50,000 Sued In Piracy Lawsuit !!

[Domain Diva]

I just saw this on the tech pages of Yahoo...thought it may interest a few here.


Tempted to see what the fuss is about over Oscar winner "The Hurt Locker"? Tread lightly, and keep away from file-sharing networks, because Voltage Pictures, which produced the film, is suing upwards of 50,000 individuals who allegedly pirated the film online, according to the Hollywood Reporter's media-law blog.

In the world of anti-piracy litigation, that number is staggering. Here's how to put it in perspective. As of 2008, after five long years of litigation efforts, the Recording Industry Association of America had threatened legal action against just 30,000 individuals, a drop in the bucket compared to the action Voltage is taking over a single pirated film, all at once.

While "Hurt Locker" was a critical success, it remains a commercial bomb, earning less than $13 million theatrically in the United States.

Pirates are to blame for the paltry take, right? While the reason for the film's commercial flop are undoubtedly far more complicated than a few thousand pirated copies, it seems that little will deter the legal action against those who saw it online (where it was available five months before its theatrical release).

Service providers are playing ball. According to a lawyer with the U.S. Copyright Group, the firm spearheading the lawsuit, ISPs are largely complying with the requests for information about the identities of those who are alleged to have downloaded the film online. One of the few holdouts is Comcast, but even it appears to be caving and will probably release another few thousand names to the prosecution within a week. Settlement offers are being made now (at an undetermined dollar amount), with full-on lawsuits promised if the demands aren't meant.

And this could be a sign of things to come. While the RIAA has slowed its legal campaign against music sharers, this could be merely the first volley for the movie studios, looking to stem massive revenue declines that are mainly occurring on DVD shelves (theatrical revenue, ironically, is higher than ever).

It can be rationally argued that the reason the RIAA's lawsuit campaign didn't work is that it wasn't big enough. If Hollywood increases those lawsuits 100-fold, could the scare tactics finally have a real effect?


Credit ? Christopher Null

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

It can be rationally argued that the reason the RIAA's lawsuit campaign didn't work is that it wasn't big enough. If Hollywood increases those lawsuits 100-fold, could the scare tactics finally have a real effect?

When powerful companies lobby for change governments listen, so yes.


.

[lazycash]

I didn't realize the film was that big of a flop at the box office.

[sortie]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

Pirates are to blame for the paltry take, right? While the reason for the film's commercial flop are undoubtedly far more complicated than a few thousand pirated copies, it seems that little will deter the legal action against those who saw it online (where it was available five months before its theatrical release).

No matter how bad the movie could have flopped they still have one truth on their
side. 5 months was long enough for people to spread the word that the movie sucked
before anyone had a chance to see it at the box office.

If they advertise good and get the movie opened at the theater, people will come
and it will take weeks for the word to get out that the movie sucks. But they will
have made that initial money and at least the critics would have seen the movie in the
venue it was produced for. A big screen movie is not the same experience as watching
on my lap top.

[D Ghost]

They FAILED because that movie sucks.

I cannot even begin to count the amount of times I have downloaded a song, etc for FREE, then went and purchased an entire album or just that song...

[baddog]

It was a great movie. Not sure why anyone would think it sucked.

[BIGTYMER]

Staying behind a forign encrypted VPN should keep you safe.

[bronco67]

How many people in this thread downloaded it?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bronco67

How many people in this thread downloaded it?

I rented it at blockbuster. And it's a damn good movie.

[Domain Diva]

I havent seen the movie so I cant comment.

What caught my eye was the ISP giving info on the downloaders.....

Assuming the person didnt put in thier real name how could they know who actually downloaded it ? Are they trying to target the owner of the actual connection ? and hoping that will be enough ? seems flawed to me....but interesting to see how it goes.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

I havent seen the movie so I cant comment.

What caught my eye was the ISP giving info on the downloaders.....

