Slashdot Mirror


Lionsgate Sues Limetorrents, Played.to, and Others Over Expendables 3 Leak

hypnosec writes Lionsgate, the film company in charge of distribution for Expendables 3, has filed a lawsuit against unknown individuals who shared a DVD-level copy of the movie and six file-sharing sites known to have the links through which copies of the movies are being downloaded illegally. An advance copy of Expendables 3 was leaked online in July, and it was downloaded as many as 180,000 times in just 24 hours. The movie, which is releasing on August 15, is said to have crossed two million downloads already. In addition to the lawsuit, the Dept. of Homeland Security is on the case.

207 comments

  1. The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For a civil matter relating to a MOVIE? Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck, America?

    1. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It might sound stupid (and it is) but the DHS is the unholy amalgamation of just about every investigative and enforcement body in the United States government. So it's not that the DHS is investigating, but one of the agencies under the DHS.

    2. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry citizen, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from DHS.

    3. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's supposed to be Merika, Fuck Yeah!

    4. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, the US government has pretty much taken the worst parts of the original idea of Fascism as described in the original Fascist Manifesto (corporatism) along with the worst parts of what Italian Fascism actually tried to be (totalitarianism, rule by elites).

    5. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut the fuck up

    6. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jklovanc · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reproduction and distribution of copyright material is a criminal as well as a civil matter. ICE is tasked with investigating copyright infringement in the US. The fact that they are now under the umbrella of the DHS is just sensationalism.

    7. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reproduction and distribution of copyright material is a criminal as well as a civil matter.

      Which is already absolutely insane.

      The fact that they are now under the umbrella of the DHS is just sensationalism.

      The DHS is something that never should've been created.

    8. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut the fuck up, Yeah!

      FTFY, Yeah! On the subject, CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) is part of the DHS, so the question becomes "why does a baker bake, a painter paint and a lecturer lecture?"

    9. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the question is still, "WTF is a civil suit being investigated and prosecuted by the FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT!?!?!"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The DHS is something that never should've been created.

      You would prefer multiple agencies duplicating work, not coordinating operations, not sharing information, leaving gaps between organizations, etc.

    11. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it keeps the powers separated, as they SHOULD be.

    12. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Which is already absolutely insane.

      Are you saying theft of intellectual property should be a civil matter while theft of real property should be a criminal matter? Why should there be less protection for intellectual property that physical property. They both have monetary value.

    13. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it is copyright infringement, not theft. monetary value has no bearing.

    14. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by murdocj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with this sort of hysteria is that it makes people forget how horrible true fascism is. It conflates looking for illegal downloaders with rounding up and slaughtering millions of people. Can we save the rhetoric for when we need it?

    15. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Theft of intellectual property should be a criminal matter.

      Copyright infringement should be a civil matter. Since This article is talking about a movie being copied and shared (copyright infringement), it should be strictly a civil matter. Of course, the government being the enforcement wing of large companies, the full weight and force of the Federal government will extend its infinite reach across the globe to annihilate anyone who so much as thinks about infringing on the absolute rights of the government's benevolent benefactors.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    16. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Kalium70 · · Score: 5, Funny

      DHS: "we must protect the fatherland" -- er, homeland.

    17. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Nothing to see here. Move along citizen. It could be worse so why bother trying to make it better."

    18. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by popoutman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Agreed!

      You can't steal intellectual property.
      You can copy and use intellectual property inappropriately, sure.
      But you sure as hell cannot steal it, and as such it should not be involving the DHS or Federal Government in any way. But these are the people you voted in, and the rest of us have to live with it unfortunately..

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    19. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      "intellectual property" is nothing but a propaganda term to begin with.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    20. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      not what he was saying, what he was saying is lets not jump to the extreme comparisons because it is apples and oranges. having said that this is still fucked up and needs to be addressed

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    21. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by gTsiros · · Score: 2

      to paraphrase a genius:

      it starts with your thumb... AND THEN IT GETS FUN

      in other words, baby steps.

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    22. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how that is right now in Europe after all the changes in law over recent years.

      However 'simple copyright infringement' is a civil case, no one except the copyright owner can sue etc.

      However in this case it is by far not that simple: an original DVD was leaked, that implies it was stolen. Depending how you want to turn this it is fraud, industrial espionage or simply theft. Depending who did it, a high ranking executive or simply a guy distributing the mail taking his chance or by someone who intentionally wanted to damage his (former) employer financially, it is a complete different crime. Yes, a crime, worth being prosecuted!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Of course it can be stolen.

      The simplest case: you have only one manuscript and no back ups, I steal it, it is gone.

      The complex case: I destroy your ability to market it, make money from it, use it as you feel fit. Your option to use your 'property' in a way you can use 'property' is gone, hence: it is stolen. And funnily it is worse than stolen, as I can not even give it back to you.

      Hint: the relevant laws are around 'intellectual PROPERTY' because it is a property it can be stolen, you can be deprived from it etc. Otherwise lawmakers had realized decades ago: 'oh, it is not property ... it is something else, we need to name it different'

      If it is still correct in our times to call it 'property' is something completely different.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Italian Fascism had very little to do with rounding up and slaughtering of millions. I think you're confusing fascist Italy with nazi Germany.

      With that said, the USA is a far cry from a totalitarian fascist state; they certainly have not taken the underlying ideology to heart. However, there certainly are some aspects that are creeping in the practice if not the ideals of US government, it seems. That was GPs point, I believe.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    25. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because monies.

    26. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by jargonburn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we save the rhetoric for when we need it?

      By the time we "need" it, it will be too late.

    27. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by russotto · · Score: 1

      You would prefer multiple agencies duplicating work, not coordinating operations, not sharing information, leaving gaps between organizations, etc.

      You bet. If we're to have tyranny, it's best tempered by incompetence.

    28. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazism was one particular implementation of fascism, numbnuts. The "rounding up and slaughtering of millions of people" has not featured in the vast majority of fascist states. FWIW, my family came from one: Spain. Spain under Franco, FWIW, was sustained for so long by American public and private investment, because by golly did he hate the Commies!

      What is more, several states involved in "rounding up and slaughtering [millions / hundreds of thousands] of people" were not fascist.

      Summary of today's lesson: "fascism", like "communism", "terrorism", "totalitarianism", "Orwellian", and all those other Internet Political Debate buzzwords, have specific meanings beyond "stuff I don't like".

    29. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dont joke, they have a Homeland Youth program in the school systems.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    30. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with this sort of hysteria is that it makes people forget how horrible true fascism is. It conflates looking for illegal downloaders with rounding up and slaughtering millions of people. Can we save the rhetoric for when we need it?

      "First, they came for the downloaders..."

