Slashdot Mirror
The Hurt Locker Producers Sue First 5,000 File-Sharers
Voltage Pictures, the production company behind 2008's Oscar-winning Iraq war film The Hurt Locker, today sued 5,000 people who illegally downloaded the movie over BitTorrent. Quoting CNET:
"Attorneys for Voltage wrote in the complaint that unless the court stops the people who pirate The Hurt Locker then Voltage will suffer 'great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.' Voltage has asked the court to prevent those who downloaded the movie without paying for it from downloading its movies ever again, and order them to destroy all copies of The Hurt Locker from their computers and any other electronic devices they may have transferred the film to. As for monetary damages, the movie's producers want those found to have pilfered the movie to pay actual or statutory damages and cover the costs that went into filing the suits."
According to the complaint (PDF), the 5,000 infringers are known only by their IP addresses at this time.
redbox is good too, $1 per movie and they give you promo codes once in a while for free movies. Its not too bad.
The issue is they can sue you and make sure it costs $10,000+ to even go to court then offer to settle for $1,000. This means even an innocent man will be forced to pay if he cannot spare $10,000.
I suggest they sue for reasonable amounts and do it more often.
Punish the infringers, yes, but the punishment should fit the actual crime. In the Far Cry case, they're asking for $1,500 from each infringer to settle out of court. That's with no hearings, nothing. Just "pay us $1,500 and we'll drop it." That's extortion, since it'd cost well over that to fight it.
So, we have a case where they're charging people with infringement, without having compelling evidence (simply obtaining an IP doesn't even come close), and setting the bar far in excess of actual damages, but well below what would be incurred defending oneself.
And yes, I said the Far Cry case, but it's being handled the exact same way as this one, since it's by the same law firm.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
"Doing the right thing" and not stealing isn't moral relativism.
And pirating movies isn't stealing. Stealing means I deprive someone else of their property. Copying said property is a different matter entirely.
Remember that these civil lawsuits have a burden of proof called a "preponderance of the evidence", which means the jury needs a confidence level over 50% to go with the studio. That leaves significant room for doubt in the jurors' minds -- they just have think that there is more than a 50% probability he actually was the one who downloaded the movie. Anyone really want to risk their financial future on those odds?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Are you being intentionally ignorant?
DRM hasn't ever made a difference in piracy, the only people that are ever impeded by it are the ones that actually legitimately purchased the product.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Technically speaking, downloading a copy of a movie you already own may be illegal, but it's extremely unlikely that anyone will sue you for it. If they could even track you down in the first place.
But the issue here is that BitTorrent isn't a download tool: it's a peer-to-peer protocol. By default, while you're downloading any given file, you're also uploading it to others. And even if you have a legal copy of the work in question, you don't have the legal right to make it available to those who don't.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."