Slashdot Mirror


Hurt Locker Lawsuits May Reach Canadians, Too

First time accepted submitter so.dan writes "Canadian copyright guru Michael Geist reports that the 'File sharing lawsuits involving the movie the Hurt Locker [that] have been big news in the United States for months... are coming to Canada as the Federal Court of Canada has paved the way for the identification of subscribers at Bell Canada, Cogeco, and Videotron who are alleged to have copied the movie.' This is the first I've ever heard of MAFIAA lawsuits beginning to succeed in Canada. The move seems to target larger ISPs. Are subscribers of smaller ISPs — who must lease their lines from the larger ones such as Bell — relatively protected from such invasions of privacy due to some sort of technical difficulty in determining the names of subscribers? (Please excuse my technical ignorance)."

159 comments

  1. What's the point? by WhatAreYouDoingHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

    --
    "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
    1. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hurt Locker wasn't a bad movie. Of course, I've only seen it once I could rent it.

    2. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The producers think they are entitled. Their arrogance will be their downfall in the Canadian courts, at least till C-32 gets shoved down our throats.

    3. Re:What's the point? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

      They actually made an excellent movie.

      However it was not available for purchase for 99% of the people who wanted to watch it, so people pirated it.

      Shocking right?

    4. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boycott the directors and producers. I didn't download this garbage, so i'm independent ... but we need to send a clear message to them.

    5. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

      No kidding. After hearing all the hype, I recently borrowed it from my local library, and I spent the entire movie bored out of my mind. The acting was fine, but the writing was awful and the story was disjointed.

      Just like with Indiana Jones 4, if I had downloaded it I'd be suing the producers for my bandwidth back.

    6. Re:What's the point? by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It wasn't a good movie. It wasn't a bad movie. It was just a movie.

    7. Re:What's the point? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Or you could do something that'd actually help.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:What's the point? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about the movie The Hurt Locker that won 6 Academy Awards including one for best screenplay? That's the one with awful writing and disjointed story? http://www.thehurtlocker-movie.com/

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    9. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about the movie The Hurt Locker that won 6 Academy Awards including one for best screenplay? That's the one with awful writing and disjointed story? http://www.thehurtlocker-movie.com/

      yes it won some popularity contests... that means it must be good, right? and anybody who didn't like it must be misguided in the face of all the authority of popular voting, right? large masses of people always pick the very best of the best, don't they? of course they do. that sure is better than having your own refined tastes.

      god damn you're a lemming, sheep, mindless imbecile if you think the purpose of the Academy Awards is to do your thinking for you.

    10. Re:What's the point? by Warlord88 · · Score: 1

      Like what?

    11. Re:What's the point? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      How could you possibly get +4 insightful? The Hurt Locker is one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade. Its awards have their own (long) Wikipedia page. It has a 97% (!) amongst critics and 83% amongst users at Rotten Tomatoes, got a 4-star review from Roger Ebert, and it made something like triple its budget. The mods must be crazy. I guess I can hope they accidentally clicked "Insightful" instead of "Troll".

    12. Re:What's the point? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Hey, I haven't even seen Titanic or Avatar so I'm immune to lemming, sheep or any other mindless criticism. And I don't watch the Oscars.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    13. Re:What's the point? by zill · · Score: 0

      bad movie

      one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade

      This may come as a shock to you, but no amount of awards, acclaims, and raving reviews will make a movie good.

    14. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. However, in this case a limited release run did not help their numbers. It was in less than 70 theaters I believe.

      Home entertainment systems have changed the ticket going masses. They will wait it out for a 'ok' looking movie. For something that looks cool they might go to the theater.

      Hurt locker looked like an 'ok' movie to me. I think they were going to rush it to DVD anyway. I have not seen it. But of the people who I know have seen it recommend it. Since it looked like an 'ok' movie. I probably would just snag it on netflix if I felt like watching it...

    15. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an flawed movie directed by a woman. That equals genius for old pansies like Ebert.

    16. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could you possibly get +4 insightful? The Hurt Locker is one of the most awarded and acclaimed movies of the last decade. Its awards have their own (long) Wikipedia page. It has a 97% (!) amongst critics and 83% amongst users at Rotten Tomatoes, got a 4-star review from Roger Ebert, and it made something like triple its budget. The mods must be crazy. I guess I can hope they accidentally clicked "Insightful" instead of "Troll".

      yes. appeal to popularity is your God, your Lord and Master. no sacrifice made at the altar of this God is too great. anyone who disagrees with popular opinion must be a total idiot. we must make appeals to the authority of popular taste whenever possible.... nevermind how fickle and malleable this is. that's just, details. we've got sales to make, god dammit.

    17. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else.

      A bad movie? It won best picture. It struggled in the theaters so they are concerned with lost revenue. If it doesn't make a profit it could be the last of it's kind. It was an indy film not main stream Hollywood. What's "Insightful" about bashing an award winning film? It sounds more ignorant than insightful. What's so wrong with paying filmmakers so they can make more movies? The Good Fairy doesn't make movies, money makes movies. And no a bunch of fans aren't going to make Hurt Locker in their garage. Hey if everyone hates the film why did so many download it in the first place????

    18. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't matter if you watch the Oscar's. You cited them as a reason the movie is great. The movie was OK. But EOD does not ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, actually work like that. It was fake Hollywood garbage. Which is fine. Except it was an OK movie. It won because it was about Iraq and so the voters voted as they had to. Other than that, I agree with the parent, it was Hollywood garbage when it could have been a great movie about EOD work in the war. Instead it was about fake EOD in the writer's fantasy land.

      You want a good war movie then rent Blackhawk Down. It took Hollywood leeway with dialog and other cinematic elements but fundamentally that is what happened.

    19. Re:What's the point? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      I enjoyed the acting and cinematography, but as a war movie it rates below "In The Army Now" in terms of realism. You'd be hard-pressed to find a scene in that movie that wasn't completely unrealistic.

    20. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually a great movie, but one of the four producers (Nicolas Chartier) is kind of a nut and he is specifically is behind these lawsuits.

      - TWR

    21. Re:What's the point? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Too bad the movie was about preventing things from blowing up or you would have liked it.

      You sound like a: OOOO YA, It blowed up real good! hyuk hyuk hyuk hyuk! Now thars what I call a goooood movie. It would be even better with a CGI car chase that ends with a car blowing up reaaallll good!!

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    22. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You made a bad movie. Stop involving the lawyers and blaming everybody else."

      You have no idea what you are talking about.

      It was a damned good movie.

      I paid to see it in a theater, and I would pay to rent it again.

      The subculture of idiots like you who think everything should be free
      ought to all have their reproductive organs removed, because scum like you
      are nothing but parasites on the rest of humanity.

      "Free" doesn't pay the bills, you sorry sack of shit.

    23. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I haven't even seen Titanic or Avatar so I'm immune to lemming, sheep or any other mindless criticism. And I don't watch the Oscars.

      So by your own admission... the awards a movie has gained mean nothing. Glad you finally admitted that. It saves me a lot of time invalidating false logic.

