Torrent Users Fight Back

eonlabs writes "Torrent users being blamed for illegally downloading Far Cry are fighting back. In a 96-page lawsuit, the lawyers at Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver are being accused of: 'extortion, fraudulent omissions, mail fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud and abuse, racketeering, fraud upon the court, abuse of process, fraud on the Copyright Office, copyright misuse, unjust enrichment, and consumer protection violations.'"

Comments

Charges obviously too lenient

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, they kicked a kitten and didn't like their teddys.

My favorite part

[Abstrackt]

From TFA: "In short, Shirokov's lawsuit is accusing Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver of knowingly breaching copyright law to make money."

Re:My favorite part

[Amorymeltzer]

breaching copyright law to make money

Funny, that sounds incredibly like a pirate to me. Hopefully the law will actually work both ways this time.

Re:My favorite part

[MichaelKristopeit137]

turnabout is certainly fair play, but it only further recognizes and brings credit to the existing broken laws.

Re:My favorite part

[clone52431]

Pretty sure most of the so-called pirates weren’t making any money.

Re:My favorite part

[Amorymeltzer]

Let me rephrase - like an ACTUAL pirate, not a curious teen or aging grandma.

Re:My favorite part

[robot256]

You're welcome to make yourself a martyr, but some of us would rather hold to account those who abuse even the broken laws we have. Maybe we can prove that the people who promote and enforce the copyright laws have no intention of following them themselves, a clear sign of an unjust law. (I'm looking at you, Congress-whose-federal-pay-never-gets-frozen.)

Re:My favorite part

[Gravitron 5000]

Let me rephrase - Arrrrr!

FTFY

Re:My favorite part

[md65536]

Let me rephrase - like an ACTUAL pirate, not a curious teen or aging grandma.

We obviously need new terminology. By labeling people who let's say "back up" data as "pirates", the word "pirate" has come to mean something harmless, even cool. Yet the word is still used in the traditional sense to describe people who attack at sea, and destroy rather than create, and kill viciously, and actually take something away from people.

The pirate analogy is a bad one for copying data. The jesus analogy works better I think... he made some copies of fish and bread and distributed it free of charge.

People who copy data should henceforth be referred to as "miracle workers." Now try to paint them in the same exaggeratedly bad light with that name.

Re:My favorite part

[JavaBasedOS]

Damn it, Jim!

Re:My favorite part

[shish]

The jesus analogy works better I think... he made some copies of fish and bread and distributed it free of charge.

That's actually a very good point -- did Jesus pay the baker and fisherman for every copy of their work that he distributed?

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

He paid God by dying on the cross, you insensitive clod.

Re:My favorite part

[neumayr]

Pirates are bad now? There are some who at least thought they were the good guys, good intentions being what they are, and pirated their nation's enemies, i.e. privateers. Maybe Somalian pirates started out that way too, though it seems they're all about material values now.

Re:My favorite part

[bug1]

"some of us would rather hold to account those who abuse even the broken laws we have."

Its unethical to obey an unethical law.

Re:My favorite part

[hedwards]

You're right, we need to find a new name for those sea going guys, people might think they're doing something serious and antisocial.

Re:My favorite part

[Bigbutt]

Damn, that's some expensive Lox and Bagels. I'd rather pay the RIAA if it's all the same.

[John]

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be honest, the fisherman didn't create the fish to begin with - it was in the public domain.

The baker, on the other hand, may have something to sue over, if cakes were something protected by copyright (they would not be).

Re:My favorite part

[Xtifr]

We obviously need new terminology.

Should we go through the dictionary and find all the words that have more than one meaning and try to do something about them? Good luck with that! While we're at it, maybe we can force people to stop referring to unsolicited commercial email as "spam", since that name is already used for the Hawaiian State Bird^W^W^Wtinned meat product.

The term "pirate" as used to refer to large scale copyright violators dates back way before the Internet. It's thoroughly established usage. And I oppose changing it, because it would make the bandana, eye-patch and plushy parrot I often wear when sitting at my computer into non-sequiturs. :)

Of course, your Jesus analogy also fails, because Jesus made those loafs and fishes he gave away. The analogy to Jesus would be best reserved for those groups that give their own work away, like the Grateful Dead, Radiohead, the FSF or the Blender Foundation.

Re:My favorite part

[Yvanhoe]

A poster for the French Pirate Party. "Sharing" is "Partage" in French, very close to "piratage" (piracy) :
http://yvanhoe.free.fr/PP/affichePP.png

Re:My favorite part

[Unkyjar]

Maybe they were genetically engineered fish?

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think God, being his father, didn't sue his ass, nor him. So I'd say he made a safe move with copying Fish and Bread; besides, bread is so ancient, it could be attributable to God, hence, his father. Well, God made Fish, so there you have it. I'm still wondering if he copyrighted the Universe though.

Cheers!

Re:My favorite part

[dougmc]

Weren't the fish actually made by God (or nature, same difference?), and therefore by extension by Jesus himself?

As for the bread, yes, a baker baked it -- but out of ingredients made by God.

Though I would imagine that the real difference is the laws between then and now. Today, if Jesus came and copied a bunch of Wonder Bread, the Wonder Bread Corporation very well might sue him for infringing on their copyrights on the packaging, patents on the bread itself and trademarks on the name of the bread.

As for the fish, I think God (and therefore Jesus) have that on lockdown, unless it's some sort of genetically engineered fish, in which case I'm sure Monsanto would want their pound of flesh too.

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

What does Jesus have to do with anything? Didn't you guys separate church and state?

Re:My favorite part

[Terrasque]

"I just Jesus'ed the newest movie! It was awesome!"

I think you're on to something here. Who's starting up JesusBay.Com ?

Re:My favorite part

[icebraining]

As for the bread, yes, a baker baked it -- but out of ingredients made by God.

So what? Fender doesn't have a license to copy Hendrix songs either.

Re:My favorite part

[Score Whore]

The pirate analogy is a bad one for copying data.

You're four hundred years too late to be complaining about this usage of that word.

Re:My favorite part

[Merls the Sneaky]

If Mosanto is willing to attend mass they can get their flesh metaphorically.

Re:My favorite part

[turgid]

But by demonstrating in court that the law is absurd, you get things noticed and maybe even fixed.

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

You're welcome to make yourself a martyr, but some of us would rather hold to account those who abuse even the broken laws we have. Maybe we can prove that the people who promote and enforce the copyright laws have no intention of following them themselves, a clear sign of an unjust law. (I'm looking at you, Congress-whose-federal-pay-never-gets-frozen.)

I'd take you more seriously if you had your facts straight. Congress froze their pay for 2010, excluding themselves from the federal pay raises, and will likely do so again for 2011. These guys spend millions trying to get elected, do you really think they are doing it for the $174,000/year salary, or would risk voter ire by giving themselves a $3k raise?

Here's a clue, most of the political BS you receive in the mail has as much to do with reality as Nigerian royalty asking your help too extract their millions. The pundits make money by making you angry, its in their best interests to twists facts to make you irate.

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: "In short, Shirokov's lawsuit is accusing Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver of knowingly breaching copyright law to make money."

But If found guilty they will just get a little fine to pay, no one will be going to prison. That's the problem, there will be no real consequences to deter this from happening again. Government/Court issued fines are just considered the cost of doing business by most corporations. The people involved in schemes like this need LONG prison sentences.

Re:My favorite part

[Unkyjar]

I do not believe that Mike Ditka gave Jesus permission to do anything of the sort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32OeqbYbHg

Re:My favorite part

[wierd_w]

"DigitalJesus.com" would be better-- (bonus if you can score a .org)

You could spin it this way: "Jesus saves, both figuratively and litterally! Our digital savior preserves the digital heritage of our age, bringing the bread and fish of cultural diversity to the masses! All you have to do is accept!"

Then, Tag all the media files passed through the service as "Saved by Jesus, and freed from the clutches of evil" in the copyright section of the appropriate file headers.

Such a thing is SURE to infuriate a HUGE demographic in the extreme right. ROFL.

Re:My favorite part

[Fifth Earth]

Why is it that people think Jesus=God? What part of "Jesus, the son of God" is unclear? I mean, we're all geeks here and so by and large probably not very religious, but it's a pretty fundamental error to be making about one of the largest religions in the world. Even given unfamiliarity with the details of the Holy Trinity, which is admittedly a non-trivial theological concept, it should be obvious that since God created the Universe (and everything in it) first, and Jesus was born later, Jesus is obviously not God and is not responsible for making the fish, just for multiplying them.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Re:My favorite part

[shnull]

ethics were invented, since ethics is not physics, they must be an illusion, in the end there's only one law (how about that for a bit of crummy ole' greek-style logic?)

