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."
These types of lawyers give other types of lawyers an even worse name.
And before you sue me for that statement I'm sure that there is some sort of 'fair use' or 'truth' defense, so phfffft!
"...and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel."
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.
At least they're innovating...
If the only way to keep a business model working is to "open up the floodgates to massive litigation" then we should take a close look at why our society keeps those businesses afloat.
Personally, I think the basic reason we built the amazing companies in the "entertainment industry" is that distribution used to be difficult, and it required a lot of capital to set up channels to get media to consumers. This is no longer true; & the other reason - funding the creation of great media - obviously does not create enough value to justify the business that many of these companies continue to sue to protect.
Shooting yourself in the foot, 20000 law suits at a time. Apparently the independents are not more down to earth than the MPAA, just less successful. Way to ruin a reputation.
Good thing enabling encryption only requires checking a single box.
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.
I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.
What "good alternative" can I use to watch high-def movies stored on my home server via my networked media tank or laptop etc?
As long as the pirates provide a better product than the studios, the customers will turn to the pirates.
Bullshit.
Piracy costs nothing, the kids that do this were not going to buy those movies or games either way.
As for good equivalents please tell me where I can buy DRM free videos. Even DVDs are not DRM free.
I am not a pirate, I only break the law by using libdvdcss to watch my legally rented netflix dvds.
The Devils advocate position is that by requiring customers to wait for arbitrary showtimes and having an arbitrary limited selection pretty significantly impedes the flow of copied materials.
If I want to watch "Uncross the Stars" tonight, I don't have any way of doing that other than paying the movie companies (or downloading it).
In fact, I would wager that said movie will never be aired on any sort of television station that many people have.
So, while the concept of suing customers is unpalatable to me, as well as you, I disagree that it's "exactly the same thing" as a VCR.
People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base. You have to *buy* something to be a customer.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
The objective is to scare all the people currently pirating into buying.
I disagree. It is to scare all the people currently pirating into not pirating. These are not people who are looking to buy the movies so they will just go without.
I think this is what most don't understand. I am the type of pirate that does it for convenience. There is no other method of accessing movies that is as convenient as piracy, and I don't see anything coming in the near future that can come even close to allowing me to easily watch movies in multiple places in my home or on the road. With a downloaded .mkv, I can watch any movie I have on any TV in my home or on any computer in the world at the press of a button. I would love to see a viable legal alternative to my current setup, but it will never exist due to the luddites in charge of the movie companies.
"Widespread piracy is causing problems."
Prove it. You may find this difficult to do, since movie studios routinely lie about operating at a loss:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Palm trees and 8
Each of those soon to be 50,000 people is entitled to a jury trial. That's a LOT of resources tied up on this and for a long time. The logistics could get ugly. And this is supposedly just the test run that could open the floodgate?
The courts will have a choice. Either shred any semblance of justice, reject this litigative spam, or devote itself exclusively to these suits and hope they get to the last of them before the revolution comes.
You must not have watched it, then.
Bullshit.
Piracy costs nothing, the kids that do this were not going to buy those movies or games either way.
But wait! If the kid found out the movie is crappy, it might prevent their moms, friends or relatives going to the cinema/buying DVD!
You pretty much can't in a digital format. maybe get movies on VHS and convert them to DVDs? Personally I do the following:
IMO, this is no different than if I use a DVR with a big hard drive to record every movie I like from HBO, Cinemax, etc. I can watch a DVR'd movie as many times as I like, and I can keep it until the HD crashes in the DVR. This speaks volumes to the ignorance of lawmakers on technical issues: recording digital content that comes down the wire = OK, but recording that same content off a plastic disc = BAD. WTF? So, if I bought the CD or DVD and it's sitting in in my closet while a digital copy resides on my network, according to the RIAA/MPAA that is not fair use. Really? Dan Glickman and Cary Sherman can kiss my pucker - Until and unless I upload the ripped copy to the internets I've done nothing wrong.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
You know, I'm getting sick of all the whiners too.