      So then, you retract your previous comment that anyone should be influenced by the Academy Awards? Or are you really too prideful to admit you should not have pretended like this was important? Those are your only two remaining choices after your admission.

    24. Re:What's the point? by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      it is a rhetorical point but if everything is free there are no bills to pay....

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    25. Re:What's the point? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The subculture of idiots like you who think everything should be free

      I didn't see him mention anything about that.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    26. Re:What's the point? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Somehow I'm defending a movie I haven't even seen. Remind me not to do this. I was merely suggesting that others had a vastly different opinion.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    27. Re:What's the point? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't know, but if I thought I could make millions by suing downloaders of something I made, I would be seriously tempted as well. Who wouldn't be?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you are talking about...It was a damned good movie.

      Different strokes I guess. I downloaded it and didn't even watch it to the end. Ugh, what a stinker! I'm thinking about suing *them* for cruel and unusual punishment.

      Oh yeah, I'm a Canuck - I say bring on your weasel-worded lawyers.

    29. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand: you are much more likely to have bad taste or poor judgment compared with a large sampling of film critics and awards-givers.

    30. Re:What's the point? by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

      More like... The Butthurt Locker.

      THANK YOU THANK YOU i'll be here all week.

    31. Re:What's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Now you're being unfair. The credits looked quite credible.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:What's the point? by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      Duh. You managed to completely ignore the high correlation between lots of accolades and "goodness" while coming up with an almost tautological and content-less one-liner. This is why I hate computer geek culture. There's always another smug idiot ready to bless the world with his unique insight, since he really does have insight in the computer world, and the real world is the same, right?

      Of course objective measures of a subjective phenomenon are imperfect. That should be obvious to anyone. Unless you say why the measures I've provided are imperfect in this particular case, you've added nothing to the discussion but my raised hackles.

    33. Re:What's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main reason for illegal copying, actually.

      Take a look at how often TV shows get copied. TV shows, the very same you get to see on TV for free anyway. Now, why would people do that?

      First, because they're not available at all where they live. It took 3 years to get Big Bang Theory where I live, and for the longest time it didn't look like we'd get it at all. Same for IT Crowd. And I'm still waiting for Mongrels (and it's not bloody likely I'll ever get to see it on TV).

      Then there's the delay for non-US people getting shows. We're at the very least one season behind. More often, more than one. Sheen's freak out, causing an interruption in Two and a half man still hasn't hit us. And it won't for some time, the writer's strike just recently caused us to watch reruns. Not to mention that they often mess up the order and that we almost certainly don't get to see "season themed" shows (for Halloween or X-Mas) when they're appropriate.

      And finally, the often atrocious dubbing. I won't go into detail, but a lot of jokes and often even the meaning get changed and mangled in translation. Simpsons are notorious for it, but for almost all shows, once you've seen the original, you realize just how crappy the dubbing is. And there's no chance in hell that you could simply forgo it.

      Now, of course one could argue to get the show DVDs. And if they're available, I'll certainly take that option gladly. But they often fail for the same three reasons: Shows that weren't on TV yet are often "not available in that country", it takes ages for it to become available on DVD (we're literally talking years here) and it's often a matter of luck whether you can actually get a non-dubbed version.

      Fix that and "piracy" will drop instantly.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:What's the point? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Even just bitching about it on-line is more effective. When you boycott movies etc it doesn't cause a drop in piracy, so they just say "See! People are robbing us blind!"

      This is not a 'boycott' situation.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    35. Re:What's the point? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I appealed mostly to professional opinions in the form of awards and professional film critics' opinions, though I also included the user rating from Rotten Tomatoes. Should I believe the random person on /. who called it a bad movie without providing any hint of evidence, or should I believe the pages of professional reviews I linked, or the vast majority of positive random people's reviews?

      By all objective measures I can think of, this was a good movie. It got many awards, some of which are the highest honors in film; it is extraordinarily popular amongst critics and very popular amongst regular people; it was a box office success. I am not saying everyone agrees--the 3% of critics and 17% of users on Rotten Tomatoes who didn't give it a particularly high rating fall into that category. You can't please everyone, and that's fine. I'm sure some people have legitimate reasons for disliking the film.

      The person I was replying to can have his opinion that the movie was bad. However, their main point was that the makers of the film were upset about making a bad movie, and so sued everyone over it. That's just preposterous--who could possibly be sore over making the Best Picture winner?--and somehow it got modded insightful.

    36. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was so horrible that it was worth watching it without compensating the producers in any way. Screw you. If you do not have the money to pay for it, do not buy it. Do not steal it. Do not equate this with a companies equatable treatment of the 'artists'. This has nothing to do with that. This is purely against people who pirated a work solely because they did not want to pay for it. For F-sake, they could rent it for $1 a night. As someone that actually works for a living and prefers to be compensated for my what I do, this comment is ignorant, naive, and full of stupid.

    37. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another "war" movie that tries to pass itself off as realistic when in fact it is highly inaccurate.

    38. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well hey, Kanye West and Lady Gaga got all sorts of awards too. I guess they must be musical geniuses.

    39. Re:What's the point? by drgregoryhouse · · Score: 1

      The movie is acclaimed for its "realism". However as a trained national serviceman, I stopped watching after the part where the sergeant ordered his men individually into dark alleys. I would shoot the sergeant on the spot for endangering the lives of his men if I were there. Not a good movie IMO.

    40. Re:What's the point? by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Could you elaborate on this?

      The movie is readily available at both Amazon and Walmart, and other retailers.

    41. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Somehow I'm defending a movie I haven't even seen. Remind me not to do this. I was merely suggesting that others had a vastly different opinion.

      No. Don't play stupid please.

      You were suggesting that someone should think twice about holding the opinion that it sucks because "others had a vastly different opinion". Any way you look at it, this is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. It's false. It is equivalent to saying that popular is always good so a popular award must settle the matter. It means nothing. Your post meant nothing because of it, despite your intentions.

      That's what you should be reminded not to do. It's not a matter of "defending the movie" on its merits. It's a matter of how merit is measured. Don't twist these -- it only confuses the naive.

    42. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about GP, but I watch movies to see shit that CAN'T or DON'T happen in every day real life. I hate drama and war films especially because they're fucking boring. Yes, I want to see spaceships blasting each other with lasers. I want to see people doing impossible stunts and fights. I want to see lots of shit blowing up in strange ways.

      When I want to see drama, I'll just let real life provide that. If I want to learn about some war, I'll read a book or watch a documentary on it.

    43. Re:What's the point? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2

      The movie played at various film festivals and was released in italy, then they soft launched in the US. At this point there was huge demand to watch the movie but absolutely no legal way for 99% of the people to watch it.

      I would guess that it's probably one of the most pirated movies of all time.

    44. Re:What's the point? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      A bad movie? It won best picture.

      Yeah, and? It was a war movie directed by a woman.. of course it was going to win awards.

      It struggled in the theaters so they are concerned with lost revenue.

      Because it was a bad movie.

    45. Re:What's the point? by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      You made a bad movie.

      A word of advice: If everyone else loves the movies you hate, then maybe, just maybe, you have bad taste.