    31. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your option to use your 'property' in a way you can use 'property' is gone

      What a load of specious bullshit. There is no law, except intellectual property law, which stops anyone from being able to copy any item of physical property. And if the owner of the first copy loses out financially, that's their fucking problem, as it was never the entitlement of the original owner.

      For example, if I have a bucket of water in a hot, locked room full of wealthy, thirsty people, I could get quite rich by selling that water. But it's not theft if one of those people then manages to build an apparatus to condense water vapour into their own bucket. That person created a copy of my bucket, and good for them.

      I grow redcurrants and sell the excess to my local shop for ~$1.50/punnet. If my neighbour grows their own redcurrants and walks into the shop in front of me with an identical punnet, satisfying their demand for redcurrants, my redcurrants have suddenly become much less valuable.

      IP law basically says I was the first with the bucket of water in a hot room or to plant a redcurrant bush, so let's create artificial scarcity even if it causes others to suffer. THERE is your physical analogy, you dullard.

    32. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      The poster has a point. Hyperbole and hysteria rarely makes things better. It often alternates the king of people that might be supportive of your view.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      DHS doesn't give a crap about the movie. It's the infrastructures that carry the pirated movie that they are after.

      It's a parallel argument, "Copyright infringement is un-American," (McCarthy impersonation)

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    34. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by tepples · · Score: 1

      In case both civil and criminal laws were violated.

    35. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In point of fact, you can "steal" a particular type of intellectual property: trade secrets. Though they don't make the Big 3 of IP (C, TM, patents), they actually make up something like 50% of actual IP (as well as agreements concerning/licensing them). Theft of trade secrets by foreign companies and government entities is a very real, very prevalent problem and a major US foreign policy issue. It counts as theft because depriving the owners of the "secret" part destroys most or all of its value as IP.

    36. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by lgw · · Score: 2

      No, the question is still, "WTF is a civil suit being investigated and prosecuted by the FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT!?!?!"

      It's basic public safety in this case. No sane person would want to watch "Expendables 3" in the first place. Evidence leading to 2 million people who are clearly dangers to themselves and others. I can see the federal police following that up. Much like that social experiment "Transformers 4" to catalog people who will watch any goddamned thing in the world as long at there are quickly moving CGI images and explosions (planned to replace Selective Service registration to get a list of names for the draft).

      But even mad science experiments can't explain recent Adam Sandler movies (Though when you see a $100 M budget for a film that probably cost $3 M to make, and was widely regarded as worst film of all time, well, someone saw The Producers).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Even weirder, the kids are forced (if only through peer pressure) to swear allegiance to the flag on a daily basis.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    38. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by popoutman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course it can be stolen.

      The simplest case: you have only one manuscript and no back ups, I steal it, it is gone.

      Then you've stolen a piece of physical property - not intellectual property...

      The complex case: I destroy your ability to market it, make money from it, use it as you feel fit. Your option to use your 'property' in a way you can use 'property' is gone, hence: it is stolen. And funnily it is worse than stolen, as I can not even give it back to you.

      What you describe is not theft - it's a form of obstruction. If it were actually property - it would be perfectly possible to return it - and by your own words it isn't. Again, copyright/trademark infringement is not theft, no matter how the *AA keep repeating it.

      It's a civil matter.

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    39. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Megol · · Score: 2

      Which Fascist government did that? What you are doing is similar of what you complain about, you conflate Fascism with the related but different National socialist a.k.a. nazi ideology.
      There are important differences and the similarities are mostly from 1) the fact that both were a reaction against decadence and the perceived weaknesses of the democratic system 2) that Adolf Hitler admired Mussolini and in many ways were inspired by the political foundations of the Fascist movement.

    40. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Copyright infringement is American," By its very nature it is finding the cheapest source of a product irrespective of the damage it causes (outsourcing jobs, etc).

      Also the US got its big start by copyright infringement, or did you think they "invented" all that industrial revolution equipment?
      So one could argue piracy/copyright infringement defined america in the past.

    41. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      ...and I assume your next complaint will be how inefficient government is and why the hell should you have to pay for inefficient government?!

    42. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      So when an artist creates something they can be copied by any big business that wants to. The individual has no recourse because the large company will just bury them in lawyers. So in effect you are saying that anyone who does not have the resources to defend their copyrights have no copyrights.

    43. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Will you be among those to blame the government when a piece of information known by the FBI was not connected to another piece of information known by the CIA and another 911 happens?

      The opposite could also happen. The FBI could overreact because they do not have a piece of information from another agency.

      Incompetence is not a good thing.

    44. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      So when an artist creates something they can be copied by any big business that wants to. The individual has no recourse because the large company will just bury them in lawyers. So in effect you are saying that anyone who does not have the resources to defend their copyrights have no copyrights.

      I'm saying that civil suits are the appropriate response to copyright infringement. If big companies can bury individuals with armies of lawyers such that nobody can defend themselves and their rights in court against big companies, then that's an issue with the court system; not anything specific to copyright law. If the court system is not doing its job and is effectively a place where whoever has the most money wins, that should be corrected. The process should not simply be replaced by SWAT teams.

      Let's assume the same thing happens in custody cases: that whoever has the most money always wins. Is the appropriate response to then simply have government agents arbitrarily decide who should have the kid(s) and send armed agents crashing through the doors and windows of the home of the one who didn't get picked? We should have fair courts where righteousness trumps legal trickery. If we don't, that's the problem we should solve.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    45. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for the other Anonymous Coward, but I *like* my government inefficient.

    46. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by russotto · · Score: 1

      Incompetence is not a good thing.

      Imagine an FBI so competent they could bust everyone for every single copyright and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violation they ever committed. And every other crime for that matter.

      No, I'll take incompetence over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.

    47. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You will talk a different tune when their incompetence puts you in jail.

      No, I'll take incompetence over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.

      Let me re-phrase that for you

      No, I'll take lawlessness over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.

    48. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The process should not simply be replaced by SWAT teams.

      No the process should be augmented by the district attorney's office who has the resources to protect the public.

      Is the appropriate response to then simply have government agents arbitrarily decide who should have the kid(s)

      No, The appropriate response is if for the government to appoint a lawyer to advocate for the parent in court. Just the same way the district attorney advocates for victims of crime.

    49. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      2 questions:

      1. do they have to do the Bellamy?
      2. do they get a ceremonial dagger?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    50. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you forget who pays for the federal fucking government? Besides the tax payer who has no say in anything that is.

    51. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Pinhedd · · Score: 1

      The DHS was created in large part to address the inability of other agencies to communicate and work together.

    52. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about America but in Australia this would qualify as a criminal case. It is the same as what happened with the simpsons movie here. Basically Australia has thresholds which change the status, is the copyright infringement commercial in nature (ie are you selling the copies, is the value over $5000 and or is it BEFORE the release date.