Someone makes a movie and *gasp* wants to make money from it. You have several choices:
Pay full price and watch it in the theatre soon after release
Wait for it to come to the cheaper screens
Wait a bit longer for it to come to DVD/Blu-ray
Wait still longer for it to come to TV
If you're not happy with any of the options, then do without. Find something else. There's more to life than movies and music, and you don't have an inherent right to just take stuff any more than I have an inherent right to "borrow" anything from you without asking first. If you stopped pirating crap tomorrow your world isn't going to end - you'll just have to find something constructive to fill your time with - like interacting with people.
People who are illegally downloading and distributing their works are not a part of their customer base. You have to *buy* something to be a customer.
The people I know who download the most are the ones with the biggest DVD collections. They sample by downloading, and buy what they like.
You can't take the sky from me...
Or wait until the copyright expires.
Not possible, copyrights will get longer again next time mickey mouse comes up.
I pay for my media, but the reality is copyright no longer serves society as it was supposed too.
Indie films are by and large not indie films anymore.
Every major studio now has an indie branch. Plus 90% of everything is and has always been crap.
I really wish people would stop treating IP like actual property. It's not. Actual property has the problem of scarcity. You can't take IP. You can make copies of it, for sure. You can use it without an appropriate license. But the correlation drawn between stealing and copyright infringement is simply invalid.
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
Your analogy between "borrowing something without asking first" and copyright infringement doesn't hold water. There's a big difference between borrowing your Ferrari and making a molecule by molecule copy of it that doesn't deprive you of your car.
æeee!
I would love to see a viable legal alternative to my current setup
It's more than that, though, because your current setup in many cases should be legal.
How many dollars have been stolen from consumers by way of the politicians that have been bought to extend copyright on works that should have entered the public domain decades ago (copyright is supposed to be for the public benefit, which is why their government enacted it), and how does this compare to the money the industry claims is being stolen now? I think they may owe us a perpetually growing chunk of change, in fact.
And as a preemptive strike against the pedantic counterpoint, let's assume for these purposes that yes, selling somebody the Brooklyn Bridge is stealing from them.
Even if they do buy films, they will go for the used option. These are clearly price conscious folks.
Another baseless and naive assertion. I download movies and TV shows for the convenience. I frequently buy box sets, collector's editions, etc at full retail price.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Hmm, you know, the RIAA uses that same logic, but there were a couple of studies that showed the opposite: people who downloaded music spent more money on music (either discs, concerts or other products) than people who didn't download music. I wonder if the same holds for movies? I kind of suspect it does. If indeed it does, not only would the studios be attacking their customers, but attacking their best customers. If I were them, I would have wanted to test that one before launching the lawsuits.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
I'm going to "me too" this. I would love there to be a legal alternative to buy non-drm files instead of purchasing the bloody physical media. I'd pay a decent amount to download a high quality torrent. The value to me is having a trusted source with a beautiful 10GB encode from the original. I'd easily pay $5 per movie, perhaps $10 for that. As far as I'm concerened the MPAA should set this up and watch their distribution cost plummet. Heck they could stick to torrents and have the customers help distribute. For TV the same thing goes. I'd download ones with commercials even if they posted them at the same time as they go to air. I'd probably even pay a modest subscription. Basically until they offer something like this they have no business going after "pirates" since their other option are so crappy. Once they do, all the power to them.
So then you are an idiot. Identity Theft is just a way for a bank who was scammed to make it your problem.
The fact that people are ok with this I cannot understand.
I think this is what most don't understand. I am the type of pirate that does it for convenience. There is no other method of accessing movies that is as convenient as piracy, and I don't see anything coming in the near future that can come even close to allowing me to easily watch movies in multiple places in my home or on the road. With a downloaded .mkv, I can watch any movie I have on any TV in my home or on any computer in the world at the press of a button. I would love to see a viable legal alternative to my current setup, but it will never exist due to the luddites in charge of the movie companies.
