrong to feel sympathy for the American soldier? How does that mitigate the conduct of the Iraq war? Is the American soldier not in a sympathetic situation? Remarque had sympathy for the German soldiers in All Quiet on the Western Front, was he justifying the Wehrmacht?

the audience is pushed to stand on the hunter side instead of the hunted, to worry about the danger that Baghdad's alleys pose for the soldiers instead of the danger that the soldiers pose for anyone else around them

Were the dangers in Baghdad's alleys imaginary? Granting they weren't, why would you feel such a fact makes a positive argument for the Iraq War? Just because an insurgent in Sadr City kidnaps Our Boys does not imply that it's okay to shoot up the neighborhood, nor does it justify or even quality in moral terms the invasion of Iraq. Quite the opposite.

Did you want some scene where Renner starts crying and shouts into the sky "Damn you George Bush! Why are we here!" I think what you wanted was an escape clause to avoid having to accept moral culpability, a way of being able to tell yourself that the Iraq war was SOMEONE ELSE'S problem and your SUPERIOR moral sense would never lead you to do what Renner or Anthony Mackie's character do, despite the fact that good, smart people, doing everything in their power to save their own lives and do right by their God and their fellow man, still commit atrocities.

Yeah of course you identify with the guys in the situation, and yeah the guys are Americans. But the war is bigger than anything they might experience and the good guys and bad guys in that film, like in Renoir, all have their reasons. I think you make the error of assuming that Renner's character is meant to be a positive role model, when the film never really affirms that reading, and in many circumstances undercuts it. Yes, he knows how to defuse bombs and he's hardcore about it, but I don't think that makes him or his POV privileged with regard to the text -- IMHO the film is extremely careful on that point.

Truffaut once said that all war movies are pro-war, and that's true in one way: they make soldiering look bad-ass. But there's a lot more to a war than soldiering.

Ask yourself: do you remember the name of a single Iraqi character in the movie?

Professor Nabib. The soccer ball kid called himself "Beckham." The translators had no names. (You're asking someone who, despite having not watched it in a year, has probably seen the movie probably more than 200 times, in various states of completion.)

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#42255619)

Congratulations, you worked on a movie that many consider to be a complete waste of money.

Having watched it at a friends, I wouldn't even waste the electricity required to provide the bandwidth to torrent it. Its that incredibly tired.

I am not a rotten tomatoes reviewer, the just sucks.

Deal with it, just because you worked on and poured your heart into it doesn't change the fact that it sucks.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42255711)

You're totally entitled to your opinion.

However, "It sucks" isn't a persuasive argument. Congratulations on the "waste of electricity" crack, you must be Really Smart, but that doesn't make your case either.

It's almost as if people don't even want to talk about the movie, they just want to use an opinion of it to signal their peer group inclusion or something. NAH, that can't be it.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255955)

The less people talk about Voltage Picture's movies, the less Voltage exists. The less Voltage exists, the quicker they are out of business and the world can go right on trucking proving that Karma still rules the world.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#42256081)

The less people talk about Voltage Picture's movies, the less Voltage exists.

I believe this is called the Tinkerbell Effect.

Re:This just in , shitty movie blames piracy . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255273)

I got both the Hurt Locker and 2012 from my local library and watched them both on the same night. While 2012 wasn't a good movie it was at least stupidly entertaining, and the only way to describe how awful Hurt Locker was is that 2012 is the only one of the two I'd watch again.

Hurt Locker is firmly in the category of movies so mind-numbingly dull that they owe me 2 hours of my life back, and if I'd pirated it and received one of these notices I'd be countersuing the studio on those grounds.

I suspect the only reason it won an oscar was because it was directed by James Cameron's ex, as part of a collective 'screw you' from Hollywood. That, or someone in the academy had bet heavily against Avatar in the office pool. No other explanation makes sense.

this is the right move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255113)

sue your fans! see if they EVER support you. idiots.

I made a mistake once (3, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#42255115)

I paid money to watch Hurt Locker at the movies. Two hours of my life I'll never get back.

Re:I made a mistake once (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42255333)

It was only 2 hours? Seemed like the longest 12 hours of my life. You know a movie is bad when you keep checking your watch to see if it's over yet.

Re:I made a mistake once (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#42255461)

Then they had the nerve to blame piracy for their piss poor box office results. I'd blame the shit they called a movie.