      Note: This also works for books, television, music and fashion, but unfortunately not for Slashdot posts.

    46. Re:What's the point? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      AC below this had a good idea, start suing the movie studios for wasted bandwidth. While about it, start suing the ISPs for marketing the bandwidth as ideal for pirating when it turns out there is nothing worth pirating.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    47. Re:What's the point? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if that counts as a scene by most standards.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    48. Re:What's the point? by Bahamut_Omega · · Score: 0

      Or until we kick out the Tory bastards in about 4-5 years.

    49. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pauly Shore was brilliant in that movie!

      Hurt Locker was too suspenseful. The thought that at any moment they could all die is so unrealistic. I can't find any evidence of anyone who ever DIED in a war, especially in Iraq by an IED.

    50. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a moronic thing to say. The majority is not always right.

    51. Re:What's the point? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Hurt Locker is not the only one with a long page of awards...

    52. Re:What's the point? by geogob · · Score: 1

      That's why we call them movies and not documentaries.

    53. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but absolutely no legal way for 99% of the people to watch it.

      Solution: don't watch it.

      Your life will not be changed by watching a film. Go for a walk or build a model kit.

    54. Re:What's the point? by geogob · · Score: 1

      Availability is the biggest problem... and that's entirely the distributors fault. They should be held accountable for the situation they cause, not the customers trying to fight their way through artificial limits and rarity (probably as a motivator to increase prices).

      The best example I can see is that with online movie downloads like on iTunes. Why are only a few titles in HD? Why are some in HD in the US, but not in Canada or Gemany or whatever? Why can't I choose the languages or, even, multiple languages all packed in the same file with multiple audio tracks? Why is a movie available in the US 6 months before in France? They say it has to be translated first and bla bla bla bla. Just make it available in English for those who want it as it comes out and not 6 months later... the translated version will come when it's done.

      There are not technical limitation explaining such a distribution scheme nowadays... ironically, the pirated content availability kinda proves that. The only problem that seems to remain a problem in my opinion is the distribution of crappy cam versions of movies as they are still in theaters and before they get released through other channels. Maybe its time to review the whole movie release process. Does it still make sense to have the release in theaters and stores so far apart, if at all? Or is it only trying to protect an industry who's business model solely repose on this and isn't able to offer any plus-value tho their customers anymore?

    55. Re:What's the point? by geogob · · Score: 1

      tries to

      pass itself off as realistic

      Is that your (or someone's else) interpretation or is that a fact? It didn't struck me a trying to pass itself off as realistic... more like an action flick in a realistic environment. But it never came to mind one second that they actually tried to make a realistic plot.

      Anyway, a realistic military movie plot would be boring as hell... you'd have 3 hours of people either hurrying up for no reason or waiting because they got there too fast.

    56. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously not watched the movie.

    57. Re:What's the point? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      However it was not available for purchase for 99% of the people who wanted to watch it, so people pirated it.

      Because it's a basic human right to be able to consume other people's content on your own terms.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    58. Re:What's the point? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I should have made my point clearer. The person I was responding to implied the makers of The Hurt Locker were sore over making a bad movie, so were taking it out on people by suing them. With the kind of accolades I listed, it's preposterous to imply that. Who could possibly think they had made a bad movie with all those accolades, including Best Picture and rave reviews from tons of professional critics? At the very least, the person I was replying to needed to supply strong evidence for their extraordinary claim, even though they didn't. And somehow people thought the trolling they spewed was insightful--that's the most annoying thing.

      Britney Spears *is* a good pop artist. I may hate pop music, but she's one of the best in that niche. Similarly The Hurt Locker is a terrible Sci-Fi film, but by almost all accounts is a fantastic drama.

    59. Re:What's the point? by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      i made it to the part where the car rolls thru the PSD cordon and right up to EOD... then i turned it off because i knew i was going to be absolute make believe shit posing as something realistic. horrible movie.

    60. Re:What's the point? by vlad30 · · Score: 1

      A bad movie? It won best picture.

      Yeah, and? It was a war movie directed by a woman.. of course it was going to win awards.

      It struggled in the theaters so they are concerned with lost revenue.

      Because it was a bad movie.

      And she was the ex-wife of the guy whose movie about big blue humanoids made her revenue look like a little blue squiggle by comparison

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    61. Re:What's the point? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      One of the most overrated movies of 2000s. I suspect that Oscar was given to it because of political reasons.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    62. Re:What's the point? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yea, i've never known a movie with jack black to not sell ... but , i'm a bit confused, just how much losses did they make with this movie ? i'm still convinced the stuff that sells the most gets downloaded the most as well so it's a simple case of greed (as if that wudnt stating the obvious ...)

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    63. Re:What's the point? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Now with regards to this thread the quality of the movie is meanignless, what really counts is Canada has a loser pays system for civil suits. The loser pays court costs and the winners legal costs.

      When playing games of mass civil suits, you need just one winner and everyone else cites that case and all of a sudden they have lost thousands of case and face counter suit for harassment and psychological harm.

      This has always been the reason why they haven't played civil suit games in countries with tighter tort laws, they could lose millions of dollars, a real game of Russian legal roulette except the defendant only pull the trigger once but they have to pull it thousands of times, which pretty much guarantees it will end up going off in their faces.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    64. Re:What's the point? by bstender · · Score: 1

      Let's see, should we pick the one that paints colonial conquest in a bad light, or should we pick the one that glorifies the last great colonial project of the modern world? Said project being a priority for much of Hollywood and for which only hearts and minds threaten its final success.

      --
      look sig is kool
    65. Re:What's the point? by antdude · · Score: 1

      How is the movie bad? It was great.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    66. Re:What's the point? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Right? Not necessarily, but it is the natural order of things.

      Copyright is the aberration, created by law, to prevent the natural condition that we would be able to consume the content on our own terms. Since it isn't naturally 'other people's content' It's other people's creations, but the instant they release it, it becomes everyone's content. Copyright is just restricting ourselves from what is naturally the situation.

      Does that mean I'm against copyright? No, but what I think isn't important, you just didn't seem to understand the situation.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    67. Re:What's the point? by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

      Just so you know... localization (translation) happens at the final edit level. As in, when the final version of the movie is cut (sometimes weeks before the cinematic release) it is remastered for all the different language versions. So the excuse that "we had to make a re-cut to dub in language X" is horseshit.

      I did some contract work at a post production house a couple years ago. Maybe it's different now, but I doubt it.

    68. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main reason? Really? Then why is piracy such a problem in the US?

    69. Re:What's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Of TV shows? Aside of Dr. Who and IT Crowd and anything else made in Britain?

      No idea, is it really?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    70. Re:What's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Basically that's the point. And the reason is simply that good movies can easily convince people to watch it twice or even more times, something they have to pay for every time they actually go into the movies, unlike when they buy a DVD. Also, the "box office" results determine the success, and hence the perceived quality, of a movie, along with its chances to win an Oscar or some other award.

