Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros Sued For Pirating Louis Vuitton Trademark
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You have to love a case where Warner Brothers, copyright maximalist extraordinaire, gets sued for 'piracy,' in this case for using a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag in a recent movie. This lawsuit has been described as 'awkward' for Warner; I have to agree with that characterization. Louis Vuitton's 22-page complaint (PDF) alleges that Warner Bros. had knowledge that the bag was a knock-off, but went ahead and used it anyway. Apparently Warner Bros. takes IP rights seriously only when its own IP rights are involved."
they will just shift the blame to some other person or just pin it on a intern.
The spambots are gonna go NUTS on this thread...they'll be on-topic for once.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"awkward"
Now, according to the usual MPAA calculations and the fact that petilions* of people will see that movie, they now must pay Louis Vuitton about 5 zetalions* dollars.
* The MPAA and RIAA aren't the only ones who can come up with stupid numbers.
I so Looove Louis Vuittonnn!
I don't have any, I won't buy any, but I soo loove Louis Vuittonnn!
Justice and morality are for humans. While you may feel smug and smart that you've spotted a corporation engaged in hypocrisy, why the hell would it care? It exists to make money for executives and shareholders, in that order, and the only time the law is interesting is when breaking it is likely to result in greater loss of profit than obeying it.
When it comes to Hollywood, everything is imaginary, including "intellectual property".
It is always an intern. It is a little known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth were intern patsies.
The Warner Bros lawyers are poring over every Louis Vuitton advertisement and product, desperately looking for something to neutralize the issue. Even a stain which is vaguely in the shape of Wile E Coyote would do.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It is unsurprising that under capitalism, the interests of one's own firm is superior in consideration. That said, one wonders if the "violation" was unintentional and therefore only negligent not intentional legally. Ironaically that does not minimalize civil damages very much. This is an area where the legal system itself needs fixin'.
JJ
It does indeed put WB in an awkward position, because the best defenses here are some variety of permissive fair use. I do think there is a reasonable case for this sort of use of trademarks in fictional settings being given wide leeway, though. For example, mockups of vehicles or boats, or their interiors, are frequently used on film sets as stand-ins for the real thing, usually for practical reasons. Should that be illegal?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
$7000 per human-minute spent watching the bag in the movie, including the pirated copies.
Estimate for no. of pirated copies to be obtained using same method which gives no. of pirated copies in the millions and shows massive losses of revenue from piracy
How is is possible to know if the bag was a knockoff or not? It can sometimes be impossible to tell when looking at them up-close, never mind a glance of one in a movie. The only way cops are able to shut down the shops selling these is basically by profiling the shops themselves. Shop run out of flea market space/van + high fashion handbag / low price ~= fake. Works 99.999% of the time.
And the funny thing is the real bags are made at least as unethically as the fakes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
LV has a weak case here. Warner isn't making anything LV makes. They themselves didn't make an infringing product. They just showed pictures of one.
Bwahahahhahahahahahah!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
It was used as a prop in a movie. Nobody thinks that's real, like the whiskey and champagne they supposedly drink in the movies, it's just a prop. I'd be amazed if they'd spend the insane amounts of money for one of those ugly bags, when they can get something that looks the same on film for a tenth or less the price.
If they had said that Louis Vuitton bags caused cancer and alien leprosy, maybe I could see the point of a slander/libel suit (no idea which applies to films), but for using a lookalike prop? OMG - They'd have to start using the real Mona Lisa, Spacecraft, Prize winning Livestock, etc... Yeah, right.
I think they'd also have a case if the filmmakers were selling the props as the real thing. Obviously selling a prop as a prop is just memorabilia, and not counterfeiting, but as far as I know, they aren't even doing that.
The Louis Vuitton bag makers have apparently lost their sanity, and this lawsuit is the proof.
Spare us. Even though it's an appeal to authority I'm sure NewYorkCountryLawyer knows a shit-load more about conflicts of interest than most people here, including me.
And you.