Assuming the person didnt put in thier real name how could they know who actually downloaded it ? Are they trying to target the owner of the actual connection ? and hoping that will be enough ? seems flawed to me....but interesting to see how it goes.

Can't be good for business ratting out customers to the authorities.

[fatfoo]

I never saw "The Hurt Locker." The first thoughts that come into my mind when I hear the name of the movie is, "fat people in school could be emotionally hurt in the locker room, because they could be called a fatass when someone sees them undress."

[BIGTYMER]

Originally Posted by fatfoo

I never saw "The Hurt Locker." The first thoughts that come into my mind when I hear the name of the movie is, "fat people in school could be emotionally hurt in the locker room, because they could be called a fatass when someone sees them undress."

Thanks for your thoughts on the hurt locker movie.

[Phoenix]

i rented it at blockbuster also...and i thought it was awesome

i never download or anything so...good...we all need people to be paying for products instead of ripping them off...so bring on the lawsuits

[closer]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

I havent seen the movie so I cant comment.

What caught my eye was the ISP giving info on the downloaders.....

Assuming the person didnt put in thier real name how could they know who actually downloaded it ? Are they trying to target the owner of the actual connection ? and hoping that will be enough ? seems flawed to me....but interesting to see how it goes.

If they aren't behind a proxy or encrypted VPN, then it's not a hard thing to find out the IPs of the downloaders

[Serge Litehead]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

I havent seen the movie so I cant comment.

What caught my eye was the ISP giving info on the downloaders.....

Assuming the person didnt put in thier real name how could they know who actually downloaded it ? Are they trying to target the owner of the actual connection ? and hoping that will be enough ? seems flawed to me....but interesting to see how it goes.

they have IP - linked to persons account, they have router mac address, they can have computer name. its possible to establish if downloaded file was ever on hdd even after deletion during investigation for instance.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Can't be good for business ratting out customers to the authorities.

What customers? They didn't go to the theater and pay. They didn't rent the dvd/bluray. They STOLE it.

That's like having people go into a Walmart, shoplift, get caught...and then Walmart not press charges because they don't want to offend them as "customers" WTF?

You need to start thinking like a real business.

[Domain Diva]

Originally Posted by holograph

they have IP - linked to persons account, they have router mac address, they can have computer name. its possible to establish if downloaded file was ever on hdd even after deletion during investigation for instance.

Yes but what I meant was maybe 5-6 people in a location could all be using the same computer ? how would you know who did it ?.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

Yes but what I meant was maybe 5-6 people in a location could all be using the same computer ? how would you know who did it ?.

If it was me...I'd nail 'em all! lol

You know all 5 of them watched the movie for free.

[Domain Diva]

Originally Posted by Robbie

What customers? They didn't go to the theater and pay. They didn't rent the dvd/bluray. They STOLE it.

That's like having people go into a Walmart, shoplift, get caught...and then Walmart not press charges because they don't want to offend them as "customers" WTF?

You need to start thinking like a real business.

I agree....

Me personally ..I have no stolen/pirate movies...music or software ..if its good enough that I want it I pay for it or rent it.

When it comes to movies..hell its only a few bucks to rent a dvd.

[pornjudge]

Originally Posted by closer

If they aren't behind a proxy or encrypted VPN, then it's not a hard thing to find out the IPs of the downloaders

What about spoofing your Mac Address;)

[kane]

I had read about this a few weeks ago, but back then they just said it would be thousands of people, they had no actual number of how many it would be.

This company had sued people before and got a lot of settlements. I'm curious to see how it plays out. I'm glad to see producers standing up for their work.

[96ukssob]

I heard this a few weeks ago... sucks for anyone caught!

what they are doing is offering you to pay a settlement charge, probably like $10 or $20 bucks... knowing that industry, they probably want $100. They are smart and know people will pay not to get in trouble and probably 50% if not more will shell out the cash.

if you dont pay, then they will then pursue legal action on you. IMO, i call bullshit. they have no way to provide evidence that you downloaded the movie, even if the file was called "the hurtlocker full movie that is pirated and you can watch on your PC even tho it is in the theaters.avi" UNLESS they take your computer

personally, i would take the settlement and write back to them and say bullshit, i didnt download your movie nor do I download any illegal content.