Send them the money (3, Interesting)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#42255139)

with a letter stating that you are paying the requested amount in order to protect yourself from being sued but the Rights Holder as stated in the original notice. Then charge them with extortion.

Q&A (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#42255143)

will Canadian courts be amicable to these tactics after changes to copyright law were made specifically to prevent the predatory legal entanglement of Canadian citizens? Will the studio actually attempt to pursue the situation beyond the proliferation of threatening extortion letters? How would the already-clogged courts react to what amounts to denial-of-service attack on the judicial system?"

The better question is: What incentive is there for the industry to stop? The United States has proved militarily, economically, and in many other ways that shock and awe are a powerful combination to ensure compliance. Not that they're the first -- the Romans did the same thing, as did many cultures before them as well. The fact is, the only thing they're losing is a tiny amount of money and they're getting huge amounts of press out of it.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the laws and lawyers and letters and posturing isn't meant to actually have an impact? Statistically, it can't. If right now, today, everyone who was sharing files just for today was dragged into a court action, our justice system would be busy for the next ten years clearing the backlog for just today's infractions. By itself, there's no way that any law, legal action, or technical solution, can even scratch the surface. But what if the point is publicity? A shock and awe campaign that uses lawsuits instead of bombs. The more outrageous, the more press, and the more press, the more people become fearful. Have you noticed that these press releases, actions, and articles, occur on a fairly consistent tick-tock cycle of about three months? It has been going on for years.

This is a public relations campaign... and whenever you're asking how X will react to Y, you're playing right into it. X and Y don't matter. No, honestly, they don't: Statistically, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than getting in trouble for file sharing. My service provider is one of those who promised to impliment the new "six strikes" policy, to much hoopla in the press. That was six months ago. Every month since then, I've downloaded an average of 960GB of pirated material, a lot of it on the "Top 100" list off The Pirate Bay. No letter. No e-mail. Not even a peep about the bandwidth being used. I'm supposed to be in that "top 1%" that they insist they're pursuing all possible legal actions against. No knocks on the door. No black helicopters. My life has continued just as it has before. And I've been doing this for over a decade. I'm not hiding behind proxies, or encrypting my traffic, or doing anything special really at all. It's all right there for anyone to look at.

Nobody has. Even with all the automation, all the legal power, all of the everything that you've heard about... there are still hundreds of millions of people just like me worldwide. Statistics are not in their favor here guys. So the question isn't how Canada will react... the question is: How will you? Because that's the goal of all of this -- it's changing your behavior through fear and doubt. It's an appeal to your emotions -- visions of going to jail and losing everything you ever owned and loved while they parade you out in front of the media. That's the big sell.

So... are you buying?

Re:Q&A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42256003)

So... are you buying?

I'm Paying for a VPN so in a way yes. Really the amount I pay for the VPN is negligible to me and it's nice not to get those threatening letters I've been sent repeatedly. At the end of the day if there were a legal service that was competitive with piracy I would gladly spend my money there. Piracy is a better service period.

Re:Q&A (1)

readnotpost (2785015) | about a year ago | (#42256027)

Something tells me you'll never have enough time to watch/listen/play all that content, particularly if you've acquired nearly a terabyte within 6 months. Are you collecting? Or do you just have way too much time on your hands?

No snark, just genuinely curious. I really don't approve of downloading HUGE amounts of pirated shit "just because" (smaller amounts, yes, just not wholesale quantities). Just because the MPAA and their cronies are dicks doesn't mean we have to go so far in the opposite direction ourselves.

Re:Q&A (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#42256343)

Something tells me you'll never have enough time to watch/listen/play all that content, particularly if you've acquired nearly a terabyte within 6 months