Re:My favorite part

[LittleBigScript]

Not if you are passing near the Gulf of Aden. Piracy isn't just a historical novelty conjured up for making movies staring Johnny Depp.

Piracy involves acts of robbery by parties not acting on the behalf of any government. By that definition Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver are the pirates.

Re:My favorite part

[Jarik_Tentsu]

The pirate analogy is a bad one for copying data. The jesus analogy works better I think... he made some copies of fish and bread and distributed it free of charge.

Makes you think. If Jesus rose again, and went to the starving nations of the world and created fish and bread, I wonder how long till the agriculture industries of the world would start filing lawsuits.

"But I'm the son of God! I was helping people!"
"Doesn't matter, the copyrights on the food you pirated was very clear. You are fined $500M in damages, since you obviously cannot pay it off, you are sentenced to death."
*And 3 days later, he rose again...*

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, 400 years ago Black Beard was busy making copies of mp3s...

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please elaborate?

Re:My favorite part

[Spacezilla]

The short version is that the word "piracy" has been used for unauthorized copying for hundreds of years, the long version is... well, Google it. :)

Re:My favorite part

[someone1234]

They got no license to freely modify God's copyrighted work, did they?
I'm pretty sure the default copyright wouldn't allow it, and God didn't issue any licenses.

Re:My favorite part

[Kjella]

Of course, your Jesus analogy also fails, because Jesus made those loafs and fishes he gave away. The analogy to Jesus would be best reserved for those groups that give their own work away, like the Grateful Dead, Radiohead, the FSF or the Blender Foundation.

No. According to the legend he clearly copied the bread and fish, he did not bake the bread or fish the fish.

"We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," they answered. "Bring them here to me," he said.

In fact, from the full story it is obvious he took away potential income from the bakers and fishermen:

As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a remote place, and it's already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food." Jesus replied, "They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat."

I use my own computer to copy bits, I own the bits as such. I only use a file someone else has as a template, just like Jesus used that bread and fish as his template. If those are his, then so are my copies mine.

Re:My favorite part

[SharpFang]

He made them only in the way a pirate makes a physical copy of a game on a disk. He took pre-existing, locally bought fish and bread and began splitting them in such a way that there were enough for everyone. Unlike Moses who made the food fall from the sky, Jesus took pre-existing food and created duplicates he gave away in exchange for publicity.

Re:My favorite part

[Anonymous Coward]

breaching copyright law to make money

Funny, that sounds incredibly like a pirate to me. Hopefully the law will actually work both ways this time.

Here's the actual reason for the lawsuit:

(from the article)

Despite being released in the summer of 2007 (Canada) and in December 2008 (US), the lawsuit says attorney Thomas Dunlap obtained a US copyright on the work by falsely asserting a date of "first publication" of November 24, 2009, allowing the law firm to claim that downloaders would be liable for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per download. Actual damages under the limited protection for works shown long before the copyright date would be a fraction of the retail DVD price of $27.

In addition to the bit about sending threatening letters with no intent to litigate, which is what the 'extortion' bit is about.

Re:My favorite part

[Custard Horse]

I believe that the fish were created under a GPL whereas the baker has a claim for prior art.

Re:My favorite part

[Tim C]

No, he means that the word "piracy" has been used as a synonym for "copyright infringement" for 400 year, not that piracy on the high-seas died out 400 years ago.

I know it's an incredibly unpopular use of the word here, but it's been used in that sense for centuries, and trying to change it now is a battle you will not win.

Re:My favorite part

[Civil_Disobedient]

The jesus analogy works better I think... he made some copies of fish and bread and distributed it free of charge. People who copy data should henceforth be referred to as "miracle workers."

You == Genius.

Re:My favorite part

[Coren22]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html

The common Christian saying is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three facets of the same gem.

Re:My favorite part

[Coren22]

Yes, the original pirates were privateers working for various governments. Many of them had a charter from a king or queen, France, Britain and Spain all fighting wars through them against the other's shipping.

Re:My favorite part

[Coren22]

Not to disparage what you are saying, as I agree fully with this thought process, but I always saw the Loaves and Fish story as much akin to the story of Stone Soup. I don't believe that Jesus actually multiplied the loaves and fish, but that the people all shared what they had and there was copious amounts of food left over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup

Re:My favorite part

[dougmc]

I'm basically an atheist (though I'm somewhat familiar with a number of religions), but as Coren22 said, Christians generally say that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all parts of the same entity, so who am I to argue with them?

Here's another reference that makes it even more clear.

And even if God and Jesus really were different people (but Jesus was God's son), I don't think God would prosecute Jesus for infringing on his intellectual property rights.

Re:My favorite part

[ushering05401]

No actually. God is the union of the three. The three components of the trinity are Father, Son, and Spirit. The DEUS representation is in the union between these.

The reality is that there is a large divide on this issue that splits the early Christian communities between East and West - Rome leading the Western view.

The Western view clearly states that each position of the trinity is equal but not EQUAL. Meaning there is no aspect of the father greater than the spirit and the father is not the spirit. The Father is God and God is the Father, the Spirit is God and God is the Spirit, the Father is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father.

The Wiki Folk have a start, but there are many facets to this thing:Shield of the Trinity

Re:My favorite part

[Coren22]

That's kind of funny. I am Catholic, I went through Sunday school, and this is what I was always taught, the trinity is three in one, separate but equal, while still being separate facits of the same god. But, I was replying to a post that was wondering why Jesus is being equated to God, and your post seemed to agree with that part of my post as well, the trinity is all God, so therefore, Jesus is part of God as well.

Re:My favorite part

[ushering05401]

I see now that we are in agreement. Comprehension fail on my part.

It is so common to see the issue confused I jumped to conclusions after reading the gp post.

Thanks.

So many charges

[SoundGuyNoise]

Don't forget mopery!

Re:So many charges

[KDEnut]

...and necrophilia.

Oh wait, I read that wrong, that should have been "Meddling."

Re:So many charges

[Anonymous Coward]

They said rape twice. They must like that one.

Re:So many charges

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a member of the Massachusetts bar, and have to say they've picked a good location to file these charges. I recall a case about 7-8 years ago where a firm did something similar over money due some clients. They sent nastygrams demanding money claiming they would file suit if it wasn't paid. Since they did not intend to file suit, and only to send nastygrams expecting payment, the courts slammed them good.

I'd say the accused torrent users have a pretty good case. Good luck.

And don't forget good ole' Barratry.

This will go well....

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's one thing the court system likes, it's lawsuits against lawyers.

Yo dawg, I heard you like tilting at windmills....

Re:This will go well....

[Anonymous Coward]

So I put a lawyer in your lawyer so you can sue while you sue!

Re:This will go well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Humm... Kinky! Just hope the receiving lawyer is female!

Re:This will go well....

[Keeper Of Keys]

You got something against gay recursive lawyers?

Re:This will go well....

[sexconker]

You got something against gay recursive lawyers?

It's lawyers all the way down.

Re:This will go well....

[gorzek]

That's instant sig material, right there.

Re:This will go well....

[Fauxbo]

Humm... Kinky! Just hope the receiving lawyer is female!

Probably her name is Sue.

Re:This will go well....

[Voyager529]

Like this Asian attorney: http://failblog.org/2009/09/09/lawyer-name-win/

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about goddamned time!

May it be the first of many

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us raise our glasses in toast to these people and hope that they will be successful, and that their success will cause more to follow in their footsteps.

Re:May it be the first of many

[The Hatchet]

I sure as hell hope so. Whats better, every last charge is extremely valid, no lopped on bullshit like the opposition uses. This pleases me.

Re:May it be the first of many

[TooMuchToDo]

Raise our glasses? How can we help fund efforts against the USCG? I've got my checkbook ready.

Re:May it be the first of many

[Daniel_Staal]

No, I raise a glass in toast, in hopes they will be successful, and that they are the last to do what they are doing. For they would only be the last if no other troll firm ever tries this trick with copyright again...

Re:May it be the first of many

[pitchpipe]

Let us raise our glasses in toast to these people and hope that they will be successful, and that their success will cause more to follow in their footsteps.

Maybe a class action lawsuit against all of the record companies for conspiring against the artists and their fans.

Re:May it be the first of many

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that the legal test of the validity of a set of charges is governed by the agreement in the minds of those who hope that copyright will be overturned so entertainment will be free for all.