[candyflip]

I own a copy of the movie, bought it on Bluray and it sits on the shelf with the rest of the collection.

I downloaded version of it from a torrent site, so that I don't have to rip it myself for use in my media server.

How can they pick me, who is entitled to the copy out from someone who isn't?

[96ukssob]

Originally Posted by candyflip

I own a copy of the movie, bought it on Bluray and it sits on the shelf with the rest of the collection.

I downloaded version of it from a torrent site, so that I don't have to rip it myself for use in my media server.

How can they pick me, who is entitled to the copy out from someone who isn't?

even if you own the movie, you are not allowed to download copies. in fact, i believe it is against copywrite law to even burn a copy (hard disk or bluray dvd) when you own it

[will76]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

I just saw this on the tech pages of Yahoo...thought it may interest a few here.


Tempted to see what the fuss is about over Oscar winner "The Hurt Locker"? Tread lightly, and keep away from file-sharing networks, because Voltage Pictures, which produced the film, is suing upwards of 50,000 individuals who allegedly pirated the film online, according to the Hollywood Reporter's media-law blog.

In the world of anti-piracy litigation, that number is staggering. Here's how to put it in perspective. As of 2008, after five long years of litigation efforts, the Recording Industry Association of America had threatened legal action against just 30,000 individuals, a drop in the bucket compared to the action Voltage is taking over a single pirated film, all at once.

While "Hurt Locker" was a critical success, it remains a commercial bomb, earning less than $13 million theatrically in the United States.

Pirates are to blame for the paltry take, right? While the reason for the film's commercial flop are undoubtedly far more complicated than a few thousand pirated copies, it seems that little will deter the legal action against those who saw it online (where it was available five months before its theatrical release).

Service providers are playing ball. According to a lawyer with the U.S. Copyright Group, the firm spearheading the lawsuit, ISPs are largely complying with the requests for information about the identities of those who are alleged to have downloaded the film online. One of the few holdouts is Comcast, but even it appears to be caving and will probably release another few thousand names to the prosecution within a week. Settlement offers are being made now (at an undetermined dollar amount), with full-on lawsuits promised if the demands aren't meant.

And this could be a sign of things to come. While the RIAA has slowed its legal campaign against music sharers, this could be merely the first volley for the movie studios, looking to stem massive revenue declines that are mainly occurring on DVD shelves (theatrical revenue, ironically, is higher than ever).

It can be rationally argued that the reason the RIAA's lawsuit campaign didn't work is that it wasn't big enough. If Hollywood increases those lawsuits 100-fold, could the scare tactics finally have a real effect?


Credit — Christopher Null

Good. I've been screaming this for years now.... If you want to fight the tube sites don't dmca them and spin your wheels, don't try to sue the tube site... sue their users who are putting the stolen content on the site.

It's so fucking simple, I don't understand why a bunch of the big companies wont get together and do this. You do it the same way they are doing it with this movie. Hit the ISPs and Tube sites with subpoenas for information on who uploaded the stolen content.

1. In some cases it will link back to the site that put the content up and not a "user" and then they will be in a heap of shit.

2. Even if you can just track down some of the users and sue them, that will make a lot of them think twice about stealing porn and uploading it. While it might be "fun" "cool" "funny" or whatever to steal and share porn, if there is a chance to get hit with a 100K lawsuit i would bet you MOST people would stop doing it. Yes I know some will still do it or hide behind proxies, but you will still deter a LOT of people.

Whether a tube site is liable or not for stolen content (if they remove it when notified) is debatable. What is not in question is the people who are stealing the content and uploading it. That is open / shut breaking the law. Go after them.