Mmmm, average 1080p HQ bluray rip: 10GB. 40 minutes of a 720p HQ TV episode: about 1.25GB. 75% of my video watching time goes to TV episodes like The Daily Show, Mythbusters, etc. The other 25% goes to movies. So the total for the 900 TB of data I pulled last month equates to about 19.8 hours a day of high quality video (the only kind I download). That said, the problem is a lot of it is automated by feeds and searches. About 10--15% of the TV episodes are later repacked as "proper" tagged, meaning that there may have been a few seconds of commercial added, or a sync or clipping issue, etc. Many of the TV episodes pulled are dups; I pick the highest quality one out of each batch. When you take it all into consideration, about 2/3rds of what I download for TV episodes is later deleted or remuxed. Movies do not have these same problems -- only about 15% of movies are discarded. So while yes, it does seem like a lot, due to the quality control problems, I'm really only getting around 5.5--6 hours of archivable video. And out of that, I probably throw another third of it away because I am doing the pirate equivalent of channel surfing -- seeing what else is out there, but usually finding it lacking. So in the end, I'm really only watching 2--3 hours of video a day. For comparison, the average person watches about 5 hours of TV a day. Average. But about a third of what they watch (if not more) is commercials. When you take that into account... my viewing habits are actually average. I just skip all the commercials, non-skippable content, etc. I watch just what I want, the way I want, where and when I want.

That's why I'm a pirate. Simply put, it's just a better use of my time than wading through the crap-flood everyone else does; I get an extra 2.5 hours every day to spend not being a mindless consumer-droid. That's 2.5 hours I can put towards excercising, or cooking something other than TV dinners. That's time I can spend with my family playing games, or working on coding projects, or reading. Being a pirate means I get 10.4% more time in a day than someone who isn't.

Re:Q&A (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#42256483)

And for the record, I'd gladly pay a small stipend every month to skip the rigamarole of setting up filters, searches, rss feeds, and the sorting and what-not (it takes about 5, sometimes 10 minutes every few days) and wasting so much bandwidth if there was a legitimate service that met my needs. And it's not a high bar to clear; Be commercial free. Be high quality (I can wait hours or days -- just make it good, not Netflix instashit). Be complete. And be timely. So far, not a single commercial offering has managed to even hit two out of four. They're all have licensing problems and such with the studios -- Netflix can't show you something until it's been out for a month, but Redbox can. Timely? No. High quality? Everything that's out there is streaming -- and it's all universally shit. I'm patient; but I guess there's no market for people like me who actually enjoy high quality video and audio and not mrrrfffwhaaarrggrrrble audio and blotchy artifact-covered action sequences. And none of the offerings are even complete! Licensing fucks every last offering there is -- nobody has everything I want to watch. Nobody is even close... and Netflix' streaming service' collection really only contains the popular shows. Try finding, say, classic Dr. Who. Nope -- fuck you, they say, it's not worth our time and effort.

Piracy delivers what no commercial offering can. I say this honestly: I'd pay real money if they could just get their collective heads out of their asses and play nice with each other. Piracy doesn't exist because people like to "steal", it exists because these dumb bastards are dinosaurs engaged in endless mating rituals with much ripping of grass and beating of chest, and fuck the customer man, what do they know about the market, am I right? x_x Well, speaking as a customer, I know only one thing: You don't have what I want. Goodbye.

cases against disability and welfare people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42256573)

the maximum one can lose on disability per month is 50$
so if you sue me for the max of 5000 that is 100 months to get your money..8.3 years and i cant lose anymore money per month

you got that once sued you lose it once and thats it go on just add it to 500 years cause ill die and you lose.
haha

welfare is half this amount so double time
and my aspect on this is they are trying to nit pick out disability and wefare people so they can extort off people they can garnish higher amounts

DONT TELL THEM YOUR FINANCIAL STATUS PERIOD and fight cause every time they show up in a day of court = 3000dollars minimum....
my guess this stunt wont work and teksavvy has said it requires a court order.IF the judge understands that 2300 people each wan tthere day in court hes gonna cost the system huge time , money and when harper is trying to balance the books put a lot a hard ship on people for a shit movie...

What's the point? (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#42255171)

Considering the new law limits non-commercial infringement to $5,000 per person, what would be the point of pursuing non-commercial infringers? Lawyers fees just to prepare and set out the the threatening letters will likely eat up a fair chunk of that, a one day of examination will likely eat up the rest.

Basically, the Tories, whether they intended to or not, have made pursuit of non-commercial infringers a no-win scenario. The likelihood is that every Canadian who illegally downloaded the Hurt Locker will probably not be liable for more than a few hundred bucks in damages, and if any of them pay a hundred bucks for a lawyer to write a nasty retort to the Hurt Locker's lawyers nasty letter, it's likely the Hurt Locker's lawyers will just abandon it entirely.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255677)

I think I'd take it to court, if anything, to put their lawyers in the Hurt Locker. :) When I lose, it'll be worth the maximum $5k payout to watch them losing money. I have time on my hands, I'll make it the longest and most pointless court case in history. Remember, it's not illegal in court until the judge tells you that you're in contempt of court!