      Concerning the dubbing delay and the refusal to view the movie undubbed, I have that (conspiration) theory that it's a job security scheme for the dubbing actors. You have to know that the stock of dubbing voice actors is very small. It's pretty much a tightly knit crew you don't simply muscle in or get chosen easily to join. The official reason is that it's so terribly hard to be a good dubbing actor and it takes so much training. Now, try for yourself and you'll notice that even without cues it's not THAT hard. Now, if you show the movies in their original makeup, not only would people notice just how atrocious the dubbing really is, they'd also get used to the original voices and consider the dubbing voices "wrong". In case you're from a country that suffers from dubbing, try it. Watch a show you have watched dubbed for the longest time in the original. You'll notice the voices just simply don't fit. The character is "supposed" to have a different voice, and likewise, when you see an actor (who is by default always dubbed by the same voice actor) you expect the voice he usually has. Showing the movies undubbed would certainly not only make people who don't care whether a movie is shown in English or their local language ignore the dubbed versions, they would over time also consider the dubbed voices "wrong" and out of place, not fitting the character.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    71. Re:What's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not always. Actually a lot of anime gets cut and butchered to the point where they literally have to reshuffle the scenes and construct a completely different story to make it fit somehow. It gets especially atrocious when they try to fit some anime decidedly NOT for kids into the afternoon cartoon lineup.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    72. Re:What's the point? by Dr+Herbert+West · · Score: 1

      Good point... but I was thinking more about the typical hollywood film, however, which is what the parent post is concerned with.

    73. Re:What's the point? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making an assumption about what I do or do not understand.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    74. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the evidence points again and again and again towards the fact that "people" in general are retarded. Nice try though!

    75. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree more.

      The IT crowd I can still not find here in Canada on any station on cable TV. My HD PVR will only allow me to record 2 shows at once and will only allow me to watch a show from tape when I am recording two shows. In addition when I purchase a DVD at $20 or something similar I expect to be able to pop the dics in and watch the content which I payed for, I don't want to see stupid ads for cars, or upcoming movies or crap like that. The pirated content is crisp, clear and exactly what a vast majority of consumers are looking for.

      In addition to shows which are just simply not available in given countries for some stupid reason there is also the shows which air in some cases YEARS behind the US or UK. Even Canada gets shows years after the USA. Take Top Chef Masters for example. The new season has long since finished in the USA with all results posted to Wikipedia. Do a Google search and as a non-US resident you can quite easily ruin the entire season for yourself with one accidental mouse click. The internet is not a difficult concept to grasp. Putting it simply it breaks down the barriers of zones and releases. Release all content in all areas at the same time and you will heavily reduce piracy of content. Continue that theme with the DVD/streaming/ Bluray releases and eliminate the added advertising and again you will eliminate another large portion of piracy.

    76. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This goes both ways. Top Gear is the same way. In order for me to watch it at all, I need cable or satellite. If I wan to watch the current season, I'm out of luck.

    77. Re:What's the point? by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the guy served.

      The Hurt Locker is movie only civilians can think is good.

    78. Re:What's the point? by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      No, it's a fucking terrible movie, cartoonish in it's portrayal of soldiers, war and combat.

      It's terrible because it tries to be realistic and fails.

      GI JOE is a better movie because it doesn't pretend to be something it's not.

    79. Re:What's the point? by bstender · · Score: 1

      This is a unique case. A vast majority of experts agreed that the Iraq invasion was a good and necessary move. Most have, many years later, regretted their goose-stepping. To go against this particular movie would not only make you lightning rod for professional opprobrium, but also earn you the special wrath of the Zionists who hold a lot of sway in Hollywood. It's sort of like asking tough questions at the White House Press briefing room, you don't get invited back and are just another reporter afterwards.

      --
      look sig is kool
    80. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will my life be changed by going for a walk?

    81. Re:What's the point? by freudigst · · Score: 1

      ... nor does an unqualified negative opinion make it bad.

    82. Re:What's the point? by freudigst · · Score: 1

      You might want to watch the movie (again) if you think it glorifies much of anything

    83. Re:What's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Even they get often butchered beyond recognition. Sometimes the dialogues barely resemble the original ones. Usually it's explained with having to match the lip movement to the words, but often you get meanings twisted and turned around, mostly due to sloppy translator work, either because he lacks the information about certain events (especially if the dialogue is about current events or requires special knowledge about certain topics) or because the translator is simply too stupid to know what kind of crap he spits out (a classic is "silicon" which is "Silizium" in German, being translated as "Silikon", which would be silicone. Sounds similar, but is something very different. Ever tried to imagine what a silicone computer chip would be like?), and that's something you can't really explain with lip syncing.

      It's simply and plainly sloppy work. Nothing else.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    84. Re:What's the point? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There is a very good and very understandable reason why neither abolishing the territory protection nor doing without the ads is an option:

      Greed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. It will last as long as it is profitable by stretch0611 · · Score: 2

    FTA: "The ISPs were given two weeks to respond and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses."

    Once ISP expenses cost more than the expected settlement amount, this nonsense will stop in Canada.

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
    1. Re:It will last as long as it is profitable by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      FTA: "The ISPs were given two weeks to respond and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses."

      Once ISP expenses cost more than the expected settlement amount, this nonsense will stop in Canada.

      I disagree. I don't think these lawsuits are about making money for the studios as much as they are about deterrence.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:It will last as long as it is profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the movie corps. could sue the ISPs for over charging for finding the offending Home Address to their subscribers.

    3. Re:It will last as long as it is profitable by TheReaperD · · Score: 3, Funny

      I disagree. I don't think these lawsuits are about making money for the studios as much as they are about deterrence.

      I somehow don't think it will deter Hollywood from making bad movies again. ;)

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    4. Re:It will last as long as it is profitable by broken_chaos · · Score: 1

      Does that mean we can sue the ISPs for over charging for providing us with internet access too?!

  3. No by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

    Are subscribers of smaller ISPs — who must lease their lines from the larger ones such as Bell — relatively protected from such invasions of privacy due to some sort of technical difficulty in determining the names of subscribers? (Please excuse my technical ignorance)."

    Short answer: no

    Longer answer: not likely

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  4. MAFIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We should also go back to spelling it as micro$oft in the summaries, too!

    1. Re:MAFIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is the real acronym... http://mafiaa.org/

    2. Re:MAFIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poe's law.

    3. Re:MAFIAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, we should rather drop the last "A". I worked with lawyers and people in the industry and studied the whole way they work.

      Imagine a gang that told everyone they needed "protection" so much, that people actually started to believe it.
      That's what the media industry did.
      They told everyone that you could "own information" so much, that people actually started to believe it.
      Even here on Slashdot. Even though everyone who seriously thinks about it, realizes that it's actually physically impossible to own information. (Takes a bit more explaining, and diving into the depths of quantum physics. the definitions of "ownership" and so on, so I'll leave that as an exercise for the skilled.)

      Beware, as this is completely unrelated to the fact that of course somebody should get something in return for their work. But that's the point: For their work. Work in the physics sense. Their service of making that information.
      And here's the key: Not for the information itself.

      So they made up an imaginary "ownership", and then threaten to hurt you (through lawyers, but nonetheless destroying lives) when you don't pay up an imaginary amount of money.