Oh and a bunch of big companies wont get together and do this because most of them are already in bed with the tube sites and have their own content featured there. As long as their shit isn't stolen and there is a banner linking to their site, they don't care about the other videos there that are stolen.

Originally Posted by kane

I had read about this a few weeks ago, but back then they just said it would be thousands of people, they had no actual number of how many it would be.

This company had sued people before and got a lot of settlements. I'm curious to see how it plays out. I'm glad to see producers standing up for their work.

They might make more in settlements then they did from the movie LOL

[BIGTYMER]

Originally Posted by holograph

they have IP - linked to persons account, they have router mac address, they can have computer name. its possible to establish if downloaded file was ever on hdd even after deletion during investigation for instance.

They can get the IP but they can't get the mac address.

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by will76

Good. I've been screaming this for years now.... If you want to fight the tube sites don't dmca them and spin your wheels, don't try to sue the tube site... sue their users who are putting the stolen content on the site.

It's so fucking simple, I don't understand why a bunch of the big companies wont get together and do this. You do it the same way they are doing it with this movie. Hit the ISPs and Tube sites with subpoenas for information on who uploaded the stolen content.

1. In some cases it will link back to the site that put the content up and not a "user" and then they will be in a heap of shit.

2. Even if you can just track down some of the users and sue them, that will make a lot of them think twice about stealing porn and uploading it. While it might be "fun" "cool" "funny" or whatever to steal and share porn, if there is a chance to get hit with a 100K lawsuit i would bet you MOST people would stop doing it. Yes I know some will still do it or hide behind proxies, but you will still deter a LOT of people.

Whether a tube site is liable or not for stolen content (if they remove it when notified) is debatable. What is not in question is the people who are stealing the content and uploading it. That is open / shut breaking the law. Go after them.


Oh and a bunch of big companies wont get together and do this because most of them are already in bed with the tube sites and have their own content featured there. As long as their shit isn't stolen and there is a banner linking to their site, they don't care about the other videos there that are stolen.




They might make more in settlements then they did from the movie LOL

Good luck suing outsourcing company who post the stolen videos.

[Adam X]

lol. Try $2000 dude. Thats what was asked for before.

Originally Posted by bossku69

I heard this a few weeks ago... sucks for anyone caught!

what they are doing is offering you to pay a settlement charge, probably like $10 or $20 bucks... knowing that industry, they probably want $100. They are smart and know people will pay not to get in trouble and probably 50% if not more will shell out the cash.

if you dont pay, then they will then pursue legal action on you. IMO, i call bullshit. they have no way to provide evidence that you downloaded the movie, even if the file was called "the hurtlocker full movie that is pirated and you can watch on your PC even tho it is in the theaters.avi" UNLESS they take your computer

personally, i would take the settlement and write back to them and say bullshit, i didnt download your movie nor do I download any illegal content.

[rowan]

Originally Posted by candyflip

I own a copy of the movie, bought it on Bluray and it sits on the shelf with the rest of the collection.

I downloaded version of it from a torrent site, so that I don't have to rip it myself for use in my media server.

How can they pick me, who is entitled to the copy out from someone who isn't?

You're not buying a perpetual license, it's linked to the media. That's why you still pay full price when you buy the Bluray version of a movie you already own on DVD.

[LoveSandra]

Originally Posted by DJ The Kid

They FAILED because that movie sucks.

I cannot even begin to count the amount of times I have downloaded a song, etc for FREE, then went and purchased an entire album or just that song...

agree with you

[NetHorse]

I don't understand why they're going after individuals. What a waste of their resources. They should be lobbying for new laws, not trying to fight a useless battle with the current ones.

[kane]

Originally Posted by NetHorse

I don't understand why they're going after individuals. What a waste of their resources. They should be lobbying for new laws, not trying to fight a useless battle with the current ones.