Personally, after reading a little about Hollywood accounting years ago, I shed my last tear for Big Celluloid.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Whats the problem? Warner Brothers should just sue anyone for mentioning, saying or writing the name "Warner Brothers"...
Warner Brothers
Weiner Brothers
Warner Brothers
Warner Brothers
Sounds like Louis Vuitton is using this to advertise more of their really ugly products.
How could they have been hurt with product placement?
Why it is required permission of the manufacturer to show item in the movie? Second if item is going to be destroyed wouldn't it be expected for fake to be used? Is it legally required or "keep court away".
No, they will say either 1) "It's not a knock-off; it's a parody." or 2) "We bought the bag, we can use it however we like."
Someone should tell this New York lawyer that movies and music
are "ARTISTIC PROPERTY". Always has been, always will.
It's only those 'who lack standing' [lawyers], who are make the assertion.
It would be impossible for Snoop-Dog or Barbra Streisand to try and
claim that their work should be defined as intellectual property.
I have 6 sole patents and one shardd, I know what IP really is.
Dr.Science
LV bags are expensive -- and the magic aura is created by having chosen celebrities photographed. I'm not sure how mentioning a brand name is *ever* relevant to the plot of a movie. Basically LV is getting free mention -- were they too cheap to provide the goods?
I haven't seen the film so I can't confirm it, but in the clip Zach's character clearly mispronounces Louis Vuitton as Lewis Vuitton. That would seem to suggest he knows jack shit about fashion. I can't find a high quality shot of the bag itself, but TFA says the bag is "marked LVM." That would seem to suggest that it's a rather pathetic knockoff, and that's possibly the joke itself. Thus, LV wants WB to pretend a real LV is a fake LV, and deserves to be slapped for being so stupid.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
How on earth do you have a UID that low and not know of NewYorkCountryLawyer.
If 2 is trun then why do some many reality shows show people with blacked out / taped over t-shits and some times background logos as well?
Because the companies that owned the rights to those logos wouldn't pay for product placement.
Because, of course, it's impossible to create a Slashdot name like that unless the creator is a lawyer.
No, but we know he is.
Circumcision is child abuse.
If it's wilful, they get enhanced damages assessed against them.
But you know, those movie makers always "make a loss" on every movie. It's the other supporting companies which they also own which make the profits. This way they can claim they didn't make any money and cheat everyone who signed up for a portion of the profits. It's how they work. So if the awarded damages are a portion or even ALL of the money they made from a given movie, LV will get nothing. I hope LV's lawyers are already well aware of the ways these jackasses protect themselves and have figured a way around and through the problem.
The bag was portraying a Louis Vuitton bag. That doesn't mean it really is one. It's fiction. They didn't really lose someone in Thailand either.
While it may not apply across the board, it is certainly possible that they don't want to give said brands free advertising, or don't want to be seen to be endorsing a particular company/brand/idea.
Personally, after reading a little about Hollywood accounting years ago, I shed my last tear for Big Celluloid.
Yeah, really. When you read the list of movies that have "lost money" on paper (Forrest Gump, Coming to America, The Lord of the Rings films, Spider-Man, JFK...to name a few) it's hard to take any claims they make seriously.
Perhaps LV should just release a bag based on the one in the move. What are the makers of the 'knock offs' going to do, sue them?
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
(How many people saw the film + how many dvd's being made) * price of an original LV bag * punitive penalty
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Yeah, as others have alluded to, NewYorkCountryLawyer is one of several well-known Slashdot users. Like CleverNickname and some others of note.
Maybe not everyone on Slashdot knows who these folks are, but they are known by many if not most.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Or the logo is considered gang related like rap videos that sensor out Raider jerseys and such because particular gangs where the clothing. But yeah no free advertising if you want your product on Survivor it better be a pizza or a new smart phone that they can give to the cast with a glaringly obvious plug "the new Samsung X5 it does video conferencing and has sex with your mother", and everyone touches and goes "wow I wish we had those in my day". If you don't pay you don't get shown. That way when they get a beer company say as a sponsor they don't have a dozen episodes showing their stars drinking the other guys beer.