      Because the leak occurred before the theatrical release date it would shift into criminal statue here in Aus.

    53. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Well doing the Bellamy would fit into the current fascist direction of America and now a days it's probably a ceremonial firearm.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    54. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would trade your freedom for security?

      That's fine.

      HOW DARE YOU TRADE MINE!

    55. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by aybiss · · Score: 1

      Copyright is not only stealing, it's terrorism. Do try to keep up.

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
    56. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It often alternates the king of people that might be supportive of your view.

      FAIL. Smoke some more, man.

      I'd say you just alienated anyone who may have agreed with you. Hahaha! I mean if it's not worth proofreading why should it be worth taking seriously?

    57. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that a movie is considered a work of art, and as such, when you steal that work of art you are committing theft of intellectual property? Right? I'd hope so.

    58. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright's "protect" against theft of intellectual property. You're this "should" be considered this......is completely of basis. I'm not even sure how you got marked as "Insightful" for your obviously flawed view on what should and shouldn't be considered civil/federal matters. Is this slashdot anymore?

    59. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      All I described is 'theft' hence the law handles it similar to theft of tangible goods.

      You can argue around as much as you want. If I deprive you from utilizing something you own: it is theft.

      Lol, that has nothing to do with any *AA organization. I'm a coder, I already had enough trouble with people 'stealing' my property. I can assure you: there is no difference if they steal my CAD system and try to market it wasting me 5 years of development time or if some idiot steals my car. The car actually is easy to replace ... the 'lost code' or 'lost time' or gone marketing options: not at all

      You sound like one who actually never tried to make a product and sell it ... coding for a client is not the same.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    60. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Leaking copyrighted material before commercial release is a criminal act under 17 USC 506(a)(1)(c).

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

    61. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest case: you have only one manuscript and no back ups, I steal it, it is gone.

      Theft of physical property.

      The complex case: I destroy your ability to market it, make money from it, use it as you feel fit. Your option to use your 'property' in a way you can use 'property' is gone, hence: it is stolen. And funnily it is worse than stolen, as I can not even give it back to you.

      That's called "competition," and it's most certainly not stealing. You simply did not *gain*; you did not lose anything that was yours. Hint: Other people's money that they decided not to give you was never yours.

      Hint: the relevant laws are around 'intellectual PROPERTY' because it is a property it can be stolen, you can be deprived from it etc.

      "intellectual property" is nothing more than a propaganda umbrella term designed to conflate dissimilar concepts like copyrights, patents, and trademarks as if they're all the same, and to make them seem like real property.

      It's mere terminology. Just because some people call it "intellectual property" does not mean it can truly be stolen. As far as I know, the law doesn't recognize mere copyright infringement as theft at the moment.

    62. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      That is not theft, and they don't have the right to a secret. Free speech comes first, so if someone finds out their secret, too bad for them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    63. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      It's being copied, not stolen.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    64. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Because its felony theft. Not copyright issue. How do you supose the got a copy of the movie to upload. They sure didnt come by it legally seeing as the mivie isnt even out yet.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    65. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      You think felony theft before the file was ever uploaded isnt fucked up?

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    66. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      No they are coming for the people who stole the movie and uploaded it.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    67. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      So they stole the movie from some where before they uploaded it. See thats where the felony theft comes In.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    68. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Brain surgeon where do you think the got the files to upload since the movie isnt released yet? You dont think there might have been actual theft?

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    69. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Right so spending years working on something to have it stolen. Hey the movies not out yet genius how do you think the got it. They stole it.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    70. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Thats not at all what free speach is.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    71. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      Your message on Slashdot qualifies as free speech. Your message is data sent over the Internet, much like the data transmitted between people when copyrighted material is being copied. It is communication. It is free speech. And the first amendment makes everything clear when it says "Congress shall pass no law [...]". Since the first amendment is an amendment to the constitution, the earlier copyright clause was overridden. So, censorship like this is unconstitutional. Courts don't see it this way, but that's because they just modify the constitution with invisible ink rather than reading it.

      If you think that free speech is only about talking to other people, then you're wrong.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    72. Re: The DHS Is On The Case by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      And communicating a secret is also definitely speech. How could you even say that it's not?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    73. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I deprive you from utilizing something you own: it is theft.

      No, it isn't. Stop weaseling around.

      Theft: I take some thing from you so that you no longer have it but someone else does, for example myself.

      If I break your leg, I have (temporarily, hopefully) deprived you from utilizing it for walking, but I haven't stolen your ability to walk. I don't now have something that you previously had. Nothing has changed hands.

      To deprive someone of something can be theft, but only when it actually is theft. There are many examples of depriving people which have nothing to do with theft.

      There are different crimes and different laws for good reasons.

      So, again. Stop weaseling around.

    74. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      No the process should be augmented by the district attorney's office who has the resources to protect the public.

      Or, alternately, the resources to railroad members of the public into prison cells at the behest of politically connected corporate leaders.

      No, The appropriate response is if for the government to appoint a lawyer to advocate for the parent in court. Just the same way the district attorney advocates for victims of crime.

      The district attorney doesn't advocate for victims of crime. The district attorney is an advocate for the state prosecuting people accused of committing crimes. That's a critical distinction when you consider that the victims often have little or no say in whether or how the accused is charged and tried.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    75. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      funnily enough it would be kind of a throwback to pre Long Knives, when American kids would throw the Bellamy at the flag as they pledged allegiance.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    76. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by popoutman · · Score: 1

      All I described is 'theft' hence the law handles it similar to theft of tangible goods.

      Just because the law handles it in similar ways doesn't mean it's the same thing, no matter how much you try to argue this incorrect point.
      Copyright infringement is a civil offense - hence why there is no requirement for a three-letter-agency to look at it.

      As for your code being used elsewhere - that is still not theft as you've not been deprived of an actual item, You've been the victim of copyright infringement, which is not theft. Not nice to happen to you, but it is still not theft. And the treatment of offenders is (and can only be) treated as a civil case - but hey, you might make a decent bit of damages or out-of-court settlement ;)

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    77. Re:The DHS Is On The Case by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      On many countries the 'little damage' or out of court settlement does not work.

      in Germany e.g. you have to 'prove' that you went bankrupt because someone 'stole' your IP.

      Very easy for the culprit to say: he would have run bankrupt anyway.

      Your claim that it is not stealing simply comes from the fact you never really digged into the matter.

      If I lose the option to excersise my 'property rights' the 'thing' is 'stolen', plain simple.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Problem solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now, everyone will have to buy the actual movie. I'm sure this will work in Lionsgate's favor. After all, suing people and websites has been very successful in making copyright infringement vanish, yes?

    Make sure to sue them for billions of dollars in 'damages' (not gaining counts as damage) that you can't ever prove happened.