They are going after new laws. They have spent (and are spending) millions on lobbyists trying to get laws changed. In the mean time, I think, they do these lawsuits in hope of getting some free press and hoping that the news will scare some other downloaders into stopping.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by will76

It's so fucking simple, I don't understand why a bunch of the big companies wont get together and do this. You do it the same way they are doing it with this movie. Hit the ISPs and Tube sites with subpoenas for information on who uploaded the stolen content.

.. and filehosts. If they are profiting from their uploads, it makes the case even stronger.

[seeandsee]

they will hit the wall, you will see in months coming, how they can say somebody downloaded working version of movie?

[kane]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

they will hit the wall, you will see in months coming, how they can say somebody downloaded working version of movie?

The way I understand it is that if you decide not to take the offered settlement (or negotiate a settlement on your own) they can take you to court and you will have to prove you didn't do what they claim you have. If they have log files from the ISP showing you downloading the movie, it might be pretty hard to convince a judge/jury you are innocent or that you never downloaded a working copy of the movie.

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by fatfoo

I never saw "The Hurt Locker." The first thoughts that come into my mind when I hear the name of the movie is, "fat people in school could be emotionally hurt in the locker room, because they could be called a fatass when someone sees them undress."

So this is really why they only made $13 million - everybody thought it was a film about school bullies

Considering the amount of films I do watch The Hurt Locker was one that really didn't interest me. They probably just picked a unpopular subject.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

Yes but what I meant was maybe 5-6 people in a location could all be using the same computer ? how would you know who did it ?.

They cannot possibly know.

It's a load of BS.

They have logged onto a public tracker, and they have some IPs of some people that MIGHT have downloaded a film that MIGHT have been an illegal copy of a movie. Could have been the person paying for the connection, could have been their kid. Or a visiting kid. Or they could have an open connection, as I do. Or someone could have spoofed their IP (very very easy to do), or pretty much anything.

Fortunately, in most courts, one needs evidence. So they will need to go to accused's residence, seize every HDD in their building and then prove that the file is or was on the HDD.

I can't see this even GETTING to court.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by kane

The way I understand it is that if you decide not to take the offered settlement (or negotiate a settlement on your own) they can take you to court and you will have to prove you didn't do what they claim you have..

Got a link to that? Since when did one have to prove innocence? Surely proving guilt is what is needed?

Or has American given up that whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea?

[MrBottomTooth]

Originally Posted by bossku69

I heard this a few weeks ago... sucks for anyone caught!

what they are doing is offering you to pay a settlement charge, probably like $10 or $20 bucks... knowing that industry, they probably want $100. They are smart and know people will pay not to get in trouble and probably 50% if not more will shell out the cash.

LOL, try $2500 +

All scare tactics at this point. But supposedly some stupid people are paying.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by Robbie

If it was me...I'd nail 'em all! lol

You know all 5 of them watched the movie for free.

No...you don't even know if any of them watched it. Which was her point.

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by bossku69

even if you own the movie, you are not allowed to download copies. in fact, i believe it is against copywrite law to even burn a copy (hard disk or bluray dvd) when you own it

You are most certainly within your rights to backup and copy any digital media you purchase and own. I'm not worried about that. I'm curious to know how they plan to figure out the differences between different downloaders.

[PR_Glen]

The movie only made 13 million at the box office because they didn't market it like a huge blockbuster simple as that.. it wasn't playing in every theatre, until maybe after the oscars, but even then it was just in a few theatres and showing 2 times a night.. when ironman 2 came out it was on 2 to 4 screens at every theatre in town starting a new screening every half an hour at least! Big time trailers, lots of good music...

Of course you can't do that with this kind of film, it is basically a war story shot in the style of a western. Dramas have been a tough sell for years now, especially ones without big names in it. I thought it was a fantastic movie but I don't think it has much appeal to women, and that is a huge market loss too. Some movies are just hard to market, no matter how good. Shawshank redemption made even less money than that originally and that is often touted as one of the best movies ever made so I have a hard time believing torrent sites killed any profits on this one.. Still lots of money to be made from dvd's and european markets anyway.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by lazycash

I didn't realize the film was that big of a flop at the box office.

