Movie Studio Sues Individual Popcorn Time Users For Infringement

is there no mercy?? by nimbius · 2015-08-20 03:53 · Score: 5, Funny

stars Adam Sandler

You sadistic bastards...as if an Adam Sandler film isnt a punishment unto itself.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

Re:is there no mercy?? by sacrilicious · 2015-08-20 04:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Given that it stars Sandler, I propose that it should have been called The Gock Cobbler.

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Re:is there no mercy?? by Fire_Wraith · 2015-08-20 04:46 · Score: 4, Funny

If anything, the movie studios should owe money to the viewers for having had to watch that.
Re:is there no mercy?? by Nemesisghost · 2015-08-20 05:42 · Score: 1

I was about to say, of course they sued, it's the only way that movie could have made money. I want to sue Netflix for promoting it & letting me watch it. It was horrible.
Re:is there no mercy?? by amiga3D · 2015-08-20 06:32 · Score: 1

It literally isn't worth stealing. In fact, the studio execs should be arrested for stealing money from everyone that paid to see it. They all thought they were going to see entertainment and instead were ripped off.
Re:is there no mercy?? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 08:24 · Score: 0

These people are obviously eeeevilll.
No. Really. The Cobbler? It's actually on Netflix. Most likely proof I can see that this is actually a plot by the studio. No self-respecting pirate would actually download this film.

Warning by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 03:55 · Score: 0

Popcorn Time does warn people that if you use it, it will appear as if you're using torrent software and your IP address will be shown. You have to use it through a VPN or the copyright police can catch you.

Re:Warning by o_ferguson · 2015-08-20 04:40 · Score: 0

Or just live in a jurisdiction with a sane copyright mentality.

--
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Re:Warning by kthreadd · 2015-08-20 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's sane about allowing large-scale copyright infringement?
Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 05:37 · Score: 0

Or if you plan on watching shitty movies that are already on netflix, shell out the 8 bucks. Seriously. If 8 fucking dollars is too money, you have other problems and entertainment should be very far down on your list.
Re:Warning by o_ferguson · 2015-08-20 05:50 · Score: 1

The same things that are insane about usage rights restrictions.

--
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Re:Warning by hackwrench · 2015-08-20 06:01 · Score: 2

It isn't copyright infringement if the laws of another country has passed a law saying it isn't and you happen to be in that country.
Re:Warning by Cederic · 2015-08-20 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Allowing large-scale copyright infringement.
What's sane about current copyright laws?
Re:Warning by hackwrench · 2015-08-20 06:07 · Score: 1

Money and law are just tools that societies use to manage the situation society has found itself in.

On the other hand, there are laws for something called expired debt, Here's a link describing it: http://www.foxbusiness.com/per...
Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 07:48 · Score: 0

What's sane about allowing large-scale copyright infringement?
What's sane about the government forcing you to accept personal checks from an individual who has a proven history of writing nothing but bad checks?
It's pretty much the same difference.
Copyright comes with a cost, and that cost is that after a limited time the work is no longer "owned" but belongs to the public at large.
This cost has consistently and constantly been unpaid for decades now.
Large copyright holders are in general thieves not making good on their payments.
Hell, even most of the small copyright holders skirt their debts just the same, although I'd be more willing to give a small holder the benefit of the doubt on their first offense.
When you consistently and constantly write bad checks, eventually people stop accepting your checks all together.
Similarly, we the people have decided to not honor future copyright claims by these people since all past payments have gone unpaid, and there is no reason to believe future ones will be paid either.
If you happen to disagree with that cost and not wish to pay it, well, unfortunately it sucks to be you if you live in the US.
The US government decided you shouldn't have such control over works you create, and you are forced into this deal like it or not.
While I agree the above is also unfair (and personally would love to see that choice put back into the hands of the people creating works), the fact of the matter is you have to go complain to your government.
Until they change that, like it or not, you have a cost attached to every work you create that must be paid in full. It's the law after all.
Re:Warning by rsborg · 2015-08-20 10:55 · Score: 1

What's sane about allowing large-scale copyright infringement?
The sanity of large-scale copyright infringement is based in large part on the insanity of essentially perpetual copyright (life + 70 years is pretty damn long).