      If that isn't the a protection racket, making them organized crime, to you, then I don't know what planet you're from.*
      I, for one, am gonna put them behind bars where they belong.

      ___
      * And the amount of cocaine and prostitutes I have seen going around on their "meetings" don't help it either.

    4. Re:MAFIAA? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      > I, for one, am gonna put them behind bars where they belong.

      The sooner the better!

      BTW, regarding this ridiculously appropriate acronym, it's hard to imagine that they weren't aware of what it almost spells. That leads me to suspect that it was intentional... sorta like Orwellian newspeak.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    5. Re:MAFIAA? by Drugmath · · Score: 1

      Thank you AC.

      For those of you who didn't get the joke, the MAFIAA site was an April Fool's joke created by a random web designer

  5. Culture by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

    Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's a culture problem reinforced by ethnic identity politics. From BOTH sides of the equation.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  6. Re:Send 'em all back by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

    I feel the pull of your trolling all the way form the southern hemisphere.

    --
    Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  7. Re:Send 'em all back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget about the money-grubbing jews and their never-ending quest to conquer their brown neighbors.

  8. Re:Send 'em all back by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    knee grows

    Oh, look, honey--Junior made a funny. Isn't he just the cleverest little fellow.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  9. They likely made a deal with those ISPs by static416 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a previous case involving BMG that was stopped because CIPPIC intervened and showed that you can't plausibly identify an individual based on an IP address, and that there were huge privacy violations involved in just handing over subscriber information. http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2011/09/hurt-locker-lawsuits-about-to-detonate.html We have a Privacy Act here in Canada that is supposed to prevent these sorts of things.

    In this case the Voltage (movie production company) moved so fast that there was no chance for anyone to intervene, and the ISPs didn't put up any kind of fight, so the court process was mostly a formality. On top of that, Bell, Cogeco, and Videotron provided all the subscriber info within two weeks of the ruling.

    Two weeks is a very short time. With the same situation in the US, I think Comcast and Time Warner said that it would take them months and months to find all the information.

    My guess is that Voltage approached Bell, Cogeco, and Videotron much earlier and made sure they would not be putting up a fight. And possibly even got them to start collecting the information early. By making sure it moved quickly they minimized the chances that CIPPIC could get involved and block it as they did before. This is why they didn't include other ISPs, they wanted to make sure the ISPs they were dealing with were just going to just go along with it, and smaller providers like Teksavvy would have very likely stood up for their customers and drawn CIPPIC into the battle with them.

    Now that they have all the information they need, I'm sure that individual suits will start. But the situation in Canada is a little different than the US, and the suits may not work as well. Here we have something of a precedent showing that this information should not have been provided in the first place. Furthermore, if the defendant is able to win, Voltage will be forced to pay the defendants legal fees so it's not quite the same extortion racket it is in the US.

    1. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand why ISP's aren't fighting this. Once p2p traffic goes down, they lose a lot of the high-paying customers, and the investments for the infrastructure will be harder to recover.

      In a world, where a few percentages mean the difference between profit and bankruptcy, I find all this pretty puzzling.

      It doesn't seem a deterrent. If they were interested in changing things, starting with the government would be the obvious solution, then work their way down to the consumer. Mass lawsuits do nothing but piss-off people and alienate them. It seems it's pretty much a trend for American firms, rise fast, recover initial investments, then make profit any way possible, regardless what wrecks are left behind.

    2. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by Chelmet · · Score: 1

      Wait; in the US, if you sue someone and lose, you don't have to pay their legal fees? Is that right?

    3. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by compro01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really don't understand why ISP's aren't fighting this. Once p2p traffic goes down, they lose a lot of the high-paying customers, and the investments for the infrastructure will be harder to recover.

      They don't want those customers. They want the people paying $200/month for HDTV and their video on demand (where they charge $5/movie, not that silly unlimited business from netflix) service.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by black3d · · Score: 1

      That's right. It's a little ridiculous. They're trying to introduce a law at the moment, so those who bring frivilous lawsuits (ie, those with no merit that they know they're going to lose) have to pay the fees for the other side. The legal establishment is fighting extremely hard to stop this, and being quite powerful they probably will succeed.

      Frivilous lawsuits are their bread and butter. They convince some ignorant sap that they'll win a court case which they (the lawyers) know they'll most likely lose, go to court, lose, and then bill their ignorant sap. If said ignorant sap knew he'd have to pay the opposing side's legal fees if he lost, he'd be far less likely to take the case to court. At the moment, there's no disincentive, as his lawyers can say "the most it'll cost you is x (our charge) and if you win, you stand to gain .. ONE MILLION DOLLARS".

      IMO, damn straight folks should have to pay up for clogging the legal system with lawsuits that have no merit. Sure, if someone loses a lawsuit that is "fair" - ie, those that do have at least some merit - then no, don't charge the legal fees from the opposite side. But frivilous lawsuits that if taken to court are unwinnable and were only raised to try and get a settlement, sure - charge them the opposing legal fees. Fine them as well. Damn vultures.

      Why should an innocent party on the receiving end of a frivilous lawsuits have to pay ANYTHING to defend himself? Those bringing the case against him purely in the hope of getting a settlement because it'd be "cheaper than paying lawyers fees" are the scum who should be paying up. In fact, it would pretty much stop that kind of case - which is why your lawyers and all their lawyer friends will be trying their darndest to convince you this law is a bad idea.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    5. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by Loadmaster · · Score: 1

      The court can always charge a side with legal fees if the lawsuit is without merit. What you actually want is universal fee shifting. Sounds great until you consider every company will pay their attorneys 1,000 dollars an hour. No suits will be brought.

      As an attorney I think you're on to something and should push this as hard as possible. However, be aware that your idea give companies even greater power. Right now it's everyone pays their own fees with fee shifting in certain statutory situations and meritless cases. But if you had your way I could work 100 hours a year and make 100,000 dollars since companies would just use my fee as a intimidation tactic. Fine with me, but bad for you.

      I guess if you don't care I don't.

    6. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by black3d · · Score: 1

      No, the law doesn't propose universal fee shifting. And no, that's not what I want.

      At the moment courts *can* award for meritless cases, but also don't have to. Frequently cases are simply dismissed without any fee shifting, and two sets of lawyers go home happy. The law being proposed makes fee shifting mandatory in frivilous cases. It doesn't apply to cases which aren't frivilous, so there's no balanced equation which means no cases can be brought, as you're suggesting. It simply means that there'll be a disincentive to bring a case you know you can't win.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    7. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand why ISP's aren't fighting this. Once p2p traffic goes down, they lose a lot of the high-paying customers, and the investments for the infrastructure will be harder to recover.

      Each of those companies is involved in 100$/month TV subscription, they hate the fact that they have to deliver the Internet, if they could they would charge for the service but never deliver it...

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    8. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by telso · · Score: 1

      Depends. The English rule, used in most common law and Western jurisdictions for civil cases, except state-level cases in the US, allows the judge to award costs to the prevailing party (FRCP 54 causes this to apply to federal civil suits in the US). The American rule is used for state-level civil suits, and requires each side to pay its own legal fees. (Of course, there are exceptions.)