Re:May it be the first of many

[bonch]

Why are you hoping they're successful? What's wrong with a copyright holder going after the people infringing on its copyright? In fact, Slashdotters suggested that copyright holders to do this very thing 10 years ago during the Napster lawsuit.

Re:May it be the first of many

[Imrik]

They aren't going after people infringing their copyright, they have no intention of following up on their threats. It would be more accurate to say that they're extorting money from people who don't want to pay more money to lawyers to fight the charges.

Re:May it be the first of many

[camperdave]

Who's the infringer, the person doing the downloading or the person who created the torrent in the first place? Or is it the one who buys up copyrights and then sues people who are copying?

Re:May it be the first of many

[aoteoroa]

Why are you hoping they're successful? What's wrong with a copyright holder going after the people infringing on its copyright? In fact, Slashdotters suggested that copyright holders to do this very thing 10 years ago during the Napster lawsuit.

I have no problem with copyright holders seeking damages for infringing. The problem occurs when RIAA and others seek damages far in excess of what is reasonable. In this case they are asking $150,000 per download. These groups have unlimited legal funding that almost guarantee the downloader will go bankrupt simply by being accused. Even if they are innocent the legal fees to defend yourself could send a person into bankruptcy. This seems way out of proportion of the crime. A person who went to Best Buy and stole 50 blue ray disks might get a week of community service but get caught downloading 50 movies and you could owe $7.5 million dollars. The laws are broken.

Re:May it be the first of many

[hedwards]

Honestly, in the long term the best way is probably just buying items from businesses they don't represent. Just about anything else just gives them ammunition for decrying teh evil pirates.

Re:May it be the first of many

[TooMuchToDo]

While I can see your viewport, someone is going to be funding this dragon for a bit. That'd be like ignoring SCO. Possible? Perhaps. But some may want to face the problem head on.

For that movie,,

[HazMat 79]

there should probably be a few more charges. (Never watched it but it's Uwe Boll, how bad up is it going to be?)

Re:For that movie,,

[hedwards]

I wouldn't say that. Uwe Boll is capable of putting together a perfectly respectable film, it's just that he usually takes the projects too seriously. As a director of parody film he's much better. Postal was actually a pretty good film. Probably because the subject matter forced him to make the film as more of a parody than as something serious. The fact that he was able to get a good cast probably didn't hurt.

The scene where he's making fun of himself is in and of itself worth the watch.

Re:For that movie,,

[flowwolf]

Actually no. Uwe Ball cannot put together a good movie in any sense of the statement. He lacks significant directorial skills. I don't even think he tries. He took the parody approach when people started hating him. It didn't work. Postal was horrible as well. Need I list off all his failures of movies, or are you going to keep claiming that he makes decent films?

Intellecticon

[Compaqt]

Similar to how the Constructicons combined to form Devastator, imaginary property lawyers are combining with the mob^H^H^H RIAA, and Obama's Intellectual Property Rights Task Force to form $0.

Re:Intellecticon

[commodore64_love]

You said a negative thing about Obama.
(steps back to avoid flames)

BTW "The Obama Deception" was yanked off youtube by Google & Biden cooperating with one another. Along with several hundred blogger websites. So much for fucking freedom.

Re:Intellecticon

[masmullin]

remember the days when if you didn't like what Prez Bush said you were a traitor to the country and a friend to terrorists?

Re:Intellecticon

[random coward]

Yeah, me neither

Re:Intellecticon

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just make a transformers analogy? I know this place has a reputation to maintain, but seriously?

Re:Intellecticon

[ScrewMaster]

Did you just make a transformers analogy? I know this place has a reputation to maintain, but seriously?

Is your complaint that you don't like transformer analogies (although, in this case, it was strangely appropriate) or that it wasn't a more traditional caranalogy?

This won't go anywhere

[bigsexyjoe]

Sure the law might be on their side, but we aren't ruled by laws, we are ruled by men. While the "law" might say one thing, the judges adhere to a sort of spirit of the law. And the spirit of the law is that big corporations and corporate are implicitly responsible, good and therefore in the right. When they don't like what a young person does that young person is in the wrong. It's just that simple.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo dawg, I heard you hate business entities...

Re:This won't go anywhere

[masmullin]

We're not evil.

Speak for yourself.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[skywire]

Take a deep breath, and go back and read the parent post. Nowhere did he even hint that all corporations are evil. He merely alleged that certain parties presume that all corporations are good. Then apologize.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[hldn]

Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.

"Young people" who leech off of the creative people whose work they want are in no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so.

what a bunch of whiny bullshit.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[bigsexyjoe]

It is incredibly ironic that I stated that court cases are largely judged by who the parties are, and you argued it by saying I don't have a right to make my point based on who I am and what you imagine my accomplishments are. You are illustrating the kind of thinking that I am referring to and I thank you for that.

Furthermore, I wasn't complaining about being on the receiving end of anything; I am an uninvolved third party in this dispute. You are complaining about "young people" and making a sweeping generalization that they buy expensive coffee.

You are simply not talking about the laws that this legal case involves. You are instead saying that young people in disputes with businesses deserve to be "spanked." And shouldn't "complain" (which in this case means exercise their legal rights based on the laws as they are written).

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, you can't complain or critique something you haven't done yourself? What a bunch of crap. Well, I guess I can't form an opinion on any movie I've ever seen now, since I've never been involved in movie production.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[abigor]

You have made a factual and mature post that references actual reality. Prepare to be modded down!

Re:This won't go anywhere

[drinkypoo]

All publicly traded corporations are beholden to the shareholders, and legally required to protect their interests above all others. That makes them do evil things. You know them by their actions.

All businesses that are not cooperatives are taking advantage of their employees and are thus inherently evil. But that's even more a matter of opinion.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[ScentCone]

you argued it by saying I don't have a right to make my point based on who I am and what you imagine my accomplishments are

Really? Which words did I use that say that, exactly?

You are instead saying that young people in disputes with businesses deserve to be "spanked."

Really? Which words did I use that say that?

You are complaining about "young people"

No, I'm responding to your invocation of them as what you describe as victims of a court system run by, apparently, people like musicians who decide to invest some of their money to form a record label, and who do like almost every industry, and pay a trade association to handle some of their collective legal, political, and public relations issues.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.

You're talking sheer nonsense. Large corporations are made up of many small people who have done none of what you whine about the OP needing to do. The money-hungry copyright lawyers aren't brave, solitary business owners striving against the tide of thieving children.

Those lawyers ARE the same thieving children at Starbucks, thieving for a living as a cog in a large corporation that can get away with most anything thanks to the organization's size.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

No he didn't, and neither did you.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Which words did I use that say that, exactly?

"Come back when you have" Meaning you believe he does not have the perspective to form an opinion.

Really? Which words did I use that say that?

"no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so." People who are in no position to complain that they got spanked deserve it.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

When I start my business, the first thing I'll do is not adopt a business plan that involves selling things that have a discrete value of zero...

Re:This won't go anywhere

[hedwards]

There is no right to make a living. Or at least that's the conclusion I take from the right's war on the living wage they've been waging for the last 30 or so years. Which makes me wonder if there is no right to a living wage, then why the hell is there suddenly a right to make money for some people but not the ones that actually produce wealth?

Creative industries are necessary for the soul and the spirit, but nobody ever starved to death for failing to watch enough crappy movies. Seems to me that perhaps the corporations that produce them might want to consider pricing the materials in a way which is affordable and adhering to the laws in place.

Sure that doesn't make it OK to pirate materials, but it's much less likely that people would pirate if the corporations didn't make it inevitable. Why should people pay for a piece of software or music with no assurance that in the future they'll even be able to use it?

Also, considering how screwed over young people are, I'm not exactly sure how we're the bad guys when it's the old farts that will get their full social security checks as they vote to lower their taxes at our expense. Somebody has to pay for that, and if we can't get living wage jobs, on what basis do you expect us to have money to pay for your yearly COLAs?

Re:This won't go anywhere

[ScentCone]

He's saying I said, "You are instead saying that young people in disputes with businesses deserve to be 'spanked.'"

When, of course, what I actually said (and you, also, are carefully avoiding it) is that people who leech entertainment are in no position to complain about getting called out on it. He knows I said that, and so do you, but you're both trying to pretend otherwise. Embarassing, for you, to try so hard to avoid the actual issue at hand, which is leeching copyrighted material.

Meaning you believe he does not have the perspective to form an opinion.