Maybe it was the subject reminding Americans of a war they would like to forget?

Originally Posted by DamianJ

They cannot possibly know.

It's a load of BS.

They have logged onto a public tracker, and they have some IPs of some people that MIGHT have downloaded a film that MIGHT have been an illegal copy of a movie. Could have been the person paying for the connection, could have been their kid. Or a visiting kid. Or they could have an open connection, as I do. Or someone could have spoofed their IP (very very easy to do), or pretty much anything.

Fortunately, in most courts, one needs evidence. So they will need to go to accused's residence, seize every HDD in their building and then prove that the file is or was on the HDD.

I can't see this even GETTING to court.

That's up to a court to decide. They seize the computer and the logs tell them when it was downloaded. Good luck paying the attorneys to get a verdict.

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by CyberClaire

It can be rationally argued that the reason the RIAA's lawsuit campaign didn't work is that it wasn't big enough. If Hollywood increases those lawsuits 100-fold, could the scare tactics finally have a real effect?

this is what i've been arguing all along. RIAA did not have the guns, Hollywood has the fucking ammo and they will get their pound of flesh guaranteed.

laws do change when you have the clout to change them, or at least get them enforced, and while i don't think individuals should be the ones getting sued and having to pay, something has got to happen to protect copyright and bolster the true idea of "fair use."

[Emil]

I did not download that movie yesterday but then realised that I had already seen it.

[lazycash]

Originally Posted by Robbie

What customers? They didn't go to the theater and pay. They didn't rent the dvd/bluray. They STOLE it.

That's like having people go into a Walmart, shoplift, get caught...and then Walmart not press charges because they don't want to offend them as "customers" WTF?

You need to start thinking like a real business.

I believe he's referring to the ISP's customers, meaning people are going to be pissed once they find out their ISP gave our their personal information and will probably find an alternate internet provider.

[candyflip]

Warner Bros is under fire for allegedly pirating another companies idea/software for tracking down illegal file sharers.

Ironic, don't ya think?

http://gizmodo.com/5549129/irony-war...ing-technology

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

They cannot possibly know.

It's a load of BS.

True, but anyone with common sense could figure out one thing:
Obviously only ONE person downloaded the movie right? Doesn't matter if it was the kid, or the parent, or the husband or the wife or a buddy or whatever. Someone there downloaded "The Hurt Locker"

Now that is a real movie. Not a porn scene the you secretly jerk off to. And if there were 5 or 6 people in the house EVERYBODY is most likely to sit down and watch it together. So I say nail all of them!

If me and 5 buddies went to a theater and I picked the lock to the back door and all of us snuck in and watched the movie...guess what? We would ALL be arrested, not just me.

As far as the "It was the kid next door breaking into my wifi" ...yep, that's very possible.

And if something isn't done about pirate sites it's going to lead to a further erosion of our rights. It's NOT the producers fault if this happens. We would all be making our movies and doing our work and not bothering anybody. If new laws come in to play that take more of our rights away, it will be DIRECTLY the blame of sites like rapidshare and all the other greedy, lazy thieving fucks who have brought this on us.

Having said that..the "Kid next door did it" defense is going to lead to entire neighborhoods having their privacy invaded when computers within the range of a suspect's wifi start getting grabbed.

And it will be completely the fault of piracy for starting this shit in the first place. It won't surprise me to see pirate sites cause govt. to act to censor ALL free porn and really kill us.

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Now that is a real movie. Not a porn scene the you secretly jerk off to. And if there were 5 or 6 people in the house EVERYBODY is most likely to sit down and watch it together. So I say nail all of them!

Disagree with that. Everybodies taste in films is different.

Also i'm sure there are many households where the parents have zero understanding of the internet and the kids will be downloading all sorts of things they don't know about.