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.
We've been playing this game for over a decade now..
Are there already good alternatives for bittorrents?
The onion-based darknets seem to be empty because it hasn't been as necessary yet there hasn't been anything other then torrents it seems..?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
...that hurts.
Maybe the people who are in the real thing should sue him for not allowing fair access to the truth. they should be happy that it might shed some light on what actually happens in iraq and afgan for the families. if more people would watch it than they would understand what vets have seen and experienced/
Yadda yadda, outrageous, MAFFIIIIIAAAA, etc. etc., but what's their alternative? The most common solution offered on slashdot for the people who make these movies is basically to just allow piracy.
I assume this means they're suing for an a full and immediate apology, right?
I didn't think it was that good of a movie. The critics (from what I've heard) raved about it, but I found the combat scenes to be unrealistic, the dialogue to be rather boring, and the plot uninteresting. One ridiculous scene involved a gun jammed because there was blood on the bullet. Seriously? Using one of the best sniper rifles in the world and blood on the bullet jammed the gun? Of course removing the bullet and cleaning it with spit did the trick. Interestingly enough, all of this was done right next to where someone had just been shot. What a ridiculous scene. Maybe they didn't make that much money because it wasn't that good of a movie... Also, Avatar was in the theaters at the same time and everyone was talking about that. Either way, I bet they're just suing some Bit Torrent noobs and they won't accomplish anything. I hope that everyone fights the suits so we can see what happens when they take 5,000 people to court....
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
Why is this sort of legal tactic allowed? The "sue everyone and let the court sort out who is guilty" attitude is ridiculous. Is there some kind of legislation that prevents this sort of behavior? Why isn't this illegal? It's obviously an abuse of the legal system, as far as I can tell.
Basically, I feel that this is extortion. Their tactic is: pay me x dollars or else you'll have to pay to fight an expensive civil suit. That's not ok.
Of course, it's easier to blame pirates for the failure to properly monetize your film. Couldn't be Hollywood's fault, could it?
Word is that 127.0.0.1 was the first to be sued.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
I've been wondering about this since I first heard about what these guys are doing. Basically they are capturing your IP when you are in the swarm downloading "the.hurt.locker.2009[dvdsrc]" or whatever. But what would happen if people started renaming the files like "the.hurt.locker.[parody]" or "this.is.not.the.hurt.locker.movie" or whatever. Basically, you wouldn't know it was the actual "hurt locker" movie until after you downloaded the entire thing. Couldn't you then just say, "Yeah, I noticed it was the real movie right after it downloaded and I immediately deleted it." Not sure if that would hold up in court, but you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... right?
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Ummm... Actually... I'll disagree. If they're suing for "actual" costs, and the costs of filing the lawsuit, then I think they're going totally against what the *IAAs have been doing. In fact, I think it's a totally reasonable and justifiable damage to seek among the downloaders. They're not looking to charge these folks $80K for the download, they're looking to get the illegal copies deleted, or have them pay for the movie and pay the court costs. That's exactly what I think it should be.
Now - If they decide that the "actual" cost is upwards of $80K + court costs, then I'm certainly going to go along with the wet dream theory.
Watching The Hurt Locker caused great and irreparable waste of time that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money.
They're asking the courts to prevent them from downloading their stuff again... How would you implement that? Ban the people from the Internets entirely? (Including at the local coffee shop?) Short of stuffing them in jail, I don't see how you could actually do that. So what do you think they have in mind here?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
What do you say? Is it worth downloading the BluRay version?
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4748387/The.Hurt.Locker.2008.720p.BluRay.x264-CiRCLE
Or just go with the DVD version?
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5421482/The_Hurt_Locker_(2008)_DVDRip_XviD-MAX
...is probably about the sum total who pirated the sleep inducing drama that is Hurt Locker. Avatar however was pirated beyond belief, and still sold 6.7 million copies on Blu-Ray and DVD in the first 4 days of it's release. So how does pirating affect sales again? Weak sauce.
I was not really impressed with the film. Sure it was a quality film with a solid message. I didn't feel it was worth an academy award. I'm sure I am not alone.
I guess some people can make the right decisions about making a good movie, but make all the wrong decisions about how to appeal to the audience for the next movie.
Irreparable harm is being done to their next movie. It'll be known as the movie made by those guys that sue their customers.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
it's called the library.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Agreed,
This *sounds*, currently, to be a fair lawsuit. RIAA/MPAA typical ask for massive amounts of money for possessing a song (not necessarily distribution), such as $2,000/song you download or $25,000/album
Seems like this lawsuit is aiming for "Stop, we know who you are now, delete your copies, don't do it again... + court costs" if found guilty...
Sounds fair in my boat... if not being a little easy on the copyright violation for possession... I personally think they should tack on a little extra for the lost revenue -- say $40-100, a fair value for what they might get if the person watched it in the theaters (with a friend or two) and/or bought the dvd/blueray
One of the few times an anonymous coward wouldn't want to be first...
My page.