No, meaning that his opinion is incorrect, and seems to be based on a completely ridiculous understanding of reality. I'm encouraging him to form his opinion based on what it means to run a business like a recording studio, a label, etc., and not based on hipster anti-business groupthink, which makes it fashionable to bash The Man as and the people He works with actually go about creating the very products that are being leeched by the people that say they hate them. Too funny.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[harvey the nerd]

When the laws are not enforced justly or institutionally, the laws return to the hands of the people. Yes, that's revolutionary, it is in the Declaration of Independence and it is messy.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[scot4875]

you argued it by saying I don't have a right to make my point based on who I am and what you imagine my accomplishments are

Really? Which words did I use that say that, exactly?

The whole part where you rambled on about how he should try to start a business, go through the legal paperwork to incorporate, and offer a product that people want.

Should I correct the rest of your post, too?

--Jeremy

Re:This won't go anywhere

[geekoid]

false. They only need to stick to their mission statement as much as they can without violating laws or ethics.

If someone agree with the mission statement, then they can buy some shares.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[iceaxe]

the spirit of the law is that big corporations and corporate are implicitly responsible, good and therefore in the right. When they don't like what a young person does that young person is in the wrong. It's just that simple

What a bunch of whiny bullshit.

I agree that the quoted statement is lacking in demonstrable basis, but it's also obviously opinion and illustrative hyperbole. Your response, however, is hardly raising the level of discourse.

Plenty of large companies get their asses handed to them in court. And plenty of "young people" are, indeed, busy ripping off entertainment so they don't have to spend their Double Skinny Grande Half-Caffe Latte money on the movie they want to see.

I believe you are correct on both counts, though I don't have real data to support my impression.

The funny thing is that you don't even see the irony in making absurd, sweeping generalizations as you complain about being on the recieving end of absurd, sweeping generalizations.

I'm pretty sure that absurd sweeping generalizations are the norm for human discourse, considerably mitigating the ironic impact. Personally, I find it more disheartening than amusing. Also, as I don't know either of you, I won't propose to know whether you are aware of irony or absurdity, in yourselves or in others.

Come back when you have formed a business (you know, incorporated), and have spent some time dealing with the paperwork and legal entanglements. Then create something that a lot of people want, and which is therefore widely ripped off by people who don't think they have any obligation to meet their entertainers in an actual market (nope! entertainment slaves are just fine, right?), and spend some time enjoying that scenario for a while.

I agree that people would understand these issues better with personal experience on the other side of the equation. That's really not a legitimate demand, though, in most cases. You'll have to resort to reason, and some good logical arguments. (As opposed to variations on ad hominem.)

"Young people" who leech off of the creative people whose work they want are in no position to complain when they get spanked for doing so.

Well, it's hard to argue with a strawman, so I'll agree that if we define 'leeching' as a 'spankable' offense, such is the wages of leeching.

Ah, now we get to the part where I present my own opinion. What fun!

Let's start with my credentials: A member of my immediate family works as a professional creative type in the movie business. Just wrapped a project this past week, in fact, which will become one of those infamous MPAA films seen in movie theaters all over the world. So, I have a personal vested interest in the ongoing health of that industry.

Hey, there's the operative goal - health of the industry. Opportunities for people to both make and enjoy films. (or music, or written works, etc. etc.)

I have heard a great deal of sound and fury about the despicable pirates and about the greedy corporations, but I've not yet seen real analysis of the impacts of the situation, using numbers that hold up to scrutiny. Just blustery wild claims and numbers pulled from thin air.

Personally, I don't care a whit whether XYZ corporation goes in the tank because they can't maintain profitability as the market situation changes. (Though I'm sure holders of XYZ stock care.) I care about opportunities for my family member to pursue creative activities as a career.

I am concerned that the various industry organizations are clinging to the past, and will fail to adapt to the reality that people are going to copy and distribute bits. Crying and suing and legislating simply will not stop it. DRM sure as heck won't stop it. If it can be viewed, it can be duplicated.

I would much rather see efforts to adapt to change, rather than this ongoing PR

Re:This won't go anywhere

[nosferatu1001]

No, they are required to make as much money as possible, by any means they can.

Anything less and shareholders can sue for breach of fiduciary responsibility.

This is why corporations are inherently sociopathic.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Unkyjar]

Whoa, slow down there Dagney Taggart. You talk about a lack of understanding of reality, but then appear to attribute the creative force behind music products as the record labels themselves which in most cases isn't true. Yes, artists get help from producers and sound engineers to help make their albums but those artists are charged for that production time and the services of those specialists. The primary work of record labels is the manufacture, marketing and distribution of the artist's product, as well as the defense of copyrights that the label usually owns of the artist's product in exchange for distributing that product.

Now this is a general description of how the industry works and a gross oversimplification, and I don't mean to imply that running a record company doesn't take skill and a lot of hard work. But they do essentially buy someone else's stuff and then sell it themselves.

Once again, I am not trying to attack your argument, just trying to get you from accidentally insinuating that the record companies are the creative force in the music industry.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[ScentCone]

just trying to get you from accidentally insinuating that the record companies are the creative force in the music industry

Most artists are terrible business people. Some of them, after a period of working in a given industry, start to "get" the underlying realities, and some of them form their own business entities in order to engage with that market in a way they think best. Many, many record labels are formed by artists that think they have a better angle on spotting future talent, a better recipe for producing recordings and promoting them, etc. And many of those artist-born labels do the sensible thing, and leverage larger associations to handle certain annoying tasks (like lobbying, or handling the logistics of annual trade shows and publications, or dealing with legal issues that impact all of them, and such).

The creative people and the labels aren't so far apart, and in many cases, the label IS a group of creative people who've formed a company intended to leverage their experience and creativity in a way that lets them grow in the business without having to do ALL of the creative work themselves. Some of them just want to give emerging fellow artists a different option, or better treatment. Regardless, I cited the labels in the way I did, on purpose. There are hundreds of busy small labels for every one large monster organization.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Unkyjar]

I agree that there are many, many artist created record labels in this day and age, but I believe that the majority of the music market is still dominated by the corporate and not the creative.

http://routenote.com/blog/2010-quarter-1-marketshare-for-major-music-labels/

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's utterly false.
Companies release a prospectus, which responsible shareholders should read before purchasing shares. If they do not read the prospectus, then they have no grounds on which to sue.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I punch someone in the face or otherwise defend myself, in my interests, that makes me an evil person? Good to know! I'm gonna go on a theft spree, and then maybe I'll go rob a bank. After all, by your words self-defense and larceny are both self-interested actions and therefore evil.

Re:This won't go anywhere

[Coren22]

The problem with the perspective you are speaking of, is this is the court, both parties are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. You are taking this to mean that the courts are on the side of big companies, when in truth it can go either way, and without being in the court during the proceedings, you are working on second third or forth hand knowledge of what happened. The bias you see may not be anything, but as I was not in the court at the time, I can't say anymore then you can that it is biased. The only bias that seems to exist in law is one of money, those with money are better represented, but even the common man can still win even representing themselves. It happens, get over it.

You must have started drinking already

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you seem to believe that they'll be successful and even that they are even in the right.

No judge is going to do anything more than slap the law firm on the wrist. To do otherwise would threaten the whole business of law, and that just won't happen.

And really, folks who pirated a UWE BOLL movie? Aren't they at least guilty of criminal bad taste?

Re:You must have started drinking already

[chromas]

No! Folks who didn't pirate the movie and have no wish to be associated with criminally bas taste.

Re:You must have started drinking already

[gorzek]

After I experience a bas taste I immediately seek out some bas relief.

Re:You must have started drinking already

[nschubach]

After I experience a bas taste I immediately seek ...

...something to get the fishy taste out of my mouth.

Forgot one of their claims...

[DoofusOfDeath]

... "And it wasn't even that good!"

New Hollywood business model

[digitaldc]

1) Release low-budget, badly-written & directed crappy movie to the public
2) Give it time to be distributed illegally on the internet
3) Find those who have supposedly shared it
4) Sue everybody, but count on only some people paying to settle out of court and collect fines
5) PROFIT!

Re:New Hollywood business model

[elrous0]

Hollywood was doing #1 long before the internet.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[bhcompy]

But the Germans weren't, unless you count scat porn.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[orphiuchus]

Oh, I do.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[Caerdwyn]

How to circumvent the above business model:

1. Don't download movies you haven't paid for.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[gstoddart]

You forgot the step whereby you allow a third party to do you farm it out to a third party for enforcement.