      The rationale for awarding costs is obviously to dissuade frivolous litigation; you're going to be badly hurt if you lose. This could conceivably reduce the mounds of ridiculous lawsuits that come out of the US. On the other hand, allowing the awarding of costs means that people (especially those who have been badly wronged and desperately need compensation) are much less likely to initiate valid lawsuits for fear that they would be even worse off if they lose. Further, after years of litigation, parties may be loathe to settle as then they would not be able to get costs, so will turn down reasonable offers on the hope of getting costs. (I also remember a case (possibly regarding libel) in which one party was found guilty but the judge thought the claim was baseless even if technically correct, so awarded the party one dollar in damages. However, in this case the rule was that the losing party automatically paid the winner's attorney's fees, so the judgement was still for hundreds of thousands.)

      Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and you can find proponents of each; it's not as clear cut a case as it seems on first glance.

    9. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by Loadmaster · · Score: 2

      It doesn't apply to "cases which aren't frivolous?" Awesome, who decides what's frivolous and what's not? I thought I knew frivolous cases from reading newspapers. Then I went to law school and actually read the cases. Give me an example of what you consider a frivolous case.

      And court fees are always the domain of the court. I do 8th amendment/1983 actions which allow fee shifting but doesn't require it. What you really want is universal fee shifting. And that's OK, my Advanced Civil Procedure Professor wanted it as well. I just disagreed with the results of such a measure. The UK does have it if you want to see it in practice.

      Here's my professor's Amazon page for his books:
      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Robert%20Hardaway
      No, he couldn't remember anyone's name, but he knows everything about law. Even if he's wrong about universal fee shifting.

    10. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Even having the loser pay doesn't always help. When I was a student, one of my friends sued the university because she fell over and injured her head. She tripped over a small curb, and a lawyer argued that it was the university's liability because the area wasn't properly lit and the curb wasn't sufficiently marked. She just wanted the university to paint a white line and fix the streetlamp to make sure no one else would trip in the same place (at dusk, it was hard to see the raised bit of the path).

      When the lawyer took the case, she had to buy insurance. This cost about £800. If she lost, it would pay out the cost of all legal fees incurred on both sides, plus the £800 cost of the insurance. If she won, then the £800 would be included to the legal costs that she claimed. She lost, although the university did fix the light and paint a white line, so she was happy with the outcome, but it didn't cost her anything. The insurance paid out the £800 that she spent plus the legal fees on both sides. The lawyers got paid. The university wasted some time, and presumably the insurance costs went up slightly to cover the loss.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well, the fee-shifting, if warranted, should include all four parties involved. The two parties in the dispute, and their lawyers....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:They likely made a deal with those ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a previous case involving BMG that was stopped because CIPPIC intervened and showed that you can't plausibly identify an individual based on an IP address, and that there were huge privacy violations involved in just handing over subscriber information. http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2011/09/hurt-locker-lawsuits-about-to-detonate.html We have a Privacy Act here in Canada that is supposed to prevent these sorts of things.

      In this case the Voltage (movie production company) moved so fast that there was no chance for anyone to intervene, and the ISPs didn't put up any kind of fight, so the court process was mostly a formality. On top of that, Bell, Cogeco, and Videotron provided all the subscriber info within two weeks of the ruling.

      Two weeks is a very short time. With the same situation in the US, I think Comcast and Time Warner said that it would take them months and months to find all the information.

      My guess is that Voltage approached Bell, Cogeco, and Videotron much earlier and made sure they would not be putting up a fight. And possibly even got them to start collecting the information early. By making sure it moved quickly they minimized the chances that CIPPIC could get involved and block it as they did before. This is why they didn't include other ISPs, they wanted to make sure the ISPs they were dealing with were just going to just go along with it, and smaller providers like Teksavvy would have very likely stood up for their customers and drawn CIPPIC into the battle with them.

      Now that they have all the information they need, I'm sure that individual suits will start. But the situation in Canada is a little different than the US, and the suits may not work as well. Here we have something of a precedent showing that this information should not have been provided in the first place. Furthermore, if the defendant is able to win, Voltage will be forced to pay the defendants legal fees so it's not quite the same extortion racket it is in the US.

      what will happen to canadians who downloaded the movie and are with bel?????

  10. Big ISPs = larger number of defendants by jimmyswimmy · · Score: 2

    In answer to OP's question, I suspect that the movie mafia are going after downloaders at large ISPs because the payoff is bigger - they get one process going through one legal department, and a number of names and addresses of suspected downloaders is produced, after which they send out ransom letters. At smaller ISPs, there are fewer targets to send letters to, so the cost is proportionally higher per target.

    So in a sense, you could say that customers at smaller ISPs are safer, depending on the movie organizations' intent - if they want to make money off people and get a lot of big settlements to make news, they would focus on large ISPs and their customers. If they want to thoroughly scare people, they'll go after everyone, independent of the cost of doing so.

    --

    Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
    1. Re:Big ISPs = larger number of defendants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I SUSPECT the first person they hit up counter sues because they violated canada's privacy laws and turns the tables on the MAFIAA since even lawsuits they have won by default judgement or now being made into loses.

    2. Re:Big ISPs = larger number of defendants by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      I bet if small ISPs stood up for their clients they could increase their market share markedly. Whereas large ISPs will lose only a tiny fraction of their client base because their despicable bastards, due largely to the fact that their customers are with them because they don't know of the alternatives.

      With the new laws about sharing infrastructure Teksavvy, Wind and Mobilicity have become viable ISPs in the cities. These companies have drastically improved options for cell phone service and people might transfer that loyalty to internet access.

      My conversations with Bell and Rogers customers about switching have usually snagged on the issue of "bundles" which provide a significant discount over these companies a la carte service. However the bundles are still cheaper than getting the services separately if even one service is provided by a smaller supplier.

      It's a bit like Monster cables, people think they're getting more by paying more.

      Several of the ceo's of small internet companies have come out in protection of their clients. In particular I saw the CEO of Teksavvy explaining why he wanted to protect his clients from UBB and sniffing on MoneyLine. The host, a psychotic conservative greed proponent kept saying that the CEO should sell his customers down the river for more profits and the CEO kept grimly hanging on to his convictions.

      In the meantime you should simply share your wireless.

    3. Re:Big ISPs = larger number of defendants by so.dan · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your answer! It's much appreciated. :)

  11. How about a boycott? by lexsird · · Score: 1

    How about someone makes a database that lists everyone in every one of these movies they sue over and boycott any works by those studios, the actors, even down to the crews that work in them. If any of those people are in a movie or related to it in anyway; it's boycotted. The real power is in the consumer, not the courts, not the studios.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
    1. Re:How about a boycott? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh goodie! A call for a boycott - because those work so well when there's still millions who won't join in on said boycott :D /sarcasm

      Let's give it a shot, though...