    1. Re:Problem solved! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their biggest loss will be the revenue lost from all the people that will get to see ahead of time what a turd this will be - BEFORE the Hollywood Bullshit Mega-Hype Machine has a chance to launch the hypnotic media assault that will try to trick the masses into thinking it's a good movie.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:Problem solved! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Well, we enjoyed the first two. But I will wait for the DVD, just as I did with the first two.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Problem solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the message I'm getting here is that I should probably download the movie?

      This is the most hype I've been exposed to for this movie.. Now I'm sold, download started.

      Thanks for the heads up!

    4. Re:Problem solved! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I won't even buy the DVD. for 90% of the movies i watch I wait for the $3.99 video on demand in standard definition. I have a nice HD TV but since most movies don't make use of it why should I bother paying more for something that should be standard by now.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Problem solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/28/5942939/i-torrented-the-expendables-3

      How it works out will all be in the spin

    6. Re:Problem solved! by mpe · · Score: 1

      Their biggest loss will be the revenue lost from all the people that will get to see ahead of time what a turd this will be - BEFORE the Hollywood Bullshit Mega-Hype Machine has a chance to launch the hypnotic media assault that will try to trick the masses into thinking it's a good movie.

      With the irony being that tame reviewers and those who nominate for industry awards are often able to see the thing in advance anyway.

    7. Re:Problem solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kinda liked the 2nd one, but this one's nearly as bad as the first. I'd rate them:

      Expendables 1: 2/5
      Expendables 2: 3.5/5
      Expendables 3: 2.5/5

    8. Re:Problem solved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But but but ... without HD, you won't actually see how OLD all the Expandables actors really got...

    9. Re:Problem solved! by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Wow. Just wow. I have to wonder how much money they stuffed up that guy's ass to write that "review". My God, there wasn't that much gushing at Spindletop!

      Kind of makes you wonder if the "leak" wasn't deliberate. It would be hysterically ironic if the DHS investigation proved THAT out...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  3. There's a "Has-Bens 3"? by Animats · · Score: 0

    I didn't even know there was a Has-Bens 2.

    1. Re:There's a "Has-Bens 3"? by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      That's probably why they have leaked it.

      Now they use the court case to both play innocent and maintain presence in the news.

      It's a win-win for them.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  4. Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by waddgodd · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'll LMAO when the reveal comes that the leaked copy turns out to have little, if anything, to do with the actual movie they release

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
    1. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you put even a single second of thought into this? Why would they spend a bunch of money creating a "fake" movie that they can leak to torrent sites?

      Either:
      (a) It is much worse than the real thing, and it will generate lots of negative press that stops potential customers from going to see the movie
      (b) It is much better than the real thing, and it will generate a PR shitstorm over the fact that they put the worse version in theatres
      (c) It is neither significantly better nor significantly worse than the real thing, and what did they gain versus simply leaking the real thing? (Or just, you know, not leaking anything)

    2. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'll LMAO when the reveal comes that the leaked copy turns out to have little, if anything, to do with the actual movie they release.

      Alternativly maybe someone should just tell them that "sitting on" a completed movie might not be the most sensible of business models in the first place.

    3. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by tigersha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to. Since when is it your right to tell them what to do? Do you think you will be happy if Lionsgate takes your personal documents with the argument that you should not be sitting on it for so long?

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    4. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Releasing all the "summer blockbusters" at the same time is an even worse business model...

    5. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Why would they spend a bunch of money creating a "fake" movie that they can leak to torrent sites?

      He didn't actually claim that they would. Quite likely he meant that it could well have been one of those cases where an early version of the movie was heavily reworked before release (including being re-edited, having scenes dropped or reshot and/or entirely new ones added) for various reasons.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    6. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to. Since when is it your right to tell them what to do?

      People are entitled to "tell" them what they like. (*) They don't have to like, nor follow that advice, but the OP is perfectly entitled to free speech on the matter- that doesn't infringe upon their right of ownership as you seem to think it does.

      They're free to do what they want with their intellectual property, but they're not exempt from having people be able to say that what they're doing with it is stupid. Your implication appears to be a not-so-distant relative of the ever-popular "If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it, so you have no right to criticise it" fallacy.

      Do you think you will be happy if Lionsgate takes your personal documents with the argument that you should not be sitting on it for so long?

      No, I think Lionsgate would be entitled to tell him what they liked, and he'd be entitled to ignore their advice and tell them to p**s off if he so wished.

      (*) Not, realistically, that they're likely to even notice- let alone care- about what a random person on a geek website is advising them, but that's beside the point here.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    7. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by mpe · · Score: 1

      Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to.

      The question isn't if they have the right to do so. It's if doing so is a sensible way to go about making money from movies. Which is ostensivly what Liongate is doing.Where rights may come into it is that courts in places such as Canada take a very dim view of suing for copyright infringement in relation to products which arn't "on sale" in the first place.

    8. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's a real knee slapper

    9. Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try actually working in media production.

      What happens is that the wealthy come along and pay you the least they can while avoiding the government heavies, while laying claim to your hard work (unless you feel that spending 7 hours non-stop in a small 2 foot radius circle, hunched over behind a camera, listening to the headset for your calls isn't hard work) and redirecting government funding into station running costs, where that funding was intended to cover your wages.

      They then go and bill the other party thousands of dollars for the privilege of having us film them ("staff and equipment costs"), even though most of our equipment is borrowed, stolen (borrowed without signing for and kept until the company forgot they even owned it), or damaged (mostly borrowed equipment that gets knocked about) and the staff get virtually nothing. The profits go into the pocket of the owners, and the employees are usually out of pocket for something or other, as well as having their employment rights violated.

      Employees also get told that they have a great opportunity gifted to them them and should be happy to be paid at all. My lot also do about an hour for free every week, sometimes more.

      So before you go complaining about how the poor investors are losing money, have a thought for the poor people who make the damned shows; they get fuck all for their time, effort, and discomfort.

  5. homeland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In addition to the lawsuit, the Dept. of Homeland Security is on the case.

    Yes, musn't let those t'urrists violate copyright, or they win!

    1. Re:homeland by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Damn tourists.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  6. Department of Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Department of Homeland Security! seriously?

  7. Glad to Know by hduff · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm glad to know that DHS has solved all the critical security issues of our nation so that they can devote their resources to Expendables 3.

    I feel safe and secure now.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:Glad to Know by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Maybe the movie reveals how someone can sneak across the border without getting caught. That's a DHS concern.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Glad to Know by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      But don't you know that piracy promotes terrorism? Or maybe the DHS got the wrong definition of piracy, you know, the one where people actually get raped and killed.

    3. Re:Glad to Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, it's cute how you threw every Fox News talking point into one sentence!

    4. Re:Glad to Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they just wanted to make sure the movie wasn't about *them*

    5. Re:Glad to Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, it's cute how liberals don't know the difference between a sentence and a paragraph.