I still have no idea why the US Copyright Group has any standing to sue anybody ... did the copyrights get transferred to them? Or, are they just suing for some bizarre reason?

Re:New Hollywood business model

[digitaldc]

Even if you already bought the BetaMax, VHS, DVD, HDDVD, BluRay media before?

Re:New Hollywood business model

[sodavatn]

If they have been beamed through you, is it ok ?

Re:New Hollywood business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no innocent person has ever received one of those letters and realized that it was cheaper to just admit to something they never did than to fight it in court.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[LambdaWolf]

1) Release low-budget, badly-written & directed crappy movie to the public 2) Give it time to be distributed illegally on the internet 3) Find those who have supposedly shared it 4) Sue everybody, but count on only some people paying to settle out of court and collect fines 5) PROFIT!

I can't quite tell if this is meant more as a joke or as well-justified speculation on Uwe Boll's motives. It could well be the truth. Until recently his business model centered around exploiting German tax law to receive money regardless of how badly his movies did. I wouldn't doubt for a moment that he is now doing something similar with American (international, really) copyright law, and maybe even planned for Far Cry to produce profits through copyright damages/settlements before he even released it.

Of course, there are plenty of parties other than the movie's director in play here and I can't really disentangle them all right now, but to deliberately make a movie as a pretense for lawsuits, rather than as art (even badly attempted art), seems so much like an Uwe Boll thing to do that I have to expect he's rubbing his hands and cackling right now.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[hedwards]

Because we all know that nobody ever gets sued for somebody else's piracy. I mean seriously, given the sloppy investigative methods and the lack of rigor in making sure that the person sued is who they think they are, it's a wonder that any of them are actually liable for infringing on anything.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[Venerence]

Even if you already bought the BetaMax, VHS, DVD, HDDVD, BluRay media before?

What about the Extended Edition, Director's Cut Edition, Deluxe Box Set, Limited Edition, Remastered Edition, and Walkie-Talkie Edition?

Re:New Hollywood business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people don't want to have their computer sit for 3 days recording their DVD, and more importantly their HDDVD as its now extinct, into H265 format. This is where downloading what you already own is useful. If this action is not protected by the fair use doctrine, then I would rather return all the movies I own and vow to never watch another movie in my life because the reward of watching a movie does not outweigh the legal hassle of watching it.
 
I know its been a decade now that the entertainment industry has been attacking their consumers, but it still hasn't been made clear to me how this business model will ever work.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[Kjella]

According to copyright law, yes. Only the copies in the direct chain of copying matter, any other version or copy you have don't matter. A copy of an illegal copy - such as one distributed without permission on P2P - is also illegal. Even if it is the exact same bits you could have legally ripped from your own disc under fair use. Identical bits have different legal status based on their pedigree.

Re:New Hollywood business model

[kenshin33]

they need to assert that a torrent is indeed what the title claims to be ? (can make and distribute some random bits and call it "Far_Cry_DVDRip.torrent"). In order to be sure that what is actually distributed they must download a copy. Since it's an illegal (b/c it is distributed without permission) they are guilty of infringing, therefor should be punished.

What about barratry?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Or does that not apply?

Re:What about barratry?

[91degrees]

Doesn't apply. Barrartry is repeated legal actions purely to harass. A single threat to sue doesn't count.

Fraud fraud fraud

[Eudial]

That's a lot of fraud. I can see how this must have happened:

Man: Well, what've you got?

Prosecutor: Well, there's extortion and blackmail; extortion racketeering and blackmail; blackmail and fraud; extortion and fraud; racketeering extortion blackmail and fraud; extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud; fraud indecent exposure fraud fraud criminal negligence and fraud; fraud misuse of police property fraud fraud racketeering fraud extortion and spam;

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud...

Prosecutor: ...fraud fraud fraud criminal negligence and fraud; fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud traffic violation fraud fraud fraud...

Vikings: fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud!

Prosecutor: ...or international terror conspiracy to overthrow the government with an insurgent army funded with drug trafficking and armed robbery and fraud.

Wife: Have you got anything without fraud?

Prosecutor: Well, there's fraud indecent exposure extortion and fraud, that's not got much fraud in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY fraud!

Man: Why can't she have racketeering extortion blackmail and fraud?

Wife: THAT'S got fraud in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much fraud in it as fraud extortion traffic ticket and fraud, has it?

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud... (Crescendo through next few lines...)

Wife: Could you do the extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud without the fraud then?

Prosecutor: Urgghh!

Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like fraud!

Vikings: Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Prosecutor: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Prosecutor: Shut up! (Vikings stop) Bloody Vikings! You can't have extortion indecent exposure blackmail and fraud without the fraud.

Wife: I don't like fraud!

Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your fraud. I love it. I'm having fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud extortion fraud fraud fraud and fraud!

Vikings: Fraud fraud fraud fraud. Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud!

Waitress: Shut up!! Extortion is off.

Man: Well could I have her fraud instead of the extortion then?

Waitress: You mean fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud... (but it is too late and the Vikings drown her words)

Vikings: (Singing elaborately...) Fraud fraud fraud fraud. Lovely fraud! Wonderful fraud! Fraud fra-a-a-a-a-ud fraud fra-a-a-a-a-ud fraud. Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Lovely fraud! Fraud fraud fraud fraud!

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[robot256]

Remind me, which Monty Python this referencing?

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[RotateLeftByte]

This post sounds awfully like a parody of the 'Two Ronnies' 'Rook' Sketch.

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[stealth_finger]

Ever read a word so many times it loses all meaning? Fraud?.....nah, doesn't even look right!

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

tldr

next time make your jokes shorter

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[hesaigo999ca]

If anyone had even a clue of what you were talking about, they might join you and I in a laugh, unfortunately since the last spanish inquisition, no one has a real sense of humor

>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzip...someone mention Spanish Inquisition???

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

tldr

next time make your jokes shorter

Your loss, man.

(sorry, I know you stopped reading after "Your l" and you saw something shiny on the ground)

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

The SPAM Episode!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Monty_Python%27s_Flying_Circus_episodes#12._Spam [Wikipedia]

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Towards the end of that I start reading Freud and wonder - what does that say about my mother?

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Pharago]

a cover of spam...brilliant :), with fraud for me too please. o/

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

It was almost perfect..... ...but you left the word "spam" in exactly once.

FAIL!

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[GodfatherofSoul]

Someone mod parent down -1 Geek FAIL.

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Eudial]

Still works though, as spamming, in the sense of sending bulk quantities of unsolicited advertisement emails is illegal (in some places).

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[sconeu]

Someone send parent poster a sarcasm detector.

(yeah, I know... it's a *real* useful invention)

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

SPAM

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Existential Wombat]

You sir should be modded to +6.

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[robot256]

Er, I don't think that would work very well, since the question was serious at the time. I remembered the sketch but somehow could not remember the word he replaced with "fraud". But now that I found the right line to google, I don't need the embarrassment of an answer.

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the SPAM song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8huXkSaL7o

Re:Fraud fraud fraud

[gottabeme]

And so we are reminded: things are not always what they seem.

They won't share any evidence

[sandytaru]

The funniest thing is that the lawyers apparently are not willing to share the evidence of the copyright breach with the users, and have ordered them to not delete any files from their system.

If I were a user who actually HAD downloaded the move (and it could be traced to my drive), this would be the perfect time to "accidentally" take a hammer to my hard drive and rebuild the system.

If they don't have any evidence, then neither do I.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[DynamoJoe]

Hammer? be thorough about it. Open up the drive, remove the platters, and use an angle grinder on each shiny surface.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[clone52431]

That would be an excellent way to get a conviction for obstruction of justice. Which is a felony, I might add.

I mean... if they order you not to destroy any evidence, and you deliberately do...

Re:They won't share any evidence

[hedwards]

Bad idea, you get caught doing that or they even suspect you've done that and you're in real trouble. Not sure what precisely it comes under but you're definitely going to be in more trouble than just owning up to it and paying the fine they offer you.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[zeroshade]

I didn't destroy any evidence, no sirree. My hard drive just suffered a plate crash the morning I received that letter.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[clone52431]

If you want to put your civil liberties on the line on the assumption that you can convince a jury with a cumulative IQ of under 100 that you didn’t smash it on purpose to destroy the evidence, go ahead. I mean, it’s only your right to vote, own a firearm... oh, and avoid going to prison...

Re:They won't share any evidence

[Unkyjar]

But...if you're not under a criminal investigation is it obstruction of justice? I mean, they're a law firm yes, but can they order you to do, or not to do things without a court order?