      Starting with the production companies...
      Voltage Pictures - not much to boycott there.
      Grosvenor Park - no watching "Love in the Time of Cholera", "Disaster Movie" (no loss there) or "Righteous Kill"
      Film Capital Europe Funds - again, not much to boycott.
      First Light Production - no "K-19 The Widowmaker"
      Kingsgate - zilch

      Ohhhh... this one should get some teenage girls going "omg I have to boycott them!? noooooooeees":
      Summit Entertainment - That's right, no more watching the "Twilight" saga, the "Step Up" series, "Push", "Knowing" (ot: great opening sequence), "The Brothers Grimm", "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", "Memento", "Vanilla Sky",

      I guess we'll leave the distribution companies be, but just for kicks, they include Warner Brothers Pictures, Lionsgate Home Entertainment, Summit Home Entertainment, Universal Studios Home Entertainment. Including them, and the other distributions, means you can now put more than half of the movies made, EVER, on your boycott list. That shouldn't be too hard, eh.

      Oh, another good one..
      Effects: Company 3 - They have worked on, among other, "Tower Heist", "Conan the Barbarian" but also the "Transformers" series, the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series, "X-Men: The Last Stand", "Sucker Punch", "Rango"... shit, they go all the way back to "Being John Malkovich". That's 202 more movies - many of which quite popular - that you can add to your boycott list.

      And we haven't even gotten to the fact that you want the crew to be included. You do realize that eventually, it's entirely likely that you will have put, say, 95% of all movies out of Hollywood - and whatever bunch more that the distributors and investment companies etc. touch outside of Hollywood - on your boycott list, right?

      Yes, the real power is in the consumer. The question however is not whether the consumer has the power to bring down corporations; that power is a given. The question is whether that consumer has the power to stop themselves from enjoying entertainment just because somebody on Slashdot is entirely deluded on the feasibility of boycotts in general, and especially those scoped as large as you just have.

      If you just want to boycott the studio that's actually doing the suing, rather than some make-up artist who would give you puzzling looks as to what the hell you're on, then boycott Voltage Pictures.

      But, again, there's just not much to boycott there, even though I guess their list is growing:
      http://www.imdb.com/company/co0179337/

    2. Re:How about a boycott? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Well, since 99.9% of the movie going public could really care less, it would be a waste of effort.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:How about a boycott? by lexsird · · Score: 1

      Good points, I am just frustrated, and that doesn't make for good suggestions.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    4. Re:How about a boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're just going to boycott one given company, you're not going to get very far. Every movie made is its own corporation, legally. Yes, part of making a movie is starting a little corporation just to make that movie. And that's how they never make any net profit; Welcome to Hollywood accounting.

      AC

    5. Re:How about a boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about someone makes a database that lists everyone in every one of these movies they sue over and boycott any works by those studios, the actors, even down to the crews that work in them. If any of those people are in a movie or related to it in anyway; it's boycotted. The real power is in the consumer, not the courts, not the studios.

      Your idea is not without merit but you need to take it all the way. Boycotting a company is a futile gesture, as you recognized in reply elsewhere, but I do agree with your initial statement that the real power is in the consumer. The problem is that the consumer must cease being a consumer to realize their power, something that is a little too difficult for most consumers to come to grips with. The media cartels only have power when you participate in their system, and given the lack of vision they've displayed throughout our transition to a post-scarcity economy (anything that can be digitized and replicated with a cost approaching zero has no real economic value) it is very hard to believe their system will be able to continue for much longer. Opt out now, and together we'll bring about their end all the sooner.

      STOP BUYING SHIT.

    6. Re:How about a boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually am currently boycotting the entire TV & Movie entertainment industry.

      The boycott started with Sony (so there's a segment of the Video Games industry I boycott too), and eventually spread to nearly everyone... When SciFi abandoned us, dumbing things down for a less geeky audience, and then the Discovery Channel sued their fans websites for playing videos that their marketing department gave the fan-sites, I just said "Screw it" None of that crap is worth watching anyway.

      There's plenty of content online -- Not Hulu, mind you -- Revision3, Penny Arcade TV, TWiT, College Humor, Youtube, etc, etc... Toss in video games & there's actually more entertainment available than I have time to consume.

      Besides, with the Internet, Unlike traditional media, I can actually watch the damn shows when I have time to watch them without relying on a hack (DVR or on demand via THE INTERNET), or two to four week theater showings, and dirty noisy seats... Hell of a lot cheaper too.

      You don't have to TRY to boycott them. Big Old media is already feeling the sting. These dumb lawsuits are the death-throes. Just stay online a bit longer, buy some games -- Advertising & Marketing folk know what I'm talking about...

    7. Re:How about a boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then. I guess I'll just have to get Canadian on their asses and send them a nice, sternly-worded letter.

    8. Re:How about a boycott? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh goodie! A call for a boycott - because those work so well when there's still millions who won't join in on said boycott :D /sarcasm"

      Actually, sarcasm aside, it works just fine. I've been boycotting RIAA for over half a decade now - they've lost plenty of money given I've gone from buying CDs from them every paycheck to lowering said boycott to like once every two years for the one band I'd like to listen to still. (And even they're getting shaky)

      Overall the quality of music I listen to has gone up if not stayed the same. That, and the 20-40 dollars extra I get to keep each paycheck is worth the boycott alone.

    9. Re:How about a boycott? by cffrost · · Score: 1

      [...] could really care less [...]

      Please stop this madness.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    10. Re:How about a boycott? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      So, wait a minute...

      Not only are you deluded in the fact that you think they lost "plenty of money" from you no longer buying CDs every paycheck (let's be optimistic and you used to buy $40 worth each two weeks - that's $1,040) even though the RIAA net profit is still comfortably (they like to argue otherwise) in the billions and they miss much more from people who 'pirate' for whatever reason... ...but your 'boycott' lapses every once in a while because you'd still like to listen to a particular band?

      That's not a boycott... that's just a spending habit change.
      It's still a good change - I'm not blasting you... but let's face it, it's not a boycott and it's not (even combined with other, actual, boycotters) what's going to bring the RIAA to its knees.

  12. I thought that we were not getting sued... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Because of certain laws, not because they simply never got around to it yet. now this seems to be saying that Canada has been illegal movie download litigation free simply because they have not bothered to sue anyone yet?

    I am not sure about movies, but I know we are allowed/semi allowed to pirate music because the government taxes all MP3 players expressly to pay for the loss of profits that piracy costs the artists.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:I thought that we were not getting sued... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the government is already quoting American text, referring to it as "illegal downloading", before they've actually criminalized (made it illegal) it. The Hurt Locker litigation team are probably just trying to get their ducks in a row, to facilitate the prosecution of Canadians (aka "Radical Extremists" - James Moore) when King Harper declares His Way (which will probably be made retroactive, based on this action).
      Boy, wouldn't Canada be great if we wholly adopted American laws and procedures?

    2. Re:I thought that we were not getting sued... by adonoman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Movies != music. Music is treated specially in Canada's copyright legislation.

    3. Re:I thought that we were not getting sued... by so.dan · · Score: 1

      Oh! This may account for my confusion. I had thought we were protected from all such suits because of Canadian privacy laws, but perhaps it's just something specific about music in our copyright legislation that protects just from music suits. Thanks for the info!