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

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#42255979)

Indeed. If every Canadian threatened with legal action over Hurt Locker pirating were to tell the lawyers "I'll see you in court" they would go bankrupt in a hurry.

I suppose the lawyers could try to declare commercial infringement for someone seeding the movie, but I doubt that would wash in court without some direct evidence of exchange of funds, so I think we are looking at a hard $5k limit. From what I've read, the general opinion is that the courts would likely award the "injured" party significantly less than $5k (that's the statutory maximum).

The only way I see this really working is that the media corporations send out nasty letters saying "Pay us a couple of hundred bucks NOW!" followed by some impotent legal fluff threatening dire circumstances, and hope enough people just simply pay to make it go away. But anyone that understands the true nature of the new copyright act will realize that there is no way in hell the media companies are going to pursue people all the way to the steps of the courthouse and tens of thousands of dollars of their own expense.

There will be no Joel Tenenbaum's in Canada.

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

Alicess (2792957) | about a year ago | (#42256867)

According to test, we can see that the new 2012 taylormade rbz irons [davegolfshop.com] is fabricated for the mid to high-handicap golfers who demand added ambit and absolution so that they can hit it further and still accept acceptable ascendancy on the brawl flight. If you want to be the better golfer, the new 2012 taylormade rbz irons review [davegolfshop.com] is a nice choice for you at the http://www.davegolfshop.com/ [davegolfshop.com].

Re:What's the point? (1)

tixxit (1107127) | about a year ago | (#42256951)

Basically, the Tories, whether they intended to or not, have made pursuit of non-commercial infringers a no-win scenario.

I don't have any love for the Tories, but let's give credit where it is due. They knew full well what they were doing and stated on several occasions that they wanted to discourage IP holders from pursuing non-commercial infringers.

$5000 Canadian (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255237)

what's that, like a couple hundred benjamins?

How adorable to get so worked up over nothing.

Re:$5000 Canadian (5, Funny)

MachDelta (704883) | about a year ago | (#42255257)

That would be $5,069.75 US.

Oh and 1992 called, they want their joke back.

Re:$5000 Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255509)

Oh and 1992 called, they want their joke back.

OH MY GOD, did you warn them?!!

Re:$5000 Canadian (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#42255637)

Oh and 1992 called, they want their joke back.

Why? It still gets Canadians all pissed off when you use it. Doesn't matter if its true or not, they still throw a little hissy fit ... you are a prime example.

Re:$5000 Canadian (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#42256257)

Why? It still gets Canadians all pissed off when you use it.

Why would we get pissed? Easier to mock you that your median income has decreased by nearly $4k in the last 4 years, while ours has increased by nearly $5k. In turn, you're going to make more money in Canada than in the US.

Re:$5000 Canadian (1)

MarkRose (820682) | about a year ago | (#42256281)

Yeah, but when the government takes at least half every dollar extra you make, is it really that much better?

Re:$5000 Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42256379)

That's still $6.5k more in my pocket than in yours. I have no problem giving everyone their cut to fund education and health care.

Otherwise, we end up in a situation where someone (you) refuses $9k because they would have to pay the government $2.5k.

Yeah, that's a smart choice.

Re:$5000 Canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42256079)

a couple hundred benjamins?

No, that would be US$20,000, which is far too high.

I don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255259)

I always assumed if caught I would just grab second hand copies and claim format shifting and an inability to rip my own content. Unless it's some major pre release I don't see how that wouldn't work

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255285)

They get you on distribution. If you were in the swarm and uploading data anyways.

Re:I don't get it (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#42255683)

As your part of p2p you are in on larger crimes by default.
The need for you to make cash by selling a burned copy was removed. Release date does not matter. The Canadian legal system is now more understanding when it comes to issues surrounding US national security.
People with big guns, illegal drugs, digital movie duplication equipment, adult movies and links to active US warzones are also found with p2p movies.
Your act of p2p is providing funding, rest and recuperation to the enemy in a time of war - welcome to the US digital battlefront.