Apparently Warner Bros. takes IP rights seriously only when its own IP rights are involved."
All right, really? I hate "Big IP" as much as the next fanatic (my posting history will bear that out), but come on. Let's be honest.
The only people who give a fuck about stupid "handbag" IP is the designers themselves and the type of schmuck who will pay $2-3000 for "designer" shit so they can snob it. For most people, if the knockoff is good enough that the seams don't split, they could give a shit.
Same goes for clothes designers. Fuck 'em.
Of course, actually reading his posts over the YEARS would tell you that he has a clue. Your's actually do for the most part as well... Did you leave yourself logged in somewhere?
How many did the pirates kill in the process of stealing their colors?
WB: this is what you get for being a copyright bully. Burn in hell, assholes.
In other news: Walther sues Bond movie for not using a real gun...
or the brand in the background is a competitor to the brands that did pay or it is something that they are not allowed to advertise, like alcohol or tobacco
Their Warts are great, too!
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Being a known slash dot user is a disservice, not a meritorious quality.
Like being a Congress member, it says a lot against you.
What we have learned from this: ... meh.
IP is critically important, when its My P. Your P doesn't rhyme with IP, so
yes, as opposed to the 'pirate' who will take the blame with pride and meet them head-on in court!
oh, wait.. no...
their wireless was hacked!
it was a DHCP'ed connection and it was somebody else!
it was somebody else in the household and even though they pay for the connection that doesn't make them responsible!
their IP was spoofed!
their ISP's DHCP records are mistaken!
the upload was only named after the movie but it was actually a private collection of poems in third person!
the file was shared automatically by the software and they didn't know this was happening!
a guy saying they were a representative told them to share it - and he looked very trustworthy - sounds legit!
For further 'shifting the blame' awesomeness, see every single story on 'piracy'.
Somehow I suspect that WB will either A. pay up or B. (don't know the movie) suggest that the knock-off LV was actually part of the story as being a knock-off.. at which point LV will have to claim that knock-offs still command royalties to them and that'll be that.
It's 'embarassing' only when the audience is e.g. Slashdot, not when it's any of the legal eagles who deal with exactly this (product placement/featuring in audio/visual productions) subject matter day in, day out.
With everything fair, we can compare this to cases like those of Jammie Thomas. 24 songs = $1.5 million according to these media groups, or about $60,000 apiece. Assuming a song is worth $1 (like on iTunes), this is a multiplier of 60,000. A cheap Vuitton bag is $500 (I'm being pretty generous here - they probably used a knock off of a more expensive bag). With the same multiplier as the RIAA uses, WB therefore owes about $30 million.
Yes, yes, I know that copyright isn't trademark and all that. The point is that if you were to be fair and charge these insane statutory damages with the multiplier these groups feel is appropriate, WB owes $30 million for a handbag. In fact, if you go with the reduced damages that keep popping up for Thomas, at ~$2000 per song, then WB would then owe $1 million for a handbag.
Of course that will never happen. They'll find a way to pay each other off, because they can't really 'scare' each other into submission like the RIAA can individuals.
No, they will say either 1) "It's not a knock-off; it's a parody." or 2) "We bought the bag, we can use it however we like."
2) I cant help but be reminded of those retarded adds at the beginning of DVDs: Buying pirated DVDs is stealing.
Buying pirated goods is stealing. Seems like as good an analogy as any, I hope someone faces some jail time for this. It seems the only fair way to proceed given the content industries attitudes and stance in these and related matters...
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
They'll have pirated an image of a fake, so clearly LV doesn't have a claim, and WB would be trying to assert IP rights for a fraudulent product. IANAL, but that could create some interesting arguments.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
then why do some many reality shows show people with blacked out / taped over t-shits and some times background logos as well?
In addition to what others have mentioned, it is also sometimes done to protect the privacy of the person filmed. A T-Shirt saying "Old Dime Bag High School" makes it too easy for stalkers and haters. Similar with logos that can be used to identify locations.
Then there are also sometimes legal issues of other kinds, like prohibition against alcohol, tobacco and medicine advertising in some countries requiring that brand names on such products be hidden, while the generic product is allowable.