    6. Re:Glad to Know by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Aww isn't that cute, you actually believe the administration is telling you the truth. When the Obama administration has started dumping illegals all over the US.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Glad to Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww, isn't it cute watching fools argue with one another?

    8. Re:Glad to Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protecting the nation... one movie at a time

      - Anon Coward

    9. Re:Glad to Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shit I got one more!

      In Movies We Trust

  8. Business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their business model is releasing crap and then suing when it hits the torrent sites.

  9. A marketing plot to promote another movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Meh. A marketing plot of Lionsgate to promote another movie. At the same time that they victimize themselves while criminalizing their clients.

    Don't mind that those dreaded pirates helps them to rake so much money from people's pockets.

  10. In Soviet USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the government body on the leash of private corporation

  11. Corruption in USA reached new levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Using government agencies for private investigative work. How more corrupt can you be?

    And they don't even hide it anymore. People in the USA are just slaves of corporations nothing more.

  12. Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by gweihir · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And surely these evil scum will get what they deserve when they and all their loved ones are killed in a justifiable drone-strike!

    Seriously, this is what a police-state looks like, there is no way to deny it anymore.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Imagine if you were an author who wrote a book... with said book being pirated before it even was released, only to be downloaded a couple million times. How would that make you feel?

      I imagine there is a balance of publicity, and the lost revenue by the number of pirates who don't end up seeing/purchasing the movie in the future.

      However, I do think we should cap it at one year jail; 3 times the costs of what's pirated; plus court costs, when it comes to piracy.

    2. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine if you were an author who wrote a book... with said book being pirated before it even was released, only to be downloaded a couple million times. How would that make you feel?

      Assuming that by piracy you mean "shared for free" and not taking over of oil tankers off the coast of Somalia, I'd be laughing all the way to the bank because...

      a) a book downloaded million times even before it's out would also be sold in millions of copies because it is clearly a most wanted book;
      b) all those prizes for literature I'd rake in - again, cause it is such a fantastic book;
      c) future contracts for my other books based on being "one of the most sought after and most read authors of our time";
      d) FUCK YOU SHAKESPEARE!
      e) movie rights;
      f) merch;
      g) "More people read this book than the Bible - find out why" sells;

      Also, every single book by Stephen King is out there in a scanned and OCR-ed form, yet people still keep buying his books, old and new, while publishers keep paying him millions of dollars on a promise of writing a new book.
      And last I checked Metallica still keeps on making and selling albums despite Napster forcing them to sell both their kidneys, lungs, livers, testicles and feet to pay for piratizing costs they had to face.

      It's free publicity.
      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However, I do think we should cap it at one year jail; 3 times the costs of what's pirated; plus court costs, when it comes to piracy."

      So basically.... you're saying they should have their lives destroyed. Don't fucking kid yourself, that's exactly what this would do to the average person.

    4. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I would learn that I should not make and mail out easily copied DVD's of yet to be released works.

    5. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You do know that you just invented that crap about a drone strike? And then used your fabrication to say "WE R IN POLIZZZ STAT! WHARRRRGARBL". What's scary is people like you really believe this.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re: Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by jeIIomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You obviously don't work on anything creative or else you might think differently.

      You claim to speak for all people who work on anything "creative"? And what does what he works on have to do with the validity of his arguments? It's always funny to me to see people say that the people directly involved in the situation are more right than anyone else. Have you ever heard of something called "bias"? Of course people who stand to gain from a policy are going to support it in most cases! They're not any more incorrect, either, because people's arguments stand on their own merits.

      Just because you don't want to pay for content does not mean you have the right to obtain it for free because the creator is not missing out on selling it to you.

      I do have a right to free speech and my own private property. People voluntarily send me data (free speech) using their own private property (private property rights); the person or people who originally organized the data are almost never involved in this process, and at most, they simply do not gain; that is not the same as losing something.

      Yet, some people think it's okay to have the 'right' to have government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon free speech and private property rights. I'd prefer to let the free market handle things; if you can't figure out a way to profit in the Age of Information, then you're going to fail, and that's really how it should be.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      And surely these evil scum will get what they deserve when they and all their loved ones are killed in a justifiable drone-strike!

      Seriously, this is what a police-state looks like, there is no way to deny it anymore.

      A police state run for more than half a decade by Barack Obama. Right?

      For some reason, there's a taboo about connecting that dot.

    8. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      shhhh stop making sense. you know its not allowed around here.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    9. Re: Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ffs it's not funny anymore when people missue the term piracy because corporations knew they can get better buy in than using the actual term ....copyright infringement.

      That you have allowed the corporate misrepresentation to stand as a common mis-use is your mistake not ours.

    10. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2

      You seriously want to put this to jail time?

      Two million people jailed a year for downloading Expendables 3? Who's going to man these jails? Who's going to pay for them.

      Let's be fucking realistic please. Make it 10 times the retail cost of the copyright infringed item plus court costs and call it a day. But the person sueing has to prove that you're the one that infringed copyright. Not just a blind IP address.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    11. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by mpe · · Score: 1

      a) a book downloaded million times even before it's out would also be sold in millions of copies because it is clearly a most wanted book;

      That would also be a good thing if you were a new or relativly unknown author. Since for these people the biggest problem can be getting their books published in the first place. Something which "self publishing" can help with.
      Though in such a situation you don't know how many of those people would have bought the book. You can't even know if it would have been so popular as a free ebook in the Amazon Kindle store.

    12. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by mpe · · Score: 1

      Make it 10 times the retail cost of the copyright infringed item plus court costs and call it a day. But the person sueing has to prove that you're the one that infringed copyright. Not just a blind IP address.

      Of course for something which isn't released the "retail cost" is zero. With the "plus court costs" bit probably not being applicable with vexatious litigation either.

    13. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      While I don't necessarily disagree with you in regards to the benefits of free downloads, if I wrote the book, shouldn't I be the one who decides how it is going to be distributed and marketed? Or at the very least, someone that I have decided will have that responsibility (i.e., a publisher)?

    14. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The drone strike may have been invented, and the poster used no such idiotic language as your dumb attempt at mockery. However, there are little examples of un-monitored "freedom" remaining in the US, our police are highly militarized and have an us vs. them mentality, and (the point of this post) law enforcement resources are used to further the priorities of corporations when those resources could in most peoples' opinions be used better elsewhere.

      Drone strikes, meanwhile, are very real as is drone surveillance. We have laws specifically designed to try to help law enforcement get around the 4th amendment, and the court system has yet to strike meaningful blows against them.

      In what manner does this not sound like a police state?