I really, really, really hate the itunes interface in general but the online version of the store for the ipod touch is actually a good thing. The only two shows I watch on the pod are olbermann and maddow and the feeds are almost automatic. They only post the last aired episode but with a click I can download them to the pod. No fees, possibly one commercial, very sweet. I assume the for-pay stuff like Daily Show and Colbert would be just as slick but they're usually charging too much for this. Movie rentals are $4 and many movies are listed for "purchase" at DVD prices. I'm sorry, if you're not giving me physical media then why should I pay physical media prices? If DVD kiosks in the supermarket rent movies for $1, why should the electronic version that's even cheaper cost as much as renting from blockbuster?
The tech is already here to make buying more convenient than piracy. The issue is that they're charging too much and doing too many dickish things.
I actually like the idea of being able to vote with my dollars. Direct measurement of consumption is far more accurate than Neilsen's. Treat a season like shareware, Doom I'm thinking. The first third is free. You pay for access to the second third. If it's a good show, you'll want to pay. But make the price reasonable. I see DVD's of full seasons going for $20 some places. Keep the price down low enough so that it's an impulse purchase and we'll do it. Just look at the app store. Dollar apps? shit, that's cheaper than an appetizer. Yeah, I'll try it. If it sucks, no big deal. Price it at $10, now I'm skeptical and likely won't give it a spin.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Once a studio commits to DRM, it is a part of the package. What they are doing (the studios) is taking a candy (game) and wrapping it up with a layer of used toilet paper (obtrusive DRM). Word gets out about the used toilet paper packaging, and the studio heads are wondering why fewer people are buying their candy. "The candy is great!" they scream. (It probably is. But, it doesn't matter, because YOU WRAPPED IT UP IN USED TOILET PAPER.) The studios are free to "protect" their investments as they see fit -- however, at the same time, we are free to "NOT BUY IT" if we don't like the product, including the packaging/(non)delivery method. That being said, there is an entire generation which has effectively ignored the DMCA, and the companies think that people will suddenly change their behavior to be more "moral" now that they've driven their desires into legislation. We already went through this many years ago. It was called prohibition back then. Millions of people ignored it and alcohol still abounded. Now, millions of people ignore the DMCA, and pirated software still abounds. Not content, they are now working on ACTA, as well. We already know how the story ends, but we unfortunately have to live through it until those in charge realise they've made a mistake.
That is why I go into stores and steal the actual DVD's. Much less punishment if I get caught and it is actual theft.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It's perfectly possible to both think that copyright, as it stands, is out of whack and not pirate...
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I agree, I live in France and I can watch Movies over the Internet via Orange, and I do. I pay 2.99, or 3.99 for the abiitity to watch ONE time. However I only get 24 hours. My partner usually falls asleep at the halfway point so she never usually get the times to watch the rest.
I don't want HD, or blueray or other crap definitions. I use piratebay because I can download a film in 40 minutes and watch it that night in bed, and my partner can rewatch it some other time.
I would pay 5 Euros a download for a 1 gig sized version. But no one wants to sell to me, because copyright is A MONOPOLY in distribution. There is no incentive for the distributers to reacts to changing market conditions.
I WILL NOT BUY DVD's anymore. I do not buy CD's anymore.
Cinema? Yes I reluctantly go. I saw Avatar in non 3D. 10 Euros a ticket, 40 euros for the family.
People defending copyright have no idea on the intention of copyright. They have no idea the abusive monopolistic position of copyrights holders.
Their distribution model sucks and is overpriced.
[..]massive scale[..]as the piracy being committed by the torrent users has never been even remotely legal[..]
The thing with legality is, those with the most money get to define it.
The time when the people shared beliefs what's right and what's wrong with lawmakers is over. More and more people no longer belief in laws made by a corrupt system. "illegal" and "immoral" have drifted so far apart that they are often on two different sides of the scale.
As far as your "massive scale" is concerned, I call nonsense on that. Almost all of those 50k people have done it for private use only; hardly a massive scale. Plus the more people you sue, the more overlap you get and the scale gets even smaller.
The prohibition comparison from others is quite fitting. If so many people ignore a law that has been bought with money and favours, the law is wrong.