There should be a cease and desist order against WB to stop all operations and shutdown until this can be resolved. Lest they violate more trademarks in the interim.
I am shocked and appalled by the actions of the WB corporation. Their flagrant violation of the Trademarks rights is a slap in the face too all those that stand for the rights of creators everywhere.
There are also lots of knock-off Colts and Smith&Wessons in movies, real fakes, they don't even shoot real bullets. At least you can put some stuff in these handbags.
Ask for 10% of the GROSS.
It's just a prop. Do props have to be the real thing? Should we sue because the nuclear sub in a movie isn't a real nuclear sub? How about an intergalactic space ship? Maybe we should go back to obvious props like laundry detergent being labeled "SOAP" and soda pop being labeled "COLA" and so on.
Or maybe expand the standard disclaimer "any resemblence to real people or events is uninentional" to add "or objects".
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
i think this is the average case for people in this world. people only care about their immediate surroundings. big deal. get over it. want to change that? go to some random person and give him a million bucks. then come back and tell me that's not how everyone is.
It's always a source of amusement to see the moving pictures industry go after people over intellectual property issues, when their origins (and placement in the republic of California) was due to them skirting the intellectual property laws of their day.
And now they're trying to defend themselves against an IP suit. Fun when you're the one suing, not so much when you're the one being sued.
I am John Hurt.
That's why I always astroturf as AC.
- Bill G
Viacom owns Time Warner, which owns Warner Brothers. Viacom also owns Paramount Studios, which owned Paramount Animation and hence Felix the Cat production inc. which in 1958 produced a cartoon entitled 'the magic bag'. The pattern and styling of this bag looks to have been heavily borrowed from for the Luis Vuitton style. The felix bag is yellow and black, and the LV bag is green and gold, but it is similar enough that some consumers could be confused as to the creator of the bags. Warner counter sues that the LV 'look' is actually the property of its parent company, LV settles out of court to avoid its prestige product line from being associated with a children's cartoon (arguably created by a convicted pedophile). Problem solved.
Speaking of which, I just had a great idea for a movie. Hmm...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
... are people who "own" them - otherwise people know its a sham.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You have to hand it to us fashionable queers, we don't take this kind of shit lightly.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
How is this even actionable? Why doesn't LV sue the actual pirate?
They should have waited a month or so for SOPA to be passed, then they could just confiscate warner brothers' domain names.
whats the surprise? there is no such thing as intellectual property, everyone knows that...until they think someone else might make a nickle using their idea without paying them 4 cents lol.
FTA: "Apparently Warner Bros. takes IP rights seriously only when its own IP rights are involved." Doesn't everybody?
In the Louis Vuitton store online shopping(shopping louis vuitton) Louis Vuitton outlet bags purchase, or other commodities, the first is the goods than the three, which can be save you some unnecessary expenses, don't see the one I love bag will be busy with the purchase, the best way is to forget this bag type, title and other characteristics, and then to Google search, look at other online shopping mall will also have the bag, then, you can for the several Louis Vuitton shop can.
I was firstly attracted by the name of this bag—Totally MM, really a fashion name for girls. And then I was fascinated by its enticing shape which makes my eyes open wide. Unlike other designer bag, Louis Vuitton bag has stylish and practical rounded pockets on every sides, ideal for houses magazines or other daily essential. Crafted in Monogram canvases, it sport natural cowhide trimmings. The golden brass hardwares adds touch of sumptuousness and stylishness to the totality, while two flat straps are also highlight that captured me. Made of natural cowhide leather, it goes perfectly matched with the Monogram canvases, bringing a fresh and feminine look which also guarantees the comfort of carrying over the shoulder.With a wide zipper closure, this designer bag opens to reveal spacious interior
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
Lets see what would happen if Louis Vuitton succeeded if SOPA was in place: 1) Louis Vuitton would force all theatres to stop showing the movie 2) Would have all DVD/Blu-ray copies pulled from the shelves 3) Would have all of the WB execs pay a huge fine 4) Have all of WB's websites pulled down 5) Have all of WB's movies pulled from shelves My sick/cynical self kind of wants to see SOPA pass, to see how it would explode in the faces of those who endorsed it.