    15. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is irrelevant. He is just continuing the work of others. Also, US citizens regularly overestimate the importance and power of their president massively.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re: Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several years ago I dated a chick who worked in the mailroom of a huge IP lawfirm, they would receive the first cuts of studio films, and as I understood, their friends and family... so it seemed ironic to me that the source of immediate infringements were those hired to protect the property.

    17. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The publisher also takes the lion's share of the profits, leaving you with very little. They don't want you to become wealthy off your first novel, they want you to keep writing and making money for them. You do the hard work, they get the cash, that sounds like win to any investor.

    18. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by denzacar · · Score: 1

      if I wrote the book, shouldn't I be the one who decides how it is going to be distributed and marketed? Or at the very least, someone that I have decided will have that responsibility (i.e., a publisher)?

      That is a whole different argument.
      OP was not commenting on the ways of distribution and marketing but was instead parroting the fallacy that sharing for free is stealing.

      As for distribution and marketing... no... you don't get to decide that if you want to make money from your book.
      You specifically sell or lease your rights to the publisher/distributor.

      Should they be the ones to decide how it is distributed and marketed?
      That's a whole ANOTHER argument.

      Which involves at this moment completely hypothetical relationships between them and you, as well as hypothetical issues such as are you being exploited in the deal, and very real issues such as is the present and future audience being exploited through lobbying for stricter and longer copyright regulations...

      And they are all completely IRRELEVANT because - it is not an issue of distribution or marketing but of free publicity.
      And unless you have a problem with your books being popular... in which case you can try the Salinger approach - sorry, but you have as little say today on the free sharing of your book as someone back a hundred years ago had on someone quoting, reading to others or summarizing the story in their books.
      Lament the change or embrace it. Either way, the world moved on.

      Progress didn't outright kill the old business model, it just made it less profitable with some particular strategies.
      In return, now the market is global, instantaneous and distribution and marketing costs are ZERO.
      Have you thought about releasing your works in episodes and through subscription?
      It worked great for Charles Dickens.

      On a side note... I never heard of anyone getting their pirated PDF copy signed by the author.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    19. Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is unfortunate that Napster did not succeed in staunching Metallica's creative death-spiral. But In this case, here we have Lionsgate mostly creating advertising. It's a second sequel to a movie nobody heard about in the first place. If 180k downloads have happened, that's probably double the number who would have seen it theatrically. "Near DVD quality" is hardly impressive in 2014 and they worked hard to find six obscure sites. I'm not getting into the copyright argument on either side here, but I think it likely that this is more about publicity for a bomb of a movie than the ostensible rights.

  13. Unknown Individuals? by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

    In other words, they haven't found the source of the leak yet, but want everyone to think they have...

    --
    Worst. Signature. Ever.
    1. Re:Unknown Individuals? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Oh, they have. Everybody that has uploaded even a single block of the movie is one of the sources. They are the ringleaders who must be taken down for the good of humanity.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  14. DHS keeping us safe. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    This is the DHS keeping us safe at its finest. After they got this licked they just need to prevent the theatrical release, DVD, and Netflix copies, and then through the writers and directors of Expendables 3 in to Gitmo.

  15. A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With our Military starved for funds, our schools in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbling, I can think of no better use for Federal tax dollars then to ensure that some corporation makes a profit.

    Recall Congress.

  16. Thanks Slashdot for seeding this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks Slashdot for seeding this!

  17. I love a good mole hunt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offer a reward of the percentage based on the lost earnings!

  18. Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll by tigersha · · Score: 2

    Do you think spending Federal Dollars on law enforcement to make sure you keep the stuff in your home from criminal gangs is a good idea? Because they are preventing you from profiting from your work too.

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  19. Why DHS? by jklovanc · · Score: 0

    All these comments about DHS should be doing other things than dealing with copyright laws are just stupid. By that logic no police officers should be catching burglars because there are murders who have not be caught yet. The police deal with this by having some officers assigned to a homicide squad and others assigned to a robbery squad. The DHS is a huge organization and they have many jobs to do. One of their departments is ICE which has a task of looking into copyright infringement. Just because their most important job is not complete (and never will be) does not mean they can or should neglect their others jobs.

    1. Re:Why DHS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By that logic no police officers should be catching burglars because there are murders who have not be caught yet.

      There's not really an analogy that would show just how wrong it is for the government to try to enforce copyrights. I know I don't want my own government wasting money trying to prevent people from copying such data merely because it could mean that a corporation did not gain as much as it wanted to. So I just think that the government should not deal with such matters *at all*. The DHS is a scumbag organization, and so are many of the organizations that are under it (like the TSA).

      But what's the point? You're a copyright troll.

  20. Nice by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Steven Seagal, crime fighter, will destroy the houses of the offenders with a tank.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...

  21. Cool! I didn't know Expendables 3 was available. by jolyonr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thank you slashdot!

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  22. Why DHS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is there any department devoted to copyright issues in the DHS at all?

  23. corporate welfare for the scum of the Earth by dltaylor · · Score: 2

    Wanna sue the gov't for something meaningful? Sue to get ALL of it (DHS, FBI, local cops, whatever) away from filling the welfare trough for the studio scum.

    The Blu-Ray for "Under the Skin" has 11 MINUTES of uninterruptible BS before the menu (but, yes, she IS that hot). The torrent is a better product; "let the marketplace decide".

  24. Awesome! (p1r4at3b4y dot se) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank god they sued people over this, I may not have known otherwise!

  25. People have to be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How easy it is to ignore the fact the that the people who created this movie need to be paid. Not only the actors, writers, directors but the hairdressers, electricians and even the computer special effect workers. And God forbid that investors who fronted the money in the hope of a return on their investment should realize a profit. At least the Capitalists who wish to to profit from the labor of others paid for that privilege unlike simple thieves.

    1. Re:People have to be paid by FSWKU · · Score: 2

      How easy it is to ignore the fact the that the people who created this movie need to be paid.

      They're paid for services rendered at the time of completion.

      Not only the actors, writers, directors but the hairdressers, electricians and even the computer special effect workers.

      All these people are paid just like you would pay any other contractor. They do the work, you cut them a check. They all work for a set, specified rate, not for any cut in the profits. Those who do earn based off ticket sales are usually A-listers with enough clout to negotiate for a cut of the gross, not the net. So no matter how poorly it does in the box office, these people still get a cut of whatever it brings in.

      And God forbid that investors who fronted the money in the hope of a return on their investment should realize a profit.

      ANY investment prospectus will tell you that "All investment carries some degree of risk." This means that when you invest in something, yes, you expect a profit. But you also have to accept the possibility that the money you put in will go up in smoke. By your logic, I should be able to sue whoever I invest with if my mutual fund doesn't give me a 500% ROI. They decided to invest in something, they knew it was a risk. Lets not forget that the investors are going to be the LEAST damaged by any of this, since one film is simply a line-item in their ledger.