The plaintiff claims every downloader is also necessarily an uploader of the infringing copyrighted material. However, the fact that a downloader has the potential to be an uploader doesn't necessarily mean they actually uploaded any part of the Hurt Locker or any other "infringing copyrighted material". It's quite possible for a downloader to have a vast collection of files available for upload and that the vast majority of them available are not infringing and that no portion of the Hurt Locker was ever uploaded.
I missed the movie, and thus don't really get all this fuss. It must be good if people are still talking about it. I guess it's off to TPB for me.
The main problem is that even court costs can be enough to destroy somebody's life. The odds are if you're downloading you're probably not among the wealthy elite in the world. They're probably more like me, in their 20's and only a few missed paychecks from being homeless. I simply don't think that a few hundred megabytes is worth the real human misery that you would cause. Legally they are in the right, but that doesn't make it right.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
For anybody found guilty of *downloading*, the maximum damages awarded should be the retail cost of one *copy* of the copyrighted material. In this case, that would be the cost of a DVD of the "Hurt Locker'. This is in contrast to *uploading*, where the guilty party is actually *distributing* the work. Even then, the argument is that the downloaded copy represents an opportunity cost sale, which is flimsy at best since there's no proof the guilty downloader *would have* purchased the DVD is downloading via p2p wasn't an option.
And, no, this is not like stealing a DVD from a store. Copyright infringement is not a criminal matter, it's a civil matter.
Greedy bastards!
This space left intentionally blank.
There seems to be a bit of post hoc rationalisation going on here regarding the quality of this movie
Now this is just my observation and as such anecdotal evidence, but, I noticed that ever since Hurt Locker was released it was praised by everybody I spoke to. I hang out a lot on both movie forums and filesharing forums, and that opinion was nearly universally shared well after it won a bunch of Oscars and the hype naturally faded. There's an argument to be made that the sucess of the movie, and word of mouth was greatly helped by filesharing, but I'm not making that argument here. Its almost certain that a huge amount of people who liked the movie and spread the word, pirated it. However, almost every opinion I read was that it was an excellent film, until news came out that people were getting sued.
So I look at the file sharing forums, and torrent news blogs, etc and as expected, near universal derision for the producers, but, strangely, suddenly an awful lot of people seem to think "Well it wasn't that good anyway".
What's interesting to me is not just that there are suddenly a lot more negative comments about it than I've seen before, but they're automatically linked to this news story, like its justification. Obviously, the quality of the movie has nothing to do with the rights holders to sue for copyright infringement, so its strange that
Does it feel like a rationalisation to anyone else or just me? Could it be a form of cognitive dissonance, specifically Postdecision dissonance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Postdecision_dissonance
1. "This is a good movie." 2. "Uh oh, this filmmaker has done something abhorrent to my beliefs." 3. This guy is an asshole. 4. Well maybe it wasn't that good a movie
The movie is done, and hasn't changed since released, but if I was to look at the various forums around the internet right now, the universal feeling seems to be it wasn't that great a movie after. The idea that the quality of
Who says? How many of the sued saw it in the theater and just wanted a copy on their HD? How many were, will be, or would have been paying customers of other movies of the same creators or studio?
I, for one, spend a lot of money on CDs. And yes, sometimes I'll also illegally (depending on jurisdiction) download stuff, because there is an upper limit to what I can afford to spend, and there is much more fantastic music around. Nobody gets hurt by this, because I would not have spent any more money anyway, The only effect of not downloading would be that I wouldn't have listened to this music. And I've often bought CDs after a download if I liked the stuff. So yes, it would be wise to consider me a customer or potential customer even if I haven't paid for a particular mp3. Suing me would be a damn stupid business move.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
If you own the disc, DRM has an (negative) impact on you.
If you don't own the disc, DRM does not prevent you from using BitTorrent, since there is no DRM on thepiratebay.org..
That sounds very much like long-term business thinking. That has no place in modern American business.
By the way, here's your papers... you've been served.
Sincerely,
The ##AA
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
It's time to start shooting these extortionist lawyers. I just don't see any other way to stop their abuse of the legal system.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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."
If it were theft, every pirated copy of the movie would have to come at the expense of a copy that could otherwise have been legitimately purchased. If I break into a store and steal a DVD, that's theft. If I break into a store and meticulously copy the DVD, it's not. File sharing is closer to the latter case than the former (although without the whole trespassing/breaking and entering aspect).
That's not to excuse piracy, mind you: copyright infringement is still illegal and (depending on your ethics) possibly immoral as well. But there's been a long-standing and deliberate effort among content producers to confuse copyright infringement with theft and it's not really hard to see why. Even if you feel that both crimes are inexcusable, theft is clearly the worse of the two. Plus, there are plenty of people out there who aren't familiar with the particulars of intellectual property laws who know about theft.
In short, it's a PR move. And while I certainly don't begrudge producers the right to protect their property to the fullest extent of the law, I personally prefer to call a spade a spade.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
I was not really impressed with the film. Sure it was a quality film with a solid message. I didn't feel it was worth an academy award. I'm sure I am not alone
My comment about the film was, "Is there an Academy Award for 'Least Believable Main Character,' because I think Hurt Locker just won that one too."
It had potential to be good. The reviews were good. The film just isn't. When the two big directors up for Best Picture are the directors of Point Break and Rambo, the field is pretty weak.
