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