    4. Re:I thought that we were not getting sued... by so.dan · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this! It's very helpful. :)

  13. Popularity Contest? by mevets · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Boxoffice mojo claims it was the #116 in popularity in 2009. Going by popularity, it got its ass kicked by "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The squekquel" ( no I didn't make that up ); and nudged by a few million dollars by "Astro Boy".

    I haven't seen any of them; but I think I might go with the experts on this one.

    1. Re:Popularity Contest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shawshank Redemption was #51 in 1994, The Big Lebowski was #96 in 1998, Office Space was #121 in 1999. Box office popularity has nothing to do with the quality of a movie.

    2. Re:Popularity Contest? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      That was the GP's point....

    3. Re:Popularity Contest? by mevets · · Score: 1

      You know, it is actually funnier if you don't tell him.

  14. I downloaded it, but didn't watch it, am i guilty? by Nyder · · Score: 1

    I downloaded the movie, but never could watch, it well, just sounded way too dumb.

    So am I guilty?

    It got deleted, never watched.

    Obviously I'm somewhat guilty of having bad taste, but I deleted the movie before it damaged my mental capabilities, so does that take some of the downloading shame away?

    Wait, I should sue the movie makers for putting out a movie that i wasted time downloading but not watching.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  15. Another Hurt Locker Thread by winmine · · Score: 2

    Comments that say the movie sucks will get modded up.

    Comments that defend the movie will stay below sea level moderation.

    This is because some people associated with the movie decided to pursue a civil copyright lawsuit.

    The summary will say the MPAA is involved. This will be false.

    No analysis of the movie, or any new analysis of copyright law will occur.

    1. Re:Another Hurt Locker Thread by causality · · Score: 1

      No analysis of the movie, or any new analysis of copyright law will occur.

      To be fair, the flaws in the latter are well-known and have been for quite some time. Naturally no explanation of this would be complete without an understanding of how political power works and thus, how it got to be so flawed in the first place and what must first be corrected before the laws will change.

      I suppose the movie is open to novel forms of analysis... but the second half of that statement may as well be a tautology.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  16. What would happen if.. by jargonburn · · Score: 1

    As a nation, Canada just said...."No." to this. To America's absolutely nutso attempts to punish the misdeeds (arguable) of a minority at the expense of the majority. I doubt it will ever really happen here in the States...but maybe there are other countries that don't subscribe to this particular brand of insanity?

  17. have been big news in the United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no

  18. dvd pricing is also an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to mention that when shows finally does appear on dvd, the price is typically 100-200 USD per season, which is quite expensive...

    1. Re:dvd pricing is also an issue by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I rarely buy DVDs anymore, because I realised that there are very few things that I want to watch more than once, but I rent them and the rental price is reasonable. In the UK, however, I still have to wait about a year between something being available to pirate and it being available to rent on DVD.

      It's the same with films. At home, I have a projector and a reasonable sound system. My local cinema charges about as much to watch a single film as I pay to rent a dozen DVDs and their sound system has the levels set so high that there's horrible distortion whenever the sound gets loud. And here's the funny bit: studios delay releasing the DVD so that it won't cannibalise cinema ticket sales. That means that they believe that, given the choice between renting or buying the DVD and going to the cinema, a lot of people would chose the DVD. Their business model is to intentionally not give people what their market research shows that they want. And yet they have the nerve to blame piracy.

      I don't pirate. If something isn't available in a format that I'm happy with at a price that I'm willing to pay, I just don't buy it. But I can understand people who do pirate. I'd love to see copyright require a bonafide attempt to distribute the copyrighted material.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  19. Clueless by crossmr · · Score: 1

    We're looking for legislation that basically stops online piracy and illegal file sharing

    Legislation just stops nothing.
    Criminals will do whatever they want.

    Last I checked, murder is nailed down pretty well and it still happens every day.

    Exactly what kind of legislation do they think they could enact that would "stop" online piracy?

    Perhaps something of the nature "If the movie industry even thinks you've shared one byte of a pirated movie they're entitled to schedule a predator strike on your house" might work, and I probably shouldn't have given them the idea.

  20. The Problem Is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That a Quebec court really only has jurisdiction inside Quebec, it's like they've got their own laws in that province that don't jive with the rest of the country's laws even though they are similiar; also because of our privacy laws, this lawsuit is unlikely to proceed in other provinces.

  21. Re:JEWS control Canada and the U.S. ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you saw a Jew doing manual labour? You know, building a house, digging a road, planting and picking crops, etc.

    I don't know. I've never stopped at a construction site and said 'excuse me, are any of you people jews, by any chance?' Perhaps we should make them wear yellow stars so that they're easier to spot.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  22. I HATED that movie! by Hasai · · Score: 1

    Typical Hollywood crap. If some two-bit adrenaline junkie ran around playing cowboy in RL like the main protagonist did in that movie, he'd have spent four-fifths of his tour of duty in the guardhouse.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  23. Hurt Locker is the Metallica of movies by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    Just sayin'.

  24. Re:How about a boycott of the ISPs? by aqui · · Score: 1

    What about just switching ISPs (if possible). If a significant number of people with Bell sent letters to Bell and said please terminate my service I don't trust you to protect my privacy any more since you were willing to hand over names and addresses just because you were provided and IP address and an accusation.

    Also if I were accidentally caught up in this (and didn't download anything) my first check would be whether I can sue my ISP for breaching privacy laws. There is definitely a Tort case to be made. 1) they have a duty of care to protect your personal information. 2) they failed in this duty by just handing over the info. 3) the defense of the lawsuit will cost money (aka cause me harm).

    Personally I would expect my ISP not to surrender my personal information until served with a court issued warrant.

    I suspect that there will be much backlash on this, especially since we already pay additional fees on blank media in Canada.

    --
    ----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
  25. I bet more people downloaded that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet more people downloaded that movie than has ever seen it.

  26. dwnld'ed and purchased by Tempest321 · · Score: 1

    I downloaded a copy, as the movie was only in local theatres for a few weeks, then disappeared. I never had a chance to see it. The copy I downloaded was dubbed in Spanish, but I was able to make out the gist of the story. I purchased it on Blu when it came available and own it. The production company can have my dubbed version back, if they want it.. Sic Semper Tyrannis!

  27. I stopped before downloading it all: Am I guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let’s say that I start to download the movie (inadvertently) thinking it is a free legal trailer of that movie. Then, during the download, I realize it IS the real movie -- Oops! So I abort the download.

    I never got more than 10% of the whole movie, all spread out in many unusable torrent blocks. Technically, I never got any usable portion of that movie; My AVI player can certainly not play any of it.

    Now what if they get my IP address while I was downloading these very few blocks? But I never had the intention of downloading anything illegal; And I never did either since I stopped before it really was.

    In such scenario, am I guilty?

  28. Re:I downloaded it, but didn't watch it, am i guil by quetzalblue · · Score: 1

    > I downloaded the movie, but never could watch, it well, just sounded way too dumb.

    Isnt that kinda like saying you were smoking marijuana but not inhaling .. I dont think it'll fly. Maybe you'd be better off saying you made a mistake and downloaded the wrong movie since a lot of people here said it was a five star stinker. ;-)