Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hurt Locker File-Sharing Subpoenas Begin

Posted by Soulskill on from the how-not-to-generate-good-press dept.

In May we discussed news that producers of the film The Hurt Locker filed a lawsuit against 5,000 John Does, known only by their IP addresses at the time, for sharing the movie over peer-to-peer sites. Now, reader suraj.sun notes that subpoenas for the lawsuit are finally going out. "Qwest Communications on Monday notified a customer in Denver that the Internet service provider has received a subpoena from lawyers representing Voltage Pictures, the production company that made The Hurt Locker. ... In legal documents, Voltage Pictures has blamed the movie's relatively poor domestic performance on illegal file sharing. As of March 21, the movie had grossed $16 million domestically, but took in $40 million overall. According to reports, the film's production budget was $15 million. The film leaked to the Web five months before the movie's US debut. ... For allegedly downloading The Hurt Locker, DGW told the Qwest customer from Denver that settling the case early would cost $2,900, according to documents reviewed by CNET."

10 of 376 comments (clear)

  1. Culprit ? by dargaud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The film leaked to the Web five months before the movie's US debut

    Looking for a culprit ? The guy who decided to sit on the movie for months while the marketing campaign was already on. When people want to see something and it is available, albeit illegally, they will.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Culprit ? by jdpars · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the culprit here is the guy on the production team who leaked it. That's who these people need to go after. This smells of lawyers trying to keep their clients from realizing how totally unnecessary they are. How much will 5000 trials cost the people paying for these lawyers, and how much will that cost the taxpayers? We ought to be in a riot that people are abusing our legal system like this.

    2. Re:Culprit ? by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, to be fair, they may have a point. As soon as people started watching it, I'm sure that word of mouth started to circulate about the quality of the film. Personally, I haven't seen it, but I take it that it wasn't a very good movie. And in this day and age, a bad movie might only get one day before it's outed on the web for being a bad film. Which makes it very hard to make money if it sucks as people know better pretty quickly, unlike in the past where they might get a couple weeks.

    3. Re:Culprit ? by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The film owners still have a legal right to sue for infringement, and there's some pretty good arguments for a moral right, BUT ...

      The industry is claiming they need very high statutory damages to make up for the tremendous losses they say 'piracy' produces.
      If those losses are really so high in part because of cases where the industry itself screws up, then the industry doesn't really deserve especially high statutory damages, AND giving those to the industry may encourage their incompetence rather than them reformulating their business models to make 'piracy' less attractive. Metaphorically, the punishment for auto theft should not be made so attractive to the victim that he or she deliberately doesn't lock his or her car in a known bad neighborhood. Running up demand when you are not prepared to meet it, and delaying consumer gratification while the product is hot, are simply bad business models.

      The industry is also claiming they have a special need for taxpayers to foot more of the costs of them filing these lawsuits. If that same industry isn't bothering to do simple things they reasonably can to make those lawsuits unnecessary, then they themselves are the ones manufacturing that special need. That's one reason I qualified the part about moral rights, above - The industry has been claiming that the 'pirates' are solely responsible for creating that special need. If the industry itself is denying its own share of the responsibility, that undercuts their moral position. Going back to the metaphor I used, having your car stolen gives you no moral right to deliberately lie to the judge (and through him, the taxpayers paying the costs of a criminal prosecution) about whether you locked the doors or not.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    4. Re:Culprit ? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep. The most likely reason the movie didn't do that well was because most people didn't want to watch it. Or they were told not to bother from those who watched it.

      I wonder if those 5000 John Does are actually the total number of those who pirated the movie - which would be a rather embarrassingly small figure :). From what I hear, I wouldn't bother wasting my bandwidth downloading Hurt Locker, and I doubt I'd bother popping down the local pirate shop to get a copy.

      If filmmakers wanted to make more money they should make movies that millions of people will want to watch, and make it easy for them to pay and watch it.

      FWIW, I paid to watch Avatar in the cinema. And it was worth my money, nice graphics and all that. Even my mom paid to watch it with one of her friends and they both liked it too. Surprise surprise, my mom doesn't always like the same movies I like. My dad didn't want to watch it - he said it was too long. IIRC he watched LoTR, and I think that did well by most sane estimates.

      But despite that, somehow LOTR allegedly didn't make enough money for some crooks to pay Peter Jackson his fair share, and apparently Return of the Jedi never made money ( http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6024677.ece). "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" lost money too: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml

      So guess who I think are the real thieves and crooks in the movie and music industry? It's not those file sharers.

      Makes you wonder how they stay in business. Perhaps the Government should shut them down and put them out of their misery.

      --
  2. Great by rshxd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My Tor exit node is probably going to get DMCA takedown requests. I got one for "CSI: Miami Season 4" and CERT Malaysia said I was launching an attack against XXX.XXX.XXX but won't provide me an IP address or range to block. Silly DMCA folks!!!!

  3. Avatar by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Avatar DVD is currently #51 in the Amazon sales charts despite being released in April. I bet it was way more pirated than The Hurt Locker will ever be.

    #6 in the Amazon sales charts is a movie made in the 1960s that has been available for piracy for many years.

    Occam's Razor: The movie isn't as good as they think it is.

    --
    No sig today...
  4. Re:Barely heard of it... by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Hurt Locker was an amazingly good movie.
    Intense, interesting.

    Well, this vet says it's crap.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/23/when-cin-ma-v-rit-isn-t.html

    I'll go with the vet.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  5. Re:Maths ? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will be the new Hollywood business model.

    a) Make movie
    b) Hype it
    c) Release it on P2P
    d) Wait six moths, release in theaters
    e) When it bombs, sue 10,000 John Does because you know they can't afford to defend themselves.
    f) Profit!

    Anybody see a flaw?

    --
    No sig today...
  6. Re:Worst Part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The worst part, in my opinion, is that this isn't even a good movie to pirate. I mean, it was okay to watch on Netflix, but there's no excuse for pirating such a mediocre film. Yea, it won an Oscar, but it was basically just Minesweeper: The Movie.

    If this had been over Inception or another really great film, I could understand better. This? Please.

    FTFM.