Re:They won't share any evidence

[clone52431]

Destroying evidence is still illegal even if you haven’t been ordered not to.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[Unkyjar]

Ok, is there a time limit to destroying evidence?

Re:They won't share any evidence

[splutty]

Well. In this case I probably have the best argument ever for having 'destroyed' the 'evidence'.

Of course I deleted it. It absolutely sucked ballz and I couldn't handle it anymore after the first 10 minutes.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[clone52431]

To get an obstruction of justice charge passed, the prosecution has to convince the jury that you knew there was evidence of a crime, and you deliberately destroyed it to prevent it from ever being brought before the court.

If you do regular log deletion or disk clean-up and happen to delete some evidence, you’re probably going to be able to argue (convincingly) that it wasn’t intentional. But if you knew something was evidence of a crime and you went out of your way to destroy it, no, there’s no time limit.

If you deleted it years ago, though, I do believe that the statute of limitations would come into play to determine whether they can still charge you for it.

IANAL, but that’s my understanding of the law.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[zeroshade]

your sarcasm detector must be on the fritz.

Aside from the fact that it is entirely possible that the download was done to an external hard drive which got knocked over and suffered a plate crash. It's happened to me before. Hard drives are very fickle when moved while writing especially if the case sucks. Aside from the fact that there'd be no outside damage to the drive, it just wouldn't work.

Re:They won't share any evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact that there'd be no outside damage to the drive, it just wouldn't work.

Then at the very least (assuming you were very careful when you destroyed it) you still get to explain why the “Do not remove - voids warranty - no user-servicable parts inside” label on the hard drive has been peeled off and there are scratch marks on all of the screw heads...

The firm of...

[GPLDAN]

Sounds like a Leisure Suit Larry level: The firm of Done That, Grubby and Deceiver would like to sue you? Do you accept?

Nice list of charges...

[Zocalo]

...but such a shame that it pretty much adds up to an admission of guilt. Anyone who had genuinely not downloaded the movie would surely have included slander and/or libel in that list.

Re:Nice list of charges...

[nomadic]

You have qualified immunity for statements made in legal proceedings (or in actions leading up to possible legal proceedings) such as demand letters. Furthermore, in order to slander/libel someone you need to make the statement in the presence of another person. If I send you a letter saying you're an idiot, that's not libel unless I show the letter to other people.

Re:Nice list of charges...

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling someone an idiot can't possibly be defamation.

Re:Nice list of charges...

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling someone an idiot can't possibly be defamation.

Not when done in private, no, it can't.

Re:Nice list of charges...

[AarghVark]

Doesn't entering the said letter into court records (making it a matter of public record and public interest) count?

Re:Nice list of charges...

[Fatalis]

Calling someone an idiot shouldn't be defamation anwhere, since it's just an opinion.

Re:Nice list of charges...

[nomadic]

No, because then it's a statement made in a legal proceeding and thus protected. Otherwise 99% of lawsuits would be followed up with libel/slander lawsuits.

I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info

[Khyber]

Without it, I'd have not been able to get my people in on this so fast.

We wanted to go with a Federal RICO suit but instead decided a larger levee of smaller charges would be far more effective.

Now sit back and watch the show, people. USCG is about to get their ass torn up like EA, and I'm only providing financial support this round, I'm not even named in the suit.

Re:I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info

[nomadic]

I would not get too optimistic; Courts frequently don't like shotgun pleadings and this complaint certainly qualifies. And some of the claims seem a little dubious.

Re:I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info

[hedwards]

They might not like it, but that's the way that the court system works. If you don't include the pleading then you can't later add it if more evidence turns up. Or at least that's my understanding of it. You have to file that paperwork in order to get to the discovery phase of the trial and at that point you get to subpoena records and depose witnesses and such. Prior to that you're just giving it your best shot with the evidence in hand, it's quite possible that discovery will turn up more information.

Re:I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info

[Khyber]

It goes a little deeper than that, but basically it's a chess move - you're setting up your opponent to put up a HUGE defense so you can poke tiny holes through it and win. And if more evidence happens to come through during discovery, those tiny holes just get opened up wider and wider.

Re:I want to thank whomever gave me the USCG info

[nomadic]

Which is why you make shorter, broader accusations, then refine them later with an amended complaint. That's why initial complaints tend to be broadly worded, and later ones more tightly refined.

Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Bigjeff5]

I'm rooting for the guy, but he has made a serious blunder.

USCG registered Far Cry's copyright on behalf of the German studio that owns it in January 2010. Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009. That would be copyright fraud, and would completely invalidate all of USCG's lawsuits, and could possibly land them jail time. However, Far Cry was released in April 2009 in the Netherlands. The US release was, in fact, November 2009.

The case basically unhinges after that, and the only argument he really has left is that the majority of law-suits by USCG were for either issued before November 2009 (limiting maximum penalty to actual damages - or about $25), or were for infringement occurring before November 2009. In both cases a $1500 settlement threat could be considered coercion. That would mean the racketeering claim might still stand, but I'm not sure anything else would. I don't think an offer to settle for $1500 even though the maximum penalty is about $25 is illegal, and I don't believe insinuating a $300k per item penalty is illegal, since I believe what is stated in the settlement offer is factually correct (there have been $300k+ judgments before, but in these types of cases the statutory damages have limits to about $7k, if I remember correctly). The combination and the fact that they send these letters to people they know cannot afford representation, combined with the fact that they have never, ever sued anyone who rejected their offer, should make the racketeering case a decent option.

He is also attempting to push the issue that these mass-multidefendant lawsuits are frivolous and waste the court's time - the exact charge USCG leveled against the lawyer selling DIY motions to dismiss kits. That might be fruitful too (it's the one I really want him to win).

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[oojimaflib]

From the complaint:

45. An application for a registration of copyright in a published work requires a statement of the date of first publication; the nation of first publication should also be given. Specifically, under the Copyright Office’s guidelines an application covering a work first published outside the United States should state the date of first publication there, and should be accompanied by a copy or phonorecord of the foreign edition as first published.

IANAL, but whoever wrote the motion is, and they seem to think that it's the date of first publication of any (presumably Berne) treaty country that counts.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[CyprusBlue113]

I don't know, he does probably have an argument, as the netherlands was the first publish point

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[amicusNYCL]

USCG registered Far Cry's copyright on behalf of the German studio that owns it in January 2010. Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009. That would be copyright fraud, and would completely invalidate all of USCG's lawsuits, and could possibly land them jail time. However, Far Cry was released in April 2009 in the Netherlands. The US release was, in fact, November 2009.

That's not how I read it. I read it as the movie first being "published", by definition, in October 2008 in Germany, which was the world premier. Since the movie was distributed to theaters for the purpose of public showings, that qualifies as publication. Therefore, to answer this question from the copyright office:

If the material has been published or publicly distributed, please give the
date of the first publication or earliest distribution and the nation of the first
publication or earliest distribution.

The correct answer is clearly "October 2, 2008" and "Germany". The answer is not "November 24, 2009" and "United States". Many of the infringements happened prior to November 2009, so obviously people were not downloading the US DVD edition. The lawsuit further alleges the law firm knew this, and knew that if they put the later date they could effectively extend the copyright term and satisfy the 90-day requirement to receive more settlements.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

The US release was, in fact, November 2009.

However it was released in April 2009 first. Did they make a new version for the US?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0400426/releaseinfo

If that trick worked you could extend your copyright for 10-20 years extra. But just holding off publishing in some countries.

Date of first publishing is usually when the clock starts ticking. Doesnt matter much where.

For example many Elvis albums are public domain in Europe. However they are still under copyright here in the united states. But that is only due to the differences in copyright laws between the countries. The date it was first published still holds sway over it all.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[drinkypoo]

That's not what it says there. It says there that the date must be recorded.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[MooseTick]

"Registrations must be made within 60 days of publication, and Shirokov claims they lied to the USCO by stating the movie was released in April, 2009."

I'm pretty sure you don't have to register something to be protected by copyright in the US.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[oojimaflib]

That is true, but even if it is the case that the date that counts is the US publication date and the foreign publication date simply has to be disclosed, my (limited) understanding of the argument in the complaint is that they didn't disclose the foreign publication date at all. This would mean that they would be alleging that the copyright registration was fraudulent in any event.