Obviously they're supporting counterfeiting, so the first step is to confiscate their domain name using the (not yet passed) SOPA, and they can figure out about firing some intern props clerk later.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I didn't read the articles (Hey, this is Slashdot), but here goes:
Couldn't the use of a LV bag in a movie be considered fair use? And if the fact that it was a knock-off is material to the script*, that to might be 'fair use' of the right to make a knock-off prop.
If fair use doesn't apply, then how would it be possible to make a film on location someplace like NYC? You can't swing a deceased feline in that city without seeing a trademark on the side of a building. And if its not a location shoot, but a CGI recreation of a city, then the studio is effectively copying an entire scene full of trademarks.
*If its not material, then WB could sue the supplier for selling a fake to their prop department.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why thank you :)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Maybe I'm not really a lawyer. Maybe it's just a long nightmare from which I've yet to awaken.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
You mean I'm not anonymous... damn, & here I thought by calling myself NewYorkCountryLawyer I was ensuring that no one would know who I am
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yeah well now you're making me feel o.l.d.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The best part of those adds is that only people who DIDN'T pirate the DVD had to sit through the stupid thing!
You don't want to risk your star's sack getting punched in a fight scene.
It's so bad that it's necessary to setup queues on outbound traffic so the phone continue to work. So many people pirate music, TV and movies on WB (and all other producers) productions that technical measures are required to save enough bandwidth so that the phones can be used to coordinate the actual film production.
Given how messed up the US mindset is right now, they'll probably just sue themselves for revenue and stop producing anything at all.
The best part of those adds is that only people who DIDN'T pirate the DVD had to sit through the stupid thing!
Actually, a lot of pirated DVDs copy the entire thing, including the ant-piracy prelude.
you wouldn't steal a handbag... oh wait.
They would need to. Warner Bros can't afford a real Louis Vui--- oh wait I forgot who we're talking about.
And it's not like they could have just sold the bag afterwards as a collectable prop for more than its original purchased value.
I wish this read more like "look how stupid copyright has gotten" (I mean, it's just a prop, couldn't they have _intended_ to portray a imitation handbag?), but instead it reads like "get in line WB, it's 2011." I don't think it helps with the hypocrisy.
Yeah, that's kind of the fucking point.
They fight hard against the kids they sue when they try to make excuses for their supposed acts of piracy, but will probably make excuses for their own supposed act of piracy. That's the irony here. Sorry it got lost on you.
Actually no - This is one of those "IANAL - but I did do a paper on this in college" deals; getting licensed use of a copyrighted item for use in a movie is a major legal issue for independent moviemakers. It's not by and large things like posters, books, the obvious stuff - it's all the stuff that it doesn't necessarily occur to you is copyrighted - like chairs (well, furniture in general), picture frames, cars, buildings, and on and on.
The major studios have interlocking license agreements that effectively 'freeze-out' independent film-makers on a lot of this. In their turn most experienced independent studios have worked out what can/can't be done, but it can be a real shock to a new artist.
Which if nothing else shows how idiotically Warner Brothers dropped the ball on this - this was stupid. I'd love to see their domain yanked for this - see how *they* like being held to the standards they've advocated for everyone else.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
"George, sorry but we have to let you go. I know we told you to use the knock off, but well someone's head has to roll".
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
And everyone knows it was really the Comedian, both times.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
I went to see all three LoTR when they premiered at the cinemas, then went on to buy them on DVD and again when they came to Blu-ray. So did a lot of my friends. If that isn't enough to make a movie turn a profit, something is SERIOUSLY wrong!
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
This is an excellent opportunity for Warner Brothers.
Oops! We accidentally violated someone else's copyright. We acknowledge that this is a very bad thing that should never go unpunished. Therefore, we have withdrawn the offending material and will gladly pay the $xxx millions in penalties that we obviously owe.
We'd also like to point out that this is how it should work for all the filthy pirates.