I am of the opinion that the way to fight this insane "sue your customers" attitude is to simply avoid their movies. A list of these is available at https://thefilmcatalogue.com/catalog/CompanyDetail.php?id=279 - I perused the list and, honestly, saw no movies I've wanted to see on it, or seen. Won't be too hard for me.
I spend more money on movies (cinema and DVD/BD purchases) than I ever did before. I see a simple explanation: Hurt Locker made no money and investors need to blame someone. Hell, let's blame piracy. Surely the only possible reason since they received rave reviews. Marketing has absolutely nothing to do with it. I for one haven't seen any of the Oscar winning movies. Yet my initial statement stands true. Maybe people aren't into war movies where aliens are absent.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I'm pretty sure most people saying the movie sucked are simply action movie buffs who felt the movie was slow and boring, and just forgot about it. You've also got people who've avoided criticizing the film for social reasons, like patriotism or the awards, but who'll now honestly say they disliked the film. In fact, I'm suspicious the films support largely comes from cognitive dissonance around patriotism and the awards in the first place.
I watched the beginning of the film, but I got bored fairly early and quit. And yes I've never told anyone that before, well I felt the movie was lame before. I mostly just never cared enough, but yeah I was reluctant to contradict the academy when I'd not even seen the film. I've only rarely admitted that I've never finished Foucault's Pendulum either.
That said, these producers are trying to ruin people's lives for watching their movie. So yes erasing the film from our cultural consciousness sounds like an appropriate response. In fact, one easy move would be helping thin down the wikipedia article.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Agreed. Had I paid to see it, I would have asked for my money back.
So if you like a movie, does that mean you pay afterwards? You are a thief. You take the product of someone's labors against their will and offer nothing in return. That has nothing to do with whether what you steal meets your personal standards.
Yes. And every time you fastforward through a TV commercial or get up to go the bathroom during them, you too are a thief.
Or do you watch all the commercials to satisfy your morality? Do you listen to all the commercials on the radio in between songs? Do you read all the banner ads on every webpage you load?
Welcome to 2010. You can't lock media down as easily anymore and you can't charge exorbitant prices for shit and expect everyone to happily pay it. And using your political influence to sway the FBI and the judicial system in your favor is not going to change the popular opinion.
If the movie industry doesn't like it, they can always stop making movies...
They want ISPs to track down 50,000 IP addresses? I tend to agree with the ISPs who claim that they do not have the resources to track down that many and even if they did the ISPs should be able to charge Voltage Pictures fees for this service. It is totally bullcrap that copyright holders can impose these sorts of costs on ISPs whenever they feel like going fishing for infringers. As I recall, the courts ruled against the RIAA and forced them to use the standard subpoenas; a process which proved too expensive, even for the RIAA, to pursue tens of thousands of individuals for what amounted to small claims settlements (i.e. without the abusing the DMCA takedown process, the financial calculus reversed and the RIAA had to give up on new cases). How many file sharers will actually be unmasked if Time Warner, AT&T or Verizon can charge a few thousand dollars plus several hundred dollars per hour of admin time in fees for each subpoena request? Is Voltage Pictures really prepared to spend 150 million dollars just to get 50,000 names (each one requiring an individual subpoena request)? This sounds like an empty threat by Voltage Pictures, but IANAL so perhaps someone who is can answer these questions. For the record, I have not even seen the movie in question and now I am pretty sure that I don't want to.
...as long as 20+ years the battle on piracy (the home-grown stuff, not the pro-stuff) has been raging in the world. It really heated up with the digital age: CD, DVD, BluRay. The owners of the content fight for their current income, but fail to see the lost cause.In 50 years time (hopefully less), we can sincerely look back on these "piracy wars" and see them for what they really are: a battle for the fair use of someones work. Currently, the balance is - even though it *seems* the other way around - tilted far towards the distributors. The makers of the work get a very small percentage. Piracy is - as is often discussed - just the excuse of distributors to keep this balance tilted in that direction. It will change, but that will take time and money - mostly money from those who take the fall for the system as it now is (the 'bittorent users', 'downloaders' etc.).
;=)
Until law makers see this problem, and fairly solve it, it will continue. Probably the most fair way is:
* ban all DRM
* provide a good, flat-rate, service globally to download media to own and use ; the distribution channel doesn't even have to come from the distributors (this is their fear...) : let anyone download from ie. bittorrent and pay that flat-rate fee. See it as a TV license fee : you watch it, you pay it.
* as far as distribution channels are concerned: allow them to only ask a transparent price for distribution, split the costs for "the work" and "the medium" (distribution) clearly, and make it into law
* make sure the profits of "the work" end up with the makers of the content.
* make sure the profits of "the medium" end up with the distributors of the content - as per the division above.
* stop all lawsuits
* if you get caught "illegally downloading", you pay a fine. The fine you pay is equal to the fee you would have paid normally, for the period you (likely) owned said content, and is increased with a percentage to discourage you from doing it again (20%-50% sounds fine).
* no internet disconnections
Now that's solved, what's next ? Energy crisis ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd