Slashdot Mirror
$1,500,000 Fine For Sharing 10 Movies On BitTorrent
another random user writes with news that a Virginia man, Kywan Fisher, has been ordered to pay $1,500,000 to porn-maker Flava Works for sharing ten of the company's films over BitTorrent. "The huge total was reached through penalties of $150,000 per movie, the maximum possible statutory damages under U.S. copyright law." The man did not make any defense in federal court to Flava Works' copyright infringement claims, so the judge handed down a default judgement.
"In 2011 Fisher and several other defendants were sued by adult entertainment company Flava Works. The case in question differs from the so-called 'John Doe' lawsuits as the copyright holder had detailed information on the defendants who had paid accounts on the company’s movie portal. For Fisher the trouble started when instead of just viewing the films for personal entertainment, he allegedly went on to share copies on BitTorrent. These illicit copies were traced directly back to his account through a code embedded in the videos. ... The verdict will be welcomed by Flava and the many other copyright holders involved in BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States. DieTrollDie, a close follower and critic of these cases, points out that it will be widely cited in settlement letters to other defendants, but that the case itself is notably different. 'This was not the normal Copyright Troll case – there was some actual evidence beyond a public IP address. Not a smoking gun by far, but certainly enough to show a preponderance of evidence,' DTD writes.
These illicit copies were traced directly back to his account through a code embedded in the videos
I always wondered what was so special about those movies.
People still use Bittorrent.. Dumb..da...da...dumb..
...to download them twice from two different accounts in future, and make sure the files are identical before sharing them...
That REALLY sucks...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
After all, this will clearly be a deterrent. Or he clearly caused millions of dollars in damage while he was playing with himself. Or something like that. Logic is not actually relevant when it comes to copyrights.
Palm trees and 8
We Marxists conceive of socialism, not as an arbitrary scheme of society to be constructed from a preconceived plan, but as the next stage of social evolution. The preceding lectures dealt with the struggle for socialism, which develops in succeeding stages foreseen, understood, and consciously organised by the revolutionary party on the basis of a program. The subject of this lecture—“What Socialist America Will Look Like”—carries us beyond our formal program.
Our discussion tonight deals with the socialist society itself, which will grow out of the new conditions when the class struggle will have been carried to its conclusion—that is, to the abolition of classes and consequently of all class struggles. Our preview of the socialist society, therefore, is not a program for struggle, but a forecast of the lines of future development already indicated in the present.
The architects and builders of the socialist society of the future will be the socialist generations themselves. The great Marxists were quite sure of this and refrained from offering these future generations any instructions or blueprints. Their writings, however, do contain some marvellous flashes of insight which light up the whole magnificent perspective. The insights of these men of transcendent genius will be the guiding line of my exposition tonight.
Auguste Blanqui, the great French revolutionist, said: “Tomorrow does not belong to us.” We ought to admit that, and recognise at the same time that it is better so. The people in the future society will be wiser than we are. We must assume that they will be superior to us, in every way, and that they will know what to do far better than we can tell them. We can only anticipate and point out the general direction of development, and we should not try to do more. But that much we are duty bound to do; for the prospect of socialism—what the future socialist society will look like—is a question of fascinating interest and has a great importance in modern propaganda.
The new generation of youth who will come to our movement and dedicate their lives to it will not be willing to squander their young courage and idealism on little things and little aims. They will be governed by nothing less than the inspiration of a great ideal, the vision of a new world. We are quite justified, therefore, in tracing some of the broad outlines of probable future development; all the more so since the general direction, if not the details, can already be foreseen.
In attempting an approximate estimate of what life will be like under socialism, we run up against the inadequacy of present-day society as a measuring rod or basis of comparison with the future. One must project himself into a different world, where the main incentives and compulsions of present-day society will no longer be operative; where in time they will be completely forgotten, and have merely a puzzling interest to students of an outlived age.
Material premise of socialism
Socialism will undoubtedly bring about a revolutionary transformation of human activity and association in all fields previously conditioned by the division of society into classes—in work, in education, in sports and amusements, in manners and morals, and in incentives and rewards.
But all these changes, which can be anticipated and predicted, will begin with and proceed from the revolutionary transformation of the system of production and the consequent augmentation and multiplication of the productivity of labour. This is the necessary material premise for a society of shared abundance. The revolutionary reorganisation of the labour process—of the manner of working and of regulating, measuring, and compensating the labour time of the individual—will take place first and should be considered first, because it will clear the way for all the other changes.
Here at the start we lack an adequate standard of comparison. The necessary amount of productive labour time whi
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
This whole incident seems incredibly embarrassing. Imagine his face once his friends finds out he wasn't using proxies, encryption and a peer blocking application when torrenting.