Steven Seagal (1)

addie (470476) | about a year ago | (#42255267)

As a long-time Teksavvy customer on an unlimited plan, after looking over Voltage Pictures catalogue all I can say is... thank goodness I'm not a Steven Seagal fan.

People are serious about their money (1)

BluPhenix316 (2656403) | about a year ago | (#42255289)

This doesn't surprise me. People will go to great lengths to get their money. My wife recently got bit by a tick. She went to the doc and they did a bunch of tests and determined she has lyme disease. They sent her to a specialist and the specialist said there was no lyme disease. We paid the doctor bill anyway. One thing we didn't pay right away was the cost for one of the labs done on her. It was $8.11. We completely forgot about it but they ended up sending it to a collection agency and wanted to take us to court, for $8.11. Naturally when I read the letter I just paid the bill, after all it is only $8.11, but to take someone to court over it? Wouldn't the lawyer costs for the company cost way more than the $8.11?

Re:People are serious about their money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255521)

$8.11? Please. The phone company spent hours harassing me about $0.04 from my final bill. I complained about the fact that them sending me letters and calling me was costing them (and me) more than $0.04, but they persisted. So I mailed them a nickel. They sent me a check for $0.01 which I didn't cash ... which left the account open for another 1/2 year until the check was no good, haha.

The films being monitored (1)

addie (470476) | about a year ago | (#42255291)

From the court documents, here's the list of films that they were looking for:

Generation Um⦠(2012)
Tucker & Dale vs Evil (2010)
True Justice (The Complete First Season) (2010)
The Third Act aka The Magic of Belle Isle (2012)
The Good Doctor (2011)
Rosewood Lane (2011)
Another Happy Day aka The Reasonable Bunch (2011)
Killer Joke (2011)
Escapee (2011)

Re:The films being monitored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255437)

I've heard of none of these movies.

Re:The films being monitored (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#42255503)

Haven't even heard of any of these films, let alone pirated them. Are they as awful as their titles make them sound?

Meh. I'll wait for them to show up on Netflix, and then promptly ignore them like I do half of the content on there. It'll be amusing if these people decide to send me a letter (yes, I am a TekSavvy customer, have been for years). Their scare tactics only work because people are afraid to challenge them in court, at least in the US. You hear about people like Jammie Thomas, and worry that you might get hit for millions of dollars. Around here, despite their claim that they're seeking $10,000 in damages, the maximum allowed by law is $5,000 which is small claims court money. Quite aside from that, it's well known that an IP address does not necessarily equal an individual, and if the IP address is all they have against you, then they don't have a case.

If they decide to send me such a letter, I have two words in response: bring it.

As an aside... I don't actually endorse piracy, I just think they don't have a case. I do believe that content creators have a right to be paid for their work, but I also believe that conumers have a right to tell them they're out to lunch with their pricing, and go somewhere else. There's an enormous amount of entertaining content out there that's legitimately free, and just waiting to be discovered. Anything I've torrented myself is either public domain (copyright expired), or licensed under Creative Commons. Somehow, I don't think that the now-dead director of a Russian propaganda film made 85 years ago is all that worried about recouping his losses to torrenting.... (Battleship Potemkin, if anybody's wondering what film I'm referring to)

Re:The films being monitored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42256405)

look at those titles... at least half of the cross-examination would centre around the pivotal question: "why?"...

For those interested in the list of Titles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255313)

According to the official documents, this is concerning the download and distribution of the following of Voltage's Works as monitored by Canipre:

Generation Um ... (2012)
Tucker & Dale vs Evil (2010)
True Justice (2010)
The Third Act aka The Magic of Belle Isle (2012)
The Good Doctor (2011)
Rosewood Lane (2011)
Another Happy Day aka The Reasonable Bunch (2011)
Killer Joe (2011)
Escapee (2011)

Further in, on page "42" (actually around page 26 of the PDF, I believe), there's another list called "Schedule A" which lists what appears to be all of Voltage's cinematographic works. I'm not sure if that second list is being as aggressively persued as the above. Every title above is contained within Schedula A, also.

Personally, I haven't even *heard* of any of those movies. Can't imagine actual damages could be very high.

