Slashdot Mirror
New Litigation Targets 20,000 BitTorrent-Using Downloaders
Hugh Pickens writes "The Hollywood Reporter reports that more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington, DC, federal court for copyright infringement, and another lawsuit targeting 30,000 more torrent downloaders on five more films is forthcoming in what could be a test run that opens up the floodgates to massive litigation against the millions of individuals who use BitTorrent to download movies. The US Copyright Group, a company owned by intellectual property lawyers, is using a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents. According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the program captures IP addresses based on the time stamp that a download has occurred and then checks against a spreadsheet to make sure the downloading content is the copyright protected film and not a misnamed film or trailer. 'We're creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel,' says Jeffrey Weaver, another lawyer at the firm."
"The difference between the MPAA's past approach and the new one being offered by the US Copyright Group is that the MPAA took a less targeted approach going after a smaller sampling of infringers in a single suit for multiple films, to send a message. In contrast, the US Copyright Group is using the new monitoring technology to go after tens of thousands of infringers at a time on a contingency basis in hopes of coming up with the right cost-benefit incentive to pursue individual pirates."
It must be insult to injury to get sued over an Uwe Boll film. Not only did they watch it, but they got sued for doing so. Nobody needs that!
Checks against a spreadsheet! What kind of Mickey Mouse organization is this anyway? Don't they know they could haul in 10x more pirates with a proper database backend. Maybe it helps the lawyers boost their billable hours if they can have an intern do as much manual work as possible.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
It must be insult to injury to get sued over an Uwe Boll film. Not only did they watch it, but they got sued for doing so. Nobody needs that!
It's like getting kicked in the balls after consuming a large meal consisting entirely of broken glass bottles.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Want to put a stop to this - don't sue, just publish the names of people who spent time downloading and presumably *shudder* watching films by Uwe Boll.
[Insert pithy quote here]
All the MPAA has to do is get me a girlfriend and I'll gladly spend 10 to go out and see a movie. Until then its torrents from my parents basement using my neighbors wifi connection.
The shame involved must be incredible - public records proving that you downloaded a Uwe Boll movie. The only time I'd be willing to settle for whatever amount they wanted in an attempt to keep it from going to court.
We aren't creating problems, we're creating solutions! By pirating, we are creating jobs for thousands of lawyers, paralegals and entrepreneurs who are seeking to end the very thing keeping them employed!
We are saving the economy and the american way. Join us.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
Looks like a DDOS on the justice system.
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
So it's OK to rip off Hollywood but not the independents?
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
The equivalent of a distribution channel where tens of thousands get movies for free, but then a randomly selected group has to pay a hundred times the cost of the movie in litigation fees.
So kinda like insurance...except the other way around?
Didn't someone start a p2p insurance policy a few years back?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I wouldn't worry - these guys don't sound like they know much.
Hold on.
Let me get this straight ... they've found 20,000 people downloading Uwe Boll's film?
If I were a defense lawyer, all I would do is play the thing for the judge - nay, I would insist that he sees it from beginning to end - and then I would watch the lawsuit getting dismissed with prejudice .... and all the poor sods sued ordered compensation for the mental anguish caused by mere insinuation of having downloaded the thing, all the involved lawyers getting disbarred, charged with cruelty to judges and odious crimes against humanity, declared terrorists etc and so on...
Well, they have a great defense. Copyright only covers creative works. Uwe Boll is not creative. Therefore, Uwe Boll's works are not covered by copyright.
In order to convince the judge of this fact, they can get their lawyers to introduce an entire Boll film into evidence by playing it in the courtroom. That should settle the issue.
On the other hand, it will probably get them disbarred a la Jack Thompson's pornographic briefs.
Have you even seen "Going Postal"? AWE-FUCKING-SOME!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and your hand passes right through it, it's probably an imaginary duck.
Protip: Real ducks don't talk
Unfortunately, not everywhere. I have business users screaming to be allowed to use databases. However, IT insists they use Excel.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/