Play the video on the screen and record it with your camcorder before you share it. The analog-HOLE will save you from detection.... Unless they do the punched hole technique that Hollywood does on some frames in a movie.... Then you are hosed....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I don't get it. Surely it's only really worth suing someone for some amount that they can actually afford. Is he going to file for bankruptcy and only pay a fraction of this off?
So did the judge watch all of the evidence?
No sympathy for the guy here, he allowed his addiction to pornography to get out of hand. To quote my favorite Clint Eastwood movie line, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Speaking as someone who writes and self publishes books for a living (see sig), this is an insane judgement. $150,000 per movie? Ten movies?
I don't know how this could possibly be considered fair. Even if the guy 100% did everything that he is accused of, what's the real cost of his actions? If each film is, say, $10, then this means he cost the porno company 15,000 sales, per movie.
The problem is it just doesn't add up. Something free isn't the same value as something paid. I've given away approximately 20,000 books on Amazon, but I've sold about 1,000. I didn't lose 19,000 sales.
Every retailer knows if you give away free samples or even free products you're encouraging people to come back. To buy your new offerings. People are creatures of habit and once we like something we want more of it. This massive giveaway probably did wonders for their signup rates.
But I understand that putting *every* piece of your product online is bad, and making them permanently and easily available is damaging to sales especially in the short term.
But that much damage? 1.5 million bucks total? This is ludicrous. It's insane. There are punishments for real, genuine crimes with real, lasting harm to a person that are less than that. How is he supposed to pay?
So as a media producer, I think that bankrupting someone for sharing ten films online is completely immoral. It's just wrong.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
What useful arts and sciences does it promote? And then, why isn't the penalty declared unconstitutional, it is obvious the penalty exceeds the harm done many times over.
"[porn distributor] had detailed information on the defendants who had paid accounts on the company’s movie portal"
Look, anybody who voluntarily surrenders *their own credit card details with their real name on it* to an internet porn distributor just asks for trouble.
The quoted story sounds like it's full of spin. The way I read the story from the BBC was that there were several defendants, most got thrown out of court due to there being no actual evidence of guilt (IP addresses anyone?) and this guy was found against because he didn't bother turning up. Maybe I misread it though.
Korma: Good
Imagine your computer getting infected while having one of these on your HDD
The judges don't throw these cases out as pointless. The fines aren't assessed based on reality, nor is their unconstitional nature even addressed.
So why bother wasting his time turning up? He wouldn't get any different if he had.
Maybe he'd hear that bollocks from the Swedish prosecutor who claimed that they couldn't file charges if JA hadn't turned up, and thought that this was true.
like the world give a f*ck.
from TFA: >For Fisher the trouble started when instead of just viewing the films for personal entertainment, he allegedly went on to share copies on BitTorrent. what if my computer is stolen or simply hacked and then those films were putted on bittorrent from someone else? Do i have to be responsible of those movies even in those circumstances so, i don't own them but i'm responsible as if i was a co-author ?
Shouldn't the award AT LEAST be limited to the highest conceivable profit those movies could have *possibly* made had they not sold a single one? There is NO WAY they would have made even a fraction of that had this guy COMPLETELY killed their business.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I have had a look myself and reckon you could find enough free porn to watch it for several hundred hours every day. A lot of it is 2 minute excerpts with links to try to get you to paying sites, but there is also plenty of 20-60 minute stuff with no strings attached.
Could he have claimed that someone else was using his account using a password obtained from a password sharing site?
He declares bankruptcy, and all his debts get wiped away. This could actually help his finances more than hurt them if he is like the typical American and has more debts than assets.
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
So what Flava Works is saying here is that Kywan Fisher would have been better off had he never paid for his Flava Works pornography in the first place. After all, if he hadn't done the right thing and supported the studio, they never would have had his credit card details to begin with, unless his credit card info was stolen...
To those of you who think purchasing Flava Works's "works" is a good idea, let this be a less to you and torrent their content. What if your computer get stolen and the thief takes your porn collection and posts it to bittorrent sites? What if you get a virus and your porn files leak? What if you share a Flava Works file accidentally? I realize that that's a little hard to do with bittorrent, but you get the idea.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The point that is not being made here, is that like the MAFIAA, the porn studios themselves are propping up a failing business model (having to complete with free amateur porn), by recruiting pay-or-we'll-sue ambulance chasers to shake down people to generate revenue, or barring that, forum-shopping for sympathetic judges and sueing 'pirates' into oblivion.
Given that pornographers are drawn from the criminal underclasses anyway, it doesn't surprise me that they would stoop to these levels.
Can someone explain to me why the maximum judgement is also the default? Why does that make sense?
Nobody would say "he shared data on http", so please stop confusing the BT protocol with BT trackers.
Try to become a witness in a high profile case that will require that you be put into the witness protection program. Problem solved. No more obligation to pay $1.5 million fine.