Hopefully judges send a message to the liars (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255351)

When Canada was reforming it's copyright laws it got a specific commitment from the movie industry that they were not interested in mass john-doe lawsuits against consumers. The copyright law was reformed to reflect that. Maximum penalty for _all_ infringements is as much as $5K or as little as $100 and judges are instructed by the law to keep the penalty proportionate to the damages and to consider the hardship of the penalty against the defendant.

Now here we are, the movie studio have proven themselves to be bald-faced liars and are going after consumers in mass john-doe lawsuits.

My hope is that Canadians don't allow themselves to be bullied by these copyright trolls and each and every one of them takes the matter to court. Further, my hope, wish, and desire is that the judges that see these cases see the movie industry for the liars that they are and punish them by awarding the minimum $100 fines.

Re:Hopefully judges send a message to the liars (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#42256001)

Even if the lawsuits went through, what then? At a maximum award of $5000, a day in court by the movie industry's lawyers will eat up the award. Bring it on, I say.

Re:Hopefully judges send a message to the liars (-1, Offtopic)

Alicess (2792957) | about a year ago | (#42256859)

There are two main aims for TaylorMade to produce taylormade rocketballz irons [davegolfshop.com], a Tour adaptation and a Speed version, which is designed to accept most of the taylormade rocketballz irons review [davegolfshop.com] playability at the best price here. This new band could be a botheration for added companies. This is because they allure golfers with distance. However, taylormade rocketballz irons graphite [davegolfshop.com]has tried the best to produce new driver which is said to be advised for mid and high-handicap golf players. The driver is also said to advance the array of golfers as they comedy for continued distance.

Judgment Proof (1)

AdamRosas (2775561) | about a year ago | (#42255427)

I am judgment proof (thanks to the crappy economy). So the only way to win is to not play the game. Ignore legal threats, ignore court summons, allow the default judgement, then file for bankruptcy which costs less than than hiring a lawyer.

Re:Judgment Proof (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#42255671)

If you're in that situation, legal aid will probably provide you with a lawyer who can draft a response to their letter. That, in and of itself, will probably be enough to get them to drop the case, since their chances of recouping even their legal fees is quite slim.

Re:Judgment Proof (1)

AdamRosas (2775561) | about a year ago | (#42255813)

I still choose to not play the game, If they decide to go forward with a lawsuit they will waste billable hours looking for assets, sources of income, etc. I have ignored a number of these pay up or we will sue you threats and they never escalate to a summons. don't feed these trolls. All this law firm is trying to do is get subscriber information so they can send a "pay up or well sue you" letter, they have little or no intention of taking anyone to court.

Debacle? How so? (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a year ago | (#42255487)

The surest way to combat piracy will be to require ISP's to map IP addresses to subscribers. Add monitoring and automatic notices that warn of the copyright laws already on the books will follow. Any law that will increase the size of government or more deeply invade the privacy of citizens will be embraced. Prosecutions means more legal busywork, more sentencing, more wage garnishment, etc. All of which bring a smile to the face of our benevolent rulers. Yes, people will be able to encrypt their torrenting and skirt the laws.. but plenty of dumb ones will be caught... enough to keep the lawyers busy and the studios happy.

Re:Debacle? How so? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#42255689)

Not that your post is anything more than a rambling troll, but I wanted to comment on one part:

Yes, people will be able to encrypt their torrenting and skirt the laws.. but plenty of dumb ones will be caught...

Encryption, Tor, 'decentralized search' and all the other crap that comes up to 'hide' where the data is coming from and going is just for idiots who think they can 'hide' from the law.

You know what happens when you bounce something through Tor and the courts get involved? They sue the node they saw the data from. Do that a few times and Tor is dead. Same with various p2p protocols that bounce the data through other people. I don't have to find the actual downloader, just the person facilitating it. Like it or not, facilitating crime IS a crime. Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, you'll even make yourself obviously guilty when you bring up the fact that you knew you couldn't tell what was going through your pipe.

All you are doing by trying to pull this sort of retarded shit is giving the government legitimate reasons to change the laws so privacy isn't there anymore.

It really doesn't matter WHAT the fine is for copyright infringement, don't do it and you won't have an issue. There really is no excuse no matter what you try to convince someone of for willfully violating copyright. You can live without someone elses content. This isn't an unbearable tax being forced on you for just surviving.