That said, from my reading of the complaint, the arguments substantially depend on the idea that it is this initial (foreign) publication date that counts. This leads to two possibilities: a) the lawyers representing Mr. Shirokov are idiots, or b) it's the April date that counts. I am prepared to give Mssrs Booth and Sweet of Booth and Sweet LLP the benefit of the doubt in the absence of any evidence to the contrary...

Of course, as mentioned in my previous post, IANAL, and I would welcome any contrary evidence :).

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[blair1q]

In any case they have no case. Filing for copyright makes litigating against infringers easier because it brings in statutory relief and all the case law precedents where people did the paperwork and makes it marginally easier to prove ownership. Not filing for copyright doesn't abrogate copyright, since the Berne Convention long ago adopted by the U.S. states that copyright inures to the creator of a work at the time the work is created, and registration is not necessary. The statutory relief isn't directly applicable (though the suit can ask for the exact same relief) and the case law is a different set of cases, but basically if you can prove it's yours and the thieves stole it* then you win and they lose and pay up.

* - please don't play the "copyright violation is not theft" game; my shoes are still covered in the last victim of that semantic misconception.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

* - please don't play the "copyright violation is not theft" game; my shoes are still covered in the last victim of that semantic misconception.

That's because you still haven't taken your foot out of your mouth.

You got humiliated in that thread. Your refused to even try to rebut even a single one of the points made against you, because you knew that you couldn't.

Copyright infringement is not and cannot be theft. The only "semantically misguided" thing here is your conflation of the two.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[blair1q]

No, I didn't. I came back to the thread several days later to find several inane responses, none of which needed to be refuted because they were all ridiculous on their faces.

Copyright infringement is theft. Get over it.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement is theft. Get over it.

That link proves nothing, other than that run-on sentences can not be unambiguous. Allow me to paraphrase:

"theft - Criminal act of dishonest assumption of [...] property [...] with the intent of depriving the true owner of it."

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[blair1q]

If you take something without paying for it you are depriving the true owner of the money you should have paid him, whether the thing is tangible (a cd) or intangible (the music on the cd). Laws use many specific terms for specific kinds of theft because the law spells out different conditions and remedies for each, but outside a court they're all still theft. The "copyright infringement is not theft" arguments all depend on creating a false dichotomy between the kinds of theft, then implying that copyright infringement is not similar to stealing tangible things, then omitting comparison to stealing intangible things. Whether this is deliberate prevarication or merely sloppy logic committed by people who are thinking harder than they're used to in a milieu they're unfamiliar with is uncertain and irrelevant. You just did it yourself by omitting the "tangible or intangible" part of that definition, then including the "depriving" part that can only apply to the tangible part.

If you want to omit intangible forms of theft, you're going to have to revise Shakespeare:

Whilst I alone did call upon thy aid,
My verse alone had all thy gentle grace;
But now my gracious numbers are decayed,
And my sick Muse doth give an other place.
I grant, sweet love, thy lovely argument
Deserves the travail of a worthier pen;
Yet what of thee thy poet doth invent
He robs thee of, and pays it thee again.
He lends thee virtue, and he stole that word
From thy behaviour; beauty doth he give,
And found it in thy cheek: he can afford
No praise to thee, but what in thee doth live.
Then thank him not for that which he doth say,
Since what he owes thee, thou thyself dost pay.
- Sonnet LXXIX

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[SpecialFred]

The Model Penal Code disagrees.

Model Penal Code 223.2 Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition.

(1) Movable Property.
A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof. Section 223.3 deals with obtaining property by deception, specifying in some detail the forms of deception that may constitute the offense. Section 223.4 similarly specifies the forms of threat that may constitute theft by extortion.

(2) Immovable Property.
A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully transfers immovable property of another or any interest therein with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.

The comments to immovable property say that "[i]mmovable property, principally real estate, is stolen if one unlawfully transfers the property of another, or an interest therein, with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto. The major purpose of the distinction is to avoid theft liability for such conduct as trespass or occupying real property beyond the terms of a lease." Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Cederic]

If at no point I have agreed to pay somebody money, and I make a copy of something that they sell to others, then I have not deprived them of money I should have paid them.

I have in fact given them all of the money I owe, as I agreed to give them none, and they still have everything that they had prior to me making a copy.

In fact, as I may use that copy to educate myself as to the quality of their item, there is a chance that I will in fact be incentivised to purchase an additional copy of that item from them, at which point they have money that previously they would not have had.

You call it theft, yet the copyright owner can never lose and I as a copier can never gain. This is indeed a fucking strange definition of theft.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, dog! You jes went Shakespeare on his ass! You keep droppin the S bomb on all them niggas... you be hafin to spend fat stacks on a whole damn CLOSET fulla Nikes you keep that shit up! Look atchoo... walkin' all up in here.... splainin' shit to dem niggas all cool-like, like you was Clint MuthafuckinEastwood!

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA:

"Shirokov wants to make the case a class action that represents him and 4,576 other people who received threatening letters for having allegedly downloaded copies of Far Cry. Despite being released in the summer of 2007 (Canada) and in December 2008 (US), the lawsuit says attorney Thomas Dunlap obtained a US copyright on the work by falsely asserting a date of "first publication" of November 24, 2009, allowing the law firm to claim that downloaders would be liable for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per download. "

Registration and release are not the same thing. Registration of copyright can happen years after the release. Statutory damages on the other hand are based upon the release, not the registration.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[jasoncrowley]

No, but the argument here is against punitive damages. The lawsuit points out that even if the parties are guilty, they are only liable for actual damages. Actual damages being of the cost of a DVD, and not the inflated settlement price. The settlement letter insisted they were liable for $2k and more if it went to court, which is in the punitive range. Pretty fine line between extortion and a white lie.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I didn't. I came back to the thread several days later to find several inane responses, none of which needed to be refuted because they were all ridiculous on their faces.

"Doesn't need to be refuted" means "beyond my ability to refute". There has never been an exception, and it has never fooled anyone, even those who use it.

You surrendered unconditionally.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

The "copyright infringement is not theft" arguments all depend on creating a false dichotomy between the kinds of theft, then implying that copyright infringement is not similar to stealing tangible things, then omitting comparison to stealing intangible things.

Strawman. You're trying to paint "copyright infringement is not theft" as "intangible things can never be stolen".

You're doing it on purpose, because you know you are not mentally competent to refute the actual position.

You then go on to accuse others of "sloppy logic", and immediately follow that up by appealing to Shakespeare as an authority.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[blair1q]

Strawman. You're trying to paint "copyright infringement is not theft" as "intangible things can never be stolen".

It's not a strawman because I didn't invent the argument used by those who argue "copyright infringement is not theft." Just plug that term into google and you'll find people doing it just the way I said. And the argument boils down to either "intangible things can never be stolen" or "only tangible things can be stolen", because if they ever say "intangible things can be stolen" they admit copyright infringement is stealing, ergo theft. Or else they have to argue that the right to make or possess a copy is not an intangible thing. Go right ahead. I'll make popcorn.

I'm doing it on purpose because it's the truth. You know I'm mentally competent to refute the actual position because I did it. And their logic is either sloppy or deliberately incorrect.

I'm not sure how to respond to being accused of using Shakespeare as an authority. He is an authority on matters of diction.

Copyright infringement is theft. Get over it.

Re:Serious Problems With Central Claim

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a strawman because I didn't invent the argument used by those who argue "copyright infringement is not theft." Just plug that term into google and you'll find people doing it just the way I said.

It's true that some people use "intangible things cannot be stolen" as a supporting argument for the conclusion that copyright infringement isn't theft. That argument is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that the conclusion is invalid. The two positions are not inextricably linked. And you know it.

And the argument boils down to either "intangible things can never be stolen" or "only tangible things can be stolen", because if they ever say "intangible things can be stolen" they admit copyright infringement is stealing, ergo theft. Or else they have to argue that the right to make or possess a copy is not an intangible thing.

Now that is a false dichotomy. See, there's a third option: "some intangible things can be stolen, and some cannot".

Theft requires deprivation (no, your dictionary link doesn't prove otherwise). Taking a tangible object will always deprive the owner, but with something that is intangible that may or may not be the case. What matters is not whether the thing is tangible, but whether it is finite. All tangible items are finite, but the reverse is not true; some intangibles are finite and some are infinite.

