Slashdot Mirror
How a Virginia Law Firm Outpaces the MPAA at Suing Over Movie Downloads
Jamie points out this Ars Technica piece on a series of suits brought by the Virginia law firm of Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver against users they accuse of illegally downloading movies. The firm has an interesting business model in these suits; sue enough users in a DC Federal court to be worth splitting the sum of many small settlement offers (generally $1,500-2,500 apiece) with the filmmakers, rather than rely on winning after trial a small number of larger judgments. Most people settle, and Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver has so far named more than 14,000 "Does" — as in John Doe — including, as mentioned a few days ago, 5,000 who downloaded The Hurt Locker.
Don't download Indie movies anymore. I am sure word of mouth will still spread on how great those movies are...right?
Seriously, when is something going to be done about these guys? Their business model is built on "it costs more in legal fees for people to fight these accusations than to settle with us out of court so they'll just pay up" which, really, amounts to extortion. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how they are being allowed to get away with this shit. In a sane, logical world, somebody (the feds, the bar, whomever) would come down on them like a ton of bricks. Sadly, I don't think we live in a sane world any more...
At this point, I think I'm just holding out hope that a competing law firm will think things through and decide they can make money by suing these vulture law firms for harassment and whatever else they can drum up. After all, if those firms can make money just suing at random, surely another law firm can also make money counter-suing, right? Well, where is our white knight law firm who's eager to make a name for themselves? If the feds won't put a stop to it, maybe a last-to-sue war between legal firms can put a stop to it.
I don't bother submitting anything on /. b/c I *know* it's a waste of time.
Some users are favoured over all others.
This is the same for all blogs.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
You're gonna have to clue me in on the joke... I mean, if the cost of settling for those 5,000 Does is $2,000 each, then that's $10M to split between the producers and lawyers. Hurt Locker has racked up about $48M in worldwide box office so far (against a production cost of $15M). How is $10M "almost as much money" as $48M? (Not to mention the $28M from DVD and BD sales.)
You're right, it isn't.
And, let's see....9 Oscar nominations with 6 wins, including Best Picture and Best Director; about 100 awards from groups that like to hand out prizes; 97% on Rotten Tomatoes; the praise of two Iraq veterans with whom I watched it...yeah, it's a crappy film. Are you forgetting that it's lowest-box-office-ever-for-Best-Picture status in large part stems from its extreme shortage of prints?
I never once said it was crappy. I personally liked it...not enough for a best picture, but I liked it. Apparently, a LOT of other people didn't. Hence my post.
And just because it's slashdot....what's up with putting "stealing" in quotes? Are you saying that if I'm offering my car for sale and someone drives it away without paying, that my car hasn't been stolen?
You would no longer have access to your car, hence it would have been stolen. If someone took a copy of the DVD from a Virgin Megastore, that would be stealing, as it would prevent another person from having that same DVD.
Downloading a movie isn't stealing, as it isn't restricting your ability to obtain those exact same zeros and ones. It's illegal and immoral, but it isn't stealing.
Living With a Nerd
* Dunlap, Thomas M - tdunlap@dglegal.com vcard * Dureska, Geoffrey M. - gdureska@dglegal.com ... snip ... ]
[
Someone want to get home addresses, phone #s, list of first-born children?
Individuals at the company may be scum, they may not be - however attacking an individual's personal life for what he does in public I find offensive. The lawyers, are, at the moment within their legal grounds to perform this service for the MPAA and their ilk, as much as it leaves a bad flavor in my mouth.
If you want to change the world, stop attacking people and start attacking the issue. Fuss at your congressman to change silly lawsuits that are extortion schemes.
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
attacking an individual's personal life for what he does in public I find offensive
I do not find it offensive in the least. You don't get to do whatever you want and hide behind the "It's just business, nothing personal" excuse. You are responsible personally for any business you conduct whether it be private, public, business, or personal. You are complicit in everything you do. I don't want to hear about how the lawyers are just doing it to put food on their family's table. You really think the guy who owns the law firm is just barely scraping by? These guys are just greedy fuckwads, plain and simple. And they are supporting an entire industry of greed and abuse. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. There are plenty of things that are technically legal that are not ethical. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you should do it. I say fuck them and their personal lives.