Why TekSavvy? (5, Insightful)

nuckfuts (690967) | about a year ago | (#42255597)

TekSavvy is one of Canada's smallest ISP's. Large telcos like Telus are required by the CRTC to allow little guys like TekSavvy access to their copper in order to foster some competition in the industry. The big guys dislike companies like TekSavvy because they sell unlimited data plans, and they've been fighting for some time to impose surcharges based on data useage.

When I hear that copyright enforcers are going after a little player like TekSavvy, I can't help but wonder if the larger ISP's are in collusion.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255863)

There are a few of the smaller ISP getting similar IP requests in the last few weeks, but none for the big Teleco/Cableco.
The bigger players won the court case to charge the processing fee for $200 per IP last time. May be this cut into the bottom line of the extortion business?

Finally the pefect use for those $20 500GB fake USB HDD from China - perfect for storing the IP logs.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#42255987)

Considering the most that they're likely to receive per infringer is a few hundred bucks, they'd be losing money on every demand.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#42256053)

When I hear that copyright enforcers are going after a little player like TekSavvy, I can't help but wonder if the larger ISP's are in collusion.

I'm guessing you didn't pay attention to the CRTC proceedings for the last few years on things like GAS, speed matching and throttling. There was a huge pile of crap on it all, quite a few people have been fighting against it and the closed-backdoor crap from the incumbents. JF Mezi [twitter.com] for example has done quite a bit of work on all this.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42256153)

TekSavvy might just be the only one publicizing it. They are widely known for publicizing legal threats, while the big players are known for not.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (1)

Angelashewrote (2792909) | about a year ago | (#42256215)

It will be interesting to see whether to court will extend the 60 days Voltage has to serve the John Doe. They get a little break for the Christmas holidays, but still.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (1)

Nuitari The Wiz (1123889) | about a year ago | (#42256649)

The big ISPs all have interest in the fight as their parent companies tend to own producers of content (Quebecor and Videotron, Shaw and Global, Bell and CTV, etc). They also are distributors of media (cable, satellite and IPTV).

With some collusion it would be quite easy to have the big media target a smallish ISP (teksavvy being one of the biggest small players) to test the waters, set some legal precedants and see how the market reacts.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (5, Informative)

Gastropod_ca (513267) | about a year ago | (#42256745)

I've been a TekSavvy customer for a few months now (they only recently came to our area). I appreciate them for introducing a little bit of competition in Canada. I also appreciate that they fight for your digital rights. The reason I switched to TekSavvy was because I watched their CEO participate in discussions on TV Ontario's "The Agenda" and CBC about digital rights and competition. When I switched from Rogers(our cable monopoly internet provider), Rogers offered me a rate that was 1/2 of what I was paying and double the bandwidth. It was even lower than TekSavvy's rates but I switched anyways. You would never get such a deal if TekSavvy didn't exist. The switch was difficult because Rogers cut the cable line rather than transfer it to TekSavvy... but I'm finally off of the mega giant known as Roger's. I'm glad TekSavvy is publicizing these legal threats, it reminds me why I switched.

Re:Why TekSavvy? (2)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a year ago | (#42256957)

Smaller companies are considered easier targets, which helps to set a precedent. That could be the true goal with it. You know, a test-the-waters thing.

Seen this all before (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255723)

My old roommate had a letter show up after his next roommate downloaded "the hurtlocker". He plainly just ignored it and never got another letter nor any other form of contact was made. Everyone gets so scared from something that looks as though it might be legal action coming towards you. This company has made more from these letters on this movie than it did from the sale of tickets or DVD's.

Another friend also ended up paying the fee out of being scared (more so his dad paid it cause it was his account it was downloaded on), makes me wonder the percentage of people who actually pay the fee.

Re:Seen this all before (1)

AdamRosas (2775561) | about a year ago | (#42256441)

I read somewhere that this firm tried to sue 10,000 people at one time during the US round's of The Hurt Locker lawsuits, and all but 2 were excluded pre-trial and the remaining 2 never made it to court. I think the story was from torrentfreak so who knows how accurate it is. If you contact these firms in any way they start harassing you until you pay, if you ignore them odds are you will never hear anything further from them.

Bill Voltage (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42255749)

They are requesting the list in Microsoft Excel Format.

"Thank you for your request. As we do not use this format, and as all our gear is proprietary, we will require that you send the required equipment, software, and a technician capable of running it. Please note that as we support complete freedom from copyright, we are not able to agree to any license agreements, thus the reasoning behind why you will need a technician capable of running said software.

Your technician will be presented with a comma separated value format file with Unix line endings with the requested information, in 8-bit ASCII format, as a file on an ext3 formatted USB drive. Ensure he is equipped to deal with this.

We look forward to co-operating with the court in this matter, and understand the court would not want to encourage further copyright infringement by requiring we falsely declare our agreement to a licensing contract."

What exactly those copyright owners are planning.. (1)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about a year ago | (#42256315)

..to achieve in court? This is the thing I truly do not understand. So suppose they get names out of those IPs and the bring those poor people to court. What next? All they have is the list of IPs from one of those companies that were mentioned on /. recently. I.e companies that are heavily affiliated with copyright owner. Can this list of IP addresses be hold as any sort of evidence? I mean anybody can go to whois service, get block of IPs Tekksavvy is using and randomly choose N IPs from it. Then sell this as 'prof of copyright infringement'. So whoever is producing this list has clear financial incentive to make it long and there is no way he can prove that that list of IPs was gathered in any way that correlates with any sort of copyright infringement. Will court accept such 'evidence'? This sounds to me like allowing victim's family to find and bring in DNA of the killer - not the thing generally allowed.

Far Too Many Unknowns (1)

rueger (210566) | about a year ago | (#42256479)

It's fun to speculate, but it's too soon to guess what's coming. At a minimum we need to wait until the case is underway, lawyers have jumped in, and the inevitable appeals have happened.

In the meantime, they're out to scare end users (easy) and probably more particularly, ISPs (not quite so easy, but not hard either). Because it's much, much easier, and quieter, to bully ISPs into monitoring and controlling their customer's traffic.

TekSavvy is making a big noise about not releasing information until there's a court order. Likely that order will be pretty easy to get. Equally likely TekSavvy won't be willing or able to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the courts that make the order. And of course the big ISPs in Canada are generally owned by very large companies that are also content producers, so aren't likely to expend much effort in fighting to shield customers.

The question of damages is still very much up in the air, and Voltage will surely argue that every separate downstream IP address counts as another unique infringement. It would be foolhardy to think that no judge would accept that interpretation.

Finally, even though the Harper government passed this legislation, and told us how reasonable it was, don't for a minute think that they won't roll over at the behest of the American government or the big media corporations. These, after all, are the guys who are allowing the sale of a big chunk of the Tar Sands to the Chinese government.

send them an IOU (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year ago | (#42256613)

it's as good as cashmoney, and if they send it back, then the contract is completed. Offer, consideration and agreement. You have no further obligation to them.

Of course, you could demand a trial by jury and put the burden on them to prove it was YOU who PHYSICALLY DOWNLOADED THE MOVIE. In a civil suit, there is no such burden of proof on the accuser; you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Not being in physical proximity to your computer (ie you're in hospital, in a vegetative state) is not a substantive denial. Apparently.

I wish them luck with that.

Re:send them an IOU (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year ago | (#42256625)

forgot to clarify; an IOU is worded thusly:

"I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER ON DEMAND THE SUM OF THE DEBT."

To complete, a legal signature on the piece of paper.

(there is NO LAW which prevents an individual from issuing his OWN CURRENCY).

They did that in Québec last year (1)

QuebecNerd (924754) | about a year ago | (#42256671)

It is worth noting that It's not the first time that Voltage Pictures tries to fuck with Canadians. Last year they had a run at a few dozen Quebecers over the Hurt Locker that time:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5999/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]

I never new if they ended up with some settlements or not. What I do know by experience is that when I rented the Hurt Locker I ended up not watching it because the DVD was only in French. French is my native language but I hate translations, they are simply un-watchable. The Hurt Locker was distributed here by Maple Pictures and contrary to 99.9% of DVDs and BDs, they made two different versions for Canada, one in French and one in English. The English version was nowhere to be found in Québec. Talk about under using technology...

I can only imagine the poor bastard that actually bought the movie only in French (without knowing it) and ended up downloading a proper original English version and getting a 'pre-settlement' letter in the mail 2 years later...

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...