      That being said, downloading films in this manner IS ethically questionable. Mass downloading can make a studio earn a reduced profit. But reduced profit is not a monetary loss. The real loss is that if the profit reduction is large enough, they have less incentive to produce any more films that require actual effort. The more this happens, the more you get dreck that caters to the lowest common denominator (such as The Expendables whose mass downloading furthers the cycle), and filmmaking is reduced to an exercise in formulaic cinematography to maximize monetization and merchandising paradigms (and other such buzzword-y bullshit). THIS is the real cost of mass copyright infringement - an art form reduced to a paint-by-numbers affair where no one dares to make anything truly unique. And to me, this cost is far, FAR worse than any perceived monetary loss.

      At least the Capitalists who wish to to profit from the labor of others paid for that privilege unlike simple thieves.

      How many times does it need to be said that COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT?. Theft is the taking of something tangible which deprives the individual owner of its use. Downloading a copy of some bits does not deprive the original owner of said bits. They still have them, and can still use them for their intended purpose.

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    2. Re:People have to be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're paid for services rendered at the time of completion.

      And not particularly well, at that - for the most part.

      All these people are paid just like you would pay any other contractor. They do the work, you cut them a check. They all work for a set, specified rate, not for any cut in the profits.

      This is bang on, although the rate is often "negotiated" insofar as you get told "This is what we offer, if you don't like it you can piss off to a supermarket."

  26. Torrent link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's the actual torrent: The Expendables 3 2014 DVDSCR XviD-VAiN.

  27. Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you main evil scum that puts really bad cam copies on tpb, I'm all for it. But in this case that issue seems to have been adequately handled.

  28. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But Expendables 3 was pure caca! Forget straight to DVD, now it's straight to torrent and recycle-bin.

  29. So by vlad30 · · Score: 2

    A movie not released yet only available to those who have a stake in it is released seems to me someone doesn't believe its worth it or doesn't like their boss BTW I believe a movie ticket DVD or blu-ray is over priced

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    1. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you oblivious do not believe in periods I might try that so that I too can write like a complete moron

    2. Re:So by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      And you, my dear sir, need to go back and review your debate 101.
      *heavy sarcasm*Because obviously insulting someone for forgetting periods is a great way to make a point.

  30. Yes, it's too late now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people already found out this third movie is crap.

  31. Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll by jeIIomizer · · Score: 2

    Because they are preventing you from profiting from your work too.

    Copyright infringement, at most, causes you to not gain something (other people's money, which they chose not to give you); it does not cause you to lose anything tangible.

    If you honestly think that the government should waste money trying to stop people from voluntarily copying movies and such using their own private property, then I think you may be a bit mentally unstable. Copyright is anti-free market, anti-free speech, and anti-real private property.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  32. Merriam-Webster by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    "Full Definition of THEFT
    1
    a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it "

    I'll bet that the vast majority of those who complain that their theives took their intellectual property will discover that in fact they still in actuality have it in their possession.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    1. Re:Merriam-Webster by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Dear EzinKy,

      THANK YOU!

      Sincerely,

      A Content Creator.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  33. The greater insult by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While this has probably lost them some money, I have always felt that one of the reasons that the movie industry hates torrents is that it gives people such a wide choice that crappy films don't end up being downloaded. How insulting must it be when your precious darling of a film is so undesired that people won't even take it for free.

    Not to mention that movies that aren't being "professionally" distributed suddenly have some traction.

    1. Re:The greater insult by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      if you believe their frankly shoddy bookkeeping, Hollywood has been losing money hand over fist since it was founded. Maybe they're in the wrong fucking business, should get back to pure racketeering, Mr. Meyer??

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  34. Don't forget to sue this site ... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    This site also makes torrents available. You can get the Expendables torrent here

    1. Re:Don't forget to sue this site ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The links in Google point to the pirate torrent sites.

    2. Re:Don't forget to sue this site ... by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      In a way, that is aiding and abetting.
      Why do you think Google gets those complaints from the media-content industries even when they don;t actually do anything wrong?

  35. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government is composed of, and serves, the Aristocracy.

    This happens to *all* countries over time. No matter how they are founded, they become more aristocratic, with the wealthy gaining ever more control over governance, and governance serving their needs rather than the needs of the people at large.

    The only exceptions to this rule are governments that simply start out that way.

    Any really, why in the world would anyone expect otherwise? Wealth is real economic power. Governance is the exercise of power. This is how humans do things.

  36. Re:Cool! I didn't know Expendables 3 was available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't know the characters from the first two movies it's not worth watching.

  37. So ther person that released it by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    will be sought out and charged with copyright infringement?

    Why not use this in advertising. This moves was so anticipated it was seen by 180,000 downloaders in the first 24 hours.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:So ther person that released it by Kagato · · Score: 1

      If it was a review copy most likely it contains a uniquie hidden watermark. There are several firms in Hollywood that specialize in pressing watermarked screening DVDs. I would guess they would have already been questioned.

  38. Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll by mpe · · Score: 1

    With our Military starved for funds, our schools in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbling, I can think of no better use for Federal tax dollars then to ensure that some corporation makes a profit.

    How much tax does said corporation pay anyway?

  39. Hey Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did not know the movie was online , thanks. Saved me thinking this looks cool from the trailers, it stank.

    Also thanks for the list of new torrent sites.

    PS, come sue me, I am in Canada. We will just tell you to get bent.

  40. Silly, you can't win that. by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

    That's like suing the contractor that built a freeway because the freeway was used to transport drugs. Even if, by some absurd chance, you win, there are a thousand other torrent sites out there and your movie was on them within hours. Knocking out a couple of those sites will have absolutely no effect on piracy. If you want to stop leaks go after the leaker. If you've got any sense at all, each of your DVD screeners has unique watermarks and can be traced to the person to whom it was issued. Fire that person, sue that person, and blacklist them. That at least would have a chance of reducing future leaks.

  41. The Double Standard by westlake · · Score: 2

    Theft of intellectual property should be a criminal matter.
    Copyright infringement should be a civil matter

    Perhaps it is the August heat.

    But don't see any meaningful distinction here.

    The geek wants to share the unlicensed movies he has downloaded with 10,000 of his closest friends on the P2P nets.

    But when his own IP is threatened he will be the first to call the cops.

    1. Re:The Double Standard by Loki_1929 · · Score: 2

      Theft: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
      Copyright infringement: the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works.

      A copyright owner has the right to control how their protected works are reproduced and distributed. When that right is violated, a civil suit is an appropriate response. When someone steals your car, a criminal investigation by government authorities is an appropriate response. In this case, theft of the movie would entail someone (or a group of someones) taking the only available copies from their rightful owner such that the original owner no longer had access.