You're a one-step thinker. It's possible, maybe even probable, that he didn't cost them anything directly. But the availability of free content through bittorrent and other "sharing" mechanisms hurts all copyright holders.
We get it. You think you're entitled to a free copy of anything that can be put in digital form. That's childish. And ironic, given that you're probably in the business of creating "imaginary property" (i.e. programming).
Why does anyone pay for porn?
Use firefox, get the "Video Downloadhelper" add on and select to show adult content sites in the sites supported preference and watch all you want
It'll save you at least 1.5 million...
Let's say I have a file seeding on Bittorrent, and I am one of a number of seeders. Am I really sharing the whole file? Or am I really sharing multiple pieces of a file?
What I mean is that when someone starts getting a file via Bittorrent, he may be getting one or more parts of the file from me, and other parts potentially from countless other seeders. So if a copyright troll says that I'm making files available for download, in theory, aren't I only serving out "parts" of a whole, not the whole?
Obviously, there is no guarantee that a leecher isn't downloading EVERYTHING from me, so why not create a modification to Bittorrent that only makes a portion of the whole file available? THis way, no one could ever say that I am making THE ENTIRE FILE available?
IANAL, of course, but it seems to me that "the industry" thrives on splitting hairs and riding on legal fine lines, so why not exploit that ourselves?
What do you think?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
But that's not the way this law was initially designed. Look at overzeetop's post above. These laws were originally designed to fight people who were reproducing copyrighted material commercially for profit. This guy has no profit motive and was not distributing commercially. While not violating the letter of the law, the maximum fine sure violates the spirit of the law.
If Congress wasn't at the beck and call of lobbyists, they would surely pass a new law that sets new statutory limits on noncommercial infringement.
:(){
I see this as a direct violation of the 8th Amendment. Nobody has any obligation to obey an unconstitutional order or statute. He does not have to pay anything until a reasonable fine is applied.
If the courts don't stand behind the law, then a public response on the court and the plantiff is in order.
So it seems that the ToS made the subscriber accountable for any infringement.
First, it's actually pretty clever that they sign and mark the downloads. They should have informed their users, this probably would make a lot of folks pause to begin with.
The "defendant" (who didn't defend himself) could have claimed that his computer was hacked or someone made copies without his permission. The pressure would be on the company to prove that he uploaded the files himself.
Car analogy: if someone steals my car from my garage, and runs someone over, am I guilty of the hit'n'run?
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Most of you need to start watching foreign films so that you don't get robbed by the movie studios. Most movies aren't even worth $5.00 dollars. The fine should be a percentage of the cost of the movie, like $0.50 cents per movie. Paying $150,000 dollars is robbery.
What do you figure the real chances of collection are? Depending upon the individual it may not be possible to collect a penny of this judgement. If he knows the ropes he is home free.
Often the law is simply an illusion. What is said to be illegal is often simply an inducement to keep commiting the crimes. An example is the FTC and phones sales. The FTC only goes after the greatest offenders. Last yaer they fined 90 million dollars to the 15 companies that they sued. But these companies were so large that paying off 90 million dollars was not a substantial threat to them as the profits cover such things.
The notion of only prosecuting the worst or largest offenders is like a declaration that if you rape women the first three are free as there are men who rape more than three and resources will always be focused on the worst offenders. Sicker yet is that we are seeing a justice system that likes to go after those from which it can make the most money. In the case of the porn movies what the lawyers really got for their client was publicity. There is no way in the world to make money on that kind of law suit. Further if you know someone who is immune from suits do it all on their computer. For example a disabled or retired person who has no income other than disability or Social Security is untouchable in many states. They can have billions in suits against them and be totally secure in their possessions and bank accounts.
If I put a sign on a pallet of bricks at a construction site that says, "Free Bricks!", and people take them, programmer logic would say I haven't stolen anything. But if they catch me you can bet I'm going to be in trouble.
Flavaworks movies on KickassTorrents - http://kat.ph/usearch/dorm%20life/
The big movie studios file their abusive lawsuits in order to intimidate people into behaving legally. A lot of people here don't like that. I get it.
These porn creatures are different. They like people downloading their stuff illegally. Then they can sue them and actually take their stuff. It is a business model for them. They are very bad people.
Beware!
I think there's a quote on this topic: http://www.bash.org/?1578
Why was you reading assvibrator quotes on bash.org?
Don't ever buy porn. Just download copies of it from folks who have already used stolen credit cards to buy it.
LOL,,, Those are cue marks placed there by the projectionist to indicate when to start the second projector and initiate the "change-over” from one projector to the other at reel changes during the film.
I still have one of the heavy die cast gizmos that were designed to position the 35mm film under a sharpened spring loaded plunger that when rotated made the cue marks.
Thanks, that was a good laugh but now I really feel old.