Suppose I write a manuscript, and you copy that manuscript, submit it to a publisher under your name, and get it published, making a fortune as a result. Certainly you have stolen something from me. You've stolen the credit, you've stolen the monopoly over the publication of the book, and one could reasonably say you've stolen the money resulting from said publication. Those things are finite, and by therefore by unlawfully obtaining them you have deprived me, the rightful owner, of them. But even though we might colloquially say so as a shorthand, you haven't stolen the book ("book" here meaning not any physical copy, of course, but the characters, plot, setting, etc that make it up). It is infinite, and cannot be taken away, only copied. You cannot deprive me of it, thus you cannot steal it.

You know I'm mentally competent to refute the actual position because I did it.

No, you knocked down a strawman and congratulated yourself for it. You desperately want that strawman to be the real thing, but it isn't, and you're not succeeding in convincing yourself that it is.

I'm not sure how to respond to being accused of using Shakespeare as an authority. He is an authority on matters of diction.

He's an authority on when and how to use words in a non-literal sense for dramatic effect.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, of course. You just have an emotional attachment to the notion of copyright infringement as theft, because you mistakenly think that "copyright infringement isn't theft" implies "copyright infringement is never wrong", and you've falling victim to your own appeal to (nonexistent) consequence.

Copyright infringement is not theft and never can be, even when it's illegal and immoral.

Toast cheapskate pirates with terrible taste?

[judeancodersfront]

Pirating is inexcusable in our age of cheap media. Pirating a Uwe Boll movie is like shoplifting a Girls Gone Wild video. You deserve to have the book thrown at you for being a born asshead.

Re:Toast cheapskate pirates with terrible taste?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirating a Uwe Boll movie is like shoplifting a Girls Gone Wild video.

Finding you had a copy of one of these would result in your friends and family losing all respect for you.

The other features topless college girls.

Re:Toast cheapskate pirates with terrible taste?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen this before. Its not original. Its definitely not interesting either as it is wrong.

Sounds great, I hope they keep it up

[judeancodersfront]

People that support the worst of big screen garbage in any form should be reprimanded. They have probably seen a few of these movies in the theater.

Netflix streaming is only $8 a month and has a lot of great works from small producers. The pirates should be fined and the funds should go to student film projects.

pwned!

[Citizen of Earth]

law'd!

They forgot slander

[EnsilZah]

for insinuating they willingly watched Far Cry.

Piracy is not the answer

[judeancodersfront]

Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.

Netflix streaming is only $8 per month and turns people on to smaller producers.

Hollywood and other big producers make the bulk of their funds from theater and retail blu-ray/dvd sales. The profits from Netflix are pennies on the dollar in comparison. Support Netflix, not piracy.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not both?

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Troggie87]

Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies.

Lets be careful about using the word unethical. Illegal certainly, and for arguably good reason. Ethics is another thing entirely. Simply being "the law" doesn't lend much (if any) ethical weight to an idea.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[pacinpm]

Support Netflix, not piracy.

I can't. Netflix is not available here. Nor Pandora. Nor Hulu.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

> I can't. Netflix is not available here. Nor Pandora. Nor Hulu.

Then go for a walk, or knit a jumper.

You don't have a birthright to watch films.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Raenex]

Lets be careful about using the word unethical.

What makes you think the poster wasn't? Just because it disagrees with your viewpoint?

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he could just continue doing whatever it is he does.

It may seem like walking down his line of reasoning takes him into your trap, and perhaps you are right, but we've got to keep pushing forward with enough bodies in the meantime until you're wrong.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Unkyjar]

If someone is putting a Uwe Boll movie up on the internet for anyone out there to download...isn't that unethical and well...just cruel?

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Unethical?

Extortion, fraud, and producing Far Cry the movie are all unethical.

Copying fish to feed the poor is the work of Jesus - piracy is gods work.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think some one has stock in Netflix.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[Trogre]

Okay, let's put it another way:

Taken to its logical conclusion, where anyone who wishes to watch movie X can easily pirate it, there is no longer an artificial scarcity and therefore no financial incentive to continue making movies. The vast majority of the movie production industry would simply cease to exist.

"And nothing of value was lost. The movie industry hasn't put out anything truly innovative in the past ten years."
(Sorry, just thought I'd get that out of the way before some idiot tried to reply with a knee-jerk response like that)

The free distribution model works very well for software and arguably well for music (since unlike movies, music doesn't require a dedicated, co-ordinated production crew, and professional musicians can often make money from live performances). For other creative works such as scenario games and movies? Not so much. Empirical data would certainly seem to back that up.

You're probably still right in that it's not necessarily a matter of ethics, but piracy isn't likely to encourage more content creation.

Conversely, and closer to the GP's point, if you want to stick it to the MPAA man in the meantime, downloading such movies for now still gives mindshare and so isn't the best idea. Better to avoid them entirely.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[modular_formulaic]

Not only is piracy unethical but it also tells people like Uwe Boll that there is actually demand for his terrible movies. Netflix streaming is only $8 per month and turns people on to smaller producers. Hollywood and other big producers make the bulk of their funds from theater and retail blu-ray/dvd sales. The profits from Netflix are pennies on the dollar in comparison. Support Netflix, not piracy.

I'd love to, unfortunately:

We're not sure you will be able to sign up for Netflix from your area.
You will need a valid U.S. mailing address to sign up for Netflix. Also, you will only be able to watch instantly if you are in the 50 United States or Washington, D.C. It looks like you are outside the United States. If this is incorrect, please contact your Internet provider for help. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

Re:Piracy is not the answer

[trawg]

Spoken like a true American!

The lack of these services outside the US is one of the major problems caused by the copyright cartels. They are blithely ignoring this fact trying to pretend that territorial licensing schemes still make sense - as a result, outside of the US we're months or years behind where you guys are in terms of these sorts of services.

There's no technical reason for it - it's just bullshit licensing schemes that make it impossible to have services like these. Shit, even if they did what software publishers and try to rape people in certain territories depending on the relative value of international currencies (examples: 2K Games are always significantly more expensive on Steam; Adobe products are almost 2x as much here as they are in the USA when you convert dollars), at least we'd have the option.

Parent is too rational, please mod down

[judeancodersfront]

We can't have people questioning the idea that all corporations are evil and out to get us.

What I really hate

[Anonymous Coward]

What I really hate is the "all p2p is for stealing other peoples stuff". No! I download new operating systems (UBUNTU LINUX) over P2P. Ubuntu offers torrents, and its the most efficient way for thousands of people to get a copy quickly (its more efficient on the internet too). But brownshirt nazi outfits like Dewey Sokkum and Howe go after any IP address found on P2P networks. Is the content I'm downloading illegal? No. Am I stealing someone elses stuff? No! Ubuntu wants me to download, P2P is just the carrier. But according to Dewey Sokkum and Howe, I'm a crimminal, because they cast a big net and I happened to get caught? What the hell! They would go after someone like me, BASTARDS!, and then commit their own illegal act, and then claim 'oops, made a mistake'. No. Fry them. They stole from thousands. They are cheerful to steal from others, in the name of keeping people honest. They broke the law. They would be cheerful to prosecute anyone. Now its their turn. Bernie Madoff did something like this. He got 150 years. These guys.... can we hope for at least 15?

Re:What I really hate

[91degrees]

Relax. Nobody is threatening to sue you.

There was a Farcry movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmmm, I'll have to go download that!!

Oh, and

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget jaywalking.

Can someone please tell me....

[Ceseuron]

Why on earth would someone willingly download any film that was made by Uwe Boll? Every movie he's ever produced is a steaming pile of badly written, poorly directed, underfunded shit. To quote a line from Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie, Far Cry is a "disgusting cinematic suppository" and I'm really rather surprised that someone would waste their bandwidth on it. Let's be realistic here, "2 girls 1 cup" could claim a significantly greater level of entertainment value and artistic expression than any film that Uwe Boll has ever made (or ever will make for that matter).

Re:Can someone please tell me....

[clone52431]

Hey, give me a break... it was mis-labeled. I thought it was “2 girls 1 cup”!

Who do I root for?

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is like watching a game between the Cowboys and the Patriots. I can't figure out which side pisses me off more.

Much better movie parody (shorter!!!)

[mangu]

Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Fraud, murder, arson, and fraud.
Hedley Lamarr: You said fraud twice.
Applicant: I like fraud.

Re:Much better movie parody (shorter!!!)

[Ginger Unicorn]

I hope you brought enough for everybody!

Why in the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone waste bandwidth to download that stupid movie when it can be had from the $5 bin at Walmart? Why would any lawyer raise a fuss over a $5 movie?

Statements 217 & 219

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially like these plantiff statements. He should win for having a good sense of humor.

217. $26.99 is a far cry from $1,500.
219. $26.99 is a far cry from $150,000.