      It may not seem like an important distinction from where you're sitting, but it's important in that we shouldn't have SWAT teams busting down teenagers' doors because they shared a movie on the Internet.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:The Double Standard by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      t may not seem like an important distinction from where you're sitting, but it's important in that we shouldn't have SWAT teams busting down teenagers' doors because they shared a movie on the Internet.

      SWAT teams are not used in every criminal matter so stop sensationalizing. There are many criminal matters that involve arrests without SWAT teams. I see nothing wrong with issuing an arrest warrant and sending a couple of cops to arrest someone violating copyright.

    3. Re:The Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me do to you what you did further up the thread:

      I see nothing wrong with issuing an arrest warrant and sending a couple of cops to arrest someone for a civil and not criminal matter.

      Because that is precisely what it is: a civil matter, for civil law, not a criminal matter.

    4. Re:The Double Standard by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The geek wants to share the unlicensed movies he has downloaded with 10,000 of his closest friends on the P2P nets.

      But when his own IP is threatened he will be the first to call the cops.

      Uh, care to cite any cases where DHS has stepped into pursue a GPL-violation case?

    5. Re: The Double Standard by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      They arent. They are looking for the person who stole and leaked the movie and sueing the torrent sites.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    6. Re: The Double Standard by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Nobody stole the movie. The studio still has it. What someone did was copy the movie without the permission of the copyright holder, thereby committing copyright infringement, which is a civil matter. Or at least it would be if our government weren't the enforcement wing of its benevolent corporate benefactors.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    7. Re: The Double Standard by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      No dude. They took a physical thing from where it belonged without permission. Then they copied it. The 500 or so people that worked on it not withstanding the productio. Company is publicly traded and probably has more then a few 401k invested in them because of the previous 2 movies return on investment. So know the movie has less value will generate less return and your dad is going to have to blow other men in the park because to make up the difference in what the movie would predictably have made. See thats why its a crime. Because not only rich people own stocks in companies like lions gate, warnwr etc... but you go with that its not hurting anyone argument and frame it next to your participation medal.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  42. Watermark your DVDs Lionsgate by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    If they had applied a unique digital watermark to each of the DVDs they could track down the person who uploaded their copy and prosecute him. Applied consistently, this policy would be far more effective in stamping out unauthorized release of screeners.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Watermark your DVDs Lionsgate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does not work, source uploads remove watermarks by blurring the watermarked areas, by the time the majority of people see it, the watermark is gone, and only the release group has seen it, who will do what it takes to protect their sources.

    2. Re:Watermark your DVDs Lionsgate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They made Enders Game rubbish (How they managed it I dunno). If they didn't manage to do that right they won't do anything else right as far as I am concerned.

      I think the people leaking these things manage to get rid of the watermarks anyway.

    3. Re:Watermark your DVDs Lionsgate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... they could track down the person who uploaded their copy and prosecute him. ...

      That just might dampen the enthusiasm of future screeners.

  43. Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have felt no guilt for illegal downloads since I learned about Hollywood Accounting. Having said that, I have no plans to download this. I didn't see any of the Expandables movies because they looked like mindless crap.

  44. The Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lionsgate leaked the movie onto the Internet themselves just to sue people, because they knew how shit it was and how poorly it would do.

    Got to make that money back somehow.

  45. Region coding by tepples · · Score: 1

    Tourists and their taking vacations to watch region locked content.

  46. Copyresponsibility by tepples · · Score: 1

    Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to.

    How, pray tell, does giving an author this right "promote the progress of science and useful arts"?

    1. Re:Copyresponsibility by tigersha · · Score: 1

      The Expendables is hardly art and definitely not science

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    2. Re:Copyresponsibility by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The Expendables is hardly art and definitely not science

      Well, you're basically arguing that it shouldn't be copyrightable at all then. That is the purpose of copyright - the promotion of science and the useful arts.

      Art is whatever people thing it is. I have no problem with movies being copyrightable. Maybe if the copyright term wasn't infinite companies might try to release things a bit faster so as to recoup the maximum profit during the period it was copyrighted? You don't see drug companies just sitting on new drugs - they usually have only a decade to make money off of them and there is every incentive to hit the ground running.

  47. Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

    military starved for funds? i work for the military and there is as much waste at the end of this fiscal year as there was for any other. if they dont waste it, they dont get as much to waste next year. the military "budget cuts" are bullshit, theyre still receiving far more than they know what to do with

  48. The DHS Is On The Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We are officially 100% broken.

    Principles broken?
    1. Check...rights of the individual subverted by corps with money.
    2. Check...freedom threatened because industries can't adapt to a free market that is being disrupted
    3. Check...our representatives selling our government

    Rationally broken?
    1. Check...2 million downloads of a bit pattern is deemed equivalent to theft.
    2. Check...protecting a middle man distribution company rather than the consumers or the producers of real products.

    Creatively and culturally broken?
    1. Check...I mean it's a sequel of the funking EXPENDABLES for fuck's sake.

    This is how it all ends not with a bang but with the sound of a million douches.

  49. piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this movie is a piece of shit who cares

  50. Well deserved.. by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The movie is full of post-talent douchebags for the most part, and Lionsgate is truly a 'lion' when it comes to going after people for the smallest and often unintentional cases of copyright infringement...they once paid out my friend 5k for a 3D gun model he had owned that was used in a DVD cover they produced (through a 3rd party mind you) without consent. Seems they don't give a shit about their own copyright violations and pay/pressure people into tiny settlements, but when it comes to downloading their gear, they go over the top.

    Here is the type of line that lets me know the movie is a piece of shit, and deserves *downloading* rather than paying way too much to see at a theatre: "Willis was offered $3 million for four days of shooting in Bulgaria, but Willis wanted $4 million". If the movie were anything other than a cash grab to rape box-office-groupies of their hard earned money, actors would _seek_ roles in the film rather than demand an extra million for *4 DAYS OF WORK*.

    1. Re:Well deserved.. by phorm · · Score: 1

      Uh, so they paid out the model at $5k even though the violation was actually committed by a third-party? I'm not sure how much the model would normally be worth but depending on what was involved prior to obtaining a settlement, 5k doesn't sound terrible.

    2. Re:Well deserved.. by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not as simple as that - and probably not worth getting into details (from shoddy memory :P) but I think part of my point here was:

      When Lionsgate is using others' copyright property, they end up paying about the cost of what they stole.

      When you steal Lionsgate property, they expect you to pay a high 'penalty' fee on top of the actual cost of the property.

      I don't hear about anyone being sued for $7 or whatever the movie theatre ticket would have cost.

  51. bravo lionsgate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in all reality Lionsgate should be thankful that people downloaded it. I mean who actually would have PAID to see that steaming pile of crap. First one was ok, Second one.. well less so. In this case 3rd time is not a charm.

  52. Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nearly zero, since they're using Hollywood accounting.