I always thought it stood for Intensify Profits.
And this is one of those things that, as a law student (who has done a lot of research into copyright law), shows how the excessive weight given to copyright within Hollywood (combined with people being paid by the hour) leads to a lot of unnecessary work being done. While copyright (or in some places the more limited design rights) can cover things suck as furniture, frames, cars and buildings, in most jurisdictions there will be a suitable defence to including them in the background of a film; in the US, there's a good chance it would be covered by fair use, in the UK there's a specific "incidental inclusion" defence.
That's not to say that clearing isn't important, and that there isn't some stuff that will need licensing, but my impression is that a lot more is licensed than really needs to be licensed - which has the effect of exaggerating the scope of copyright, and discouraging independent film-makers (as discussed).
In this case, of course, it's a trademark issue, as trying to sue for copyright infringement would be rather awkward. In terms of reality TV and the censoring of labels, that may be over-protectiveness but might also be to prevent potential defamation claims. Plus it gives it that edgy, this-is-real-not-completely-staged feel.
Twice in the last 2 months I found commercial publishers using my CC-licenced images from Wikipedia without compying with the licence terms. Apparently if all you're looking for is respect instead of dollars you get neither.
Actually, none of the hundreds of pirated DVDs I've watched had that part.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
It costs a lot more to make a movie than it costs to buy 3 movie tickets and 3 DVDs. Unless you have several million friends I'm reasonably certain that it isn't enough to make a move turn a profit.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Warner Brothers should be held to the same standards and punishments as they hold others. In this case, there is actual damage, as movie goers might think the knock-off bag is just as good as the true item.
The plaintiff states this is was done to avoid trademark diulution:
4. Warner Bros' use and misrepresentation of the Biophy Bag as an authentic Luis Vuitton bag in The Hangover: Part II create a likehood that the public willl be confused that Luis Vuitton is the source of, or has sponsored or approved of, the Biophy Bag and Warner Bros,' use of it as a Luis Vuitton in the film.
So yes, it seems the origin of the problem is that the bag wasn't original, and they didn't seek for a clearance from the trademark holder
They could just say it was their open wifi that someone else downloaded the bag from.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
No they weren't, they were time aliens from the future.
Free Martian Whores!
IANALBIANP. I'm not a lawyer but am a novice producer. I've been in talks with lawyers about this exact point for movie production. As a layman it's hard to know when you're in a trademark infringement, that's why you hire expensive lawyers, so it's obvious WB have plenty but somehting went wrong. Mexican laws (my area of work) are more in tune with French copyright/trademark laws, but there's some intersection with US laws (specially if you want to export your movie), but the idea is that you have a screening with your team of lawyers and they mark what part of the movie may be in trademark problems, they only say: Do you have permission for that? The advice is that unless you have a product placement agreement, don't show product names, logos, etc.
It was part of the character... couldn't have used a real one, it would spoil the atmosphere.
The fucking point is kind of that...
I see your point >.>
Are you talking about actual pressed DVDs, or downloaded ISOs? The ISOs certainly are stripped. Pressed DVDS, at least those made in China, often do include the FBI warning and promos for other movies.
But the people who make the ads unskippable ARE stealing - my time, my electricity: I no longer have them after they have been used to display the ad and I have not been paid for them. I could leave my display device and sound device off during the ad to save some electricity (and cost), but there is still my time and the electricity used to run through the ad on the DVD for which there is a cost and no payment has been given nor offered; but then again, not having the display device and sound device on during the ad voids the point of forcing my player to display the ad.
A 30 episode TV program with a 30 second unskippable ad before displaying each episode amounts to 15 mins of unpaid for electricity and time - THAT is stealing, copyright infringement is NOT.
Eye-for-an-eye justice for WB may be funny, but doesn't it also validate their own approach to piracy? I'd like to see WB fight and win this battle to highlight the absurdity of the wider war they're involved in, but by taking a sword to the armpit instead they can suggest the anti-piracy policing they seek to enforce affects and serves all people equally, and is an unfortunate omission in our society's moral fabric.