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 11:06 · Score: 0

The copyrighted works in question turn out to only be available on DRMed media, so they shouldn't have been granted the special favor of copyright in the first place. It is in all of society's interest that the copyright be violated. Every dollar spent on the DRMed media, is a dollar used against that society. Thus, you would expect the society to try to do things to encourage the violations, or at least get out of the way, and it should be fining people caught paying for (and therefore, subversively endorsing) DRM.
Re:Warning by Sloppy · 2015-08-20 11:24 · Score: 1

8 dollars isn't the problem. It's the fact that I would need some trade secrets (and it'd probably also involve a DMCA violation) in order to write a player for Netflix, which is the problem.
You don't ever want to be in a situation where the people you buy a service (or media) from, are also in control of the software that you use. Think back and see if you can ever remember a situation where that happened, and the result was anything better than terrible. (And to answer your retort, NO, horrible isn't better than terrible!)

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Warning by hairyfeet · 2015-08-20 11:47 · Score: 1

Nobody gives a single fuck about your copyrights since they broke the constitution which mandated reasonable time limits which instead got replaced by "forever minus a single day" by the fucking house of mouse. Everytime it looks like early Disney will leave copyright? Here comes another extension and wadda ya know, some of the early cartoons will leave copyright in 2018 so here comes Disney to stick a copyright extension into TPP right on time.
When your law is so fucking corrupt that one can even predict when the bribery will start? Its no longer a law, its a fucking joke. Congress has turned copyright law into the "Mickey Forever" laws so why the fuck should we care if a corrupt law bought with bribes is broken?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Warning by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 13:01 · Score: 0

It's no less sane than allowing perpetual copyrights and actually snatching works out of the public domain as part of another copyright extension.
Re:Warning by cheater512 · 2015-08-20 13:14 · Score: 1

The people that have been arrested or have lawsuits filed against them have done large scale infringement?
The summary says the lawsuits are about a single movie, and the arrests aren't about any infringement at all?
Re:Warning by shione · 2015-08-20 15:34 · Score: 1

What is sane about extending copyright expiry dates when it is about to run out? Why even have an expiry date if it's only going to be lengthened?
What is sane about taking things that were in the public domain and putting them back under copyright?
Re:Warning by doccus · 2015-08-21 04:28 · Score: 1

...Copyright comes with a cost, and that cost is that after a limited time the work is no longer "owned" but belongs to the public at large.
Are you fucking serious? Or just mentally frikkin deficient? Copyright lasts a minimum of 90 years now, and they're pushing for far more. Nobody ALIVE would ever see it enter the public domain. Your statement is fraudulent on the very face of it.
Re:Warning by farble1670 · 2015-08-21 07:11 · Score: 1

You don't ever want to be in a situation where the people you buy a service (or media) from, are also in control of the software that you use. Think back and see if you can ever remember a situation where that happened
let's see ... every single pay service that requires you to go to their web site to view or listen to content? your browser is just something that downloads and runs software from the folks that supply the service.
Re: Warning by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-21 07:14 · Score: 0

Seriously, kill yourself.
Re:Warning by Sloppy · 2015-08-21 11:29 · Score: 1

Excellent. Now, which one of the things you just mentioned, doesn't completely suck in such an overwhelmingly over-the-top hysterical comedy of disgrace, that it didn't make what you had a decade earlier, look like so-much-higher tech that it was indistinguishable from magic? Your entertainment system in 2005 shouldn't be nicer than your 2015 one. But unless you're a pirate, it is, and you look back on the old days with a tear in your eye.
As long as you are happy with Netflix's selection, its best-case upper bound, is that its quality (if Netflix is very nice and always makes all the UI decisions that you also would have made) can approach what you can do with local playback. Throw in one single exception (e.g. say you're into an Amazon Prime show, or an HBO show) then everything goes to shit and now you're using different tools for different contents.
"I've got it in alphabetical order," she says, "but see? No 'All My Circuits' in the As."
"Oh," you explain, "that show is on a different list, and you use a different player for it. Here, give me the other remote, and I'll just set the monitor to that input (or I'll alt-tab to that other window) (or I'll click to that other browser tab)."
"WTF, it's showing an ad, and I can't skip. I wanted to watch the show, not the ads."
"Oh, that other player let you skip, but this one doesn't."
"Even my Tivo fifteen years ago could fast forward. My grandparents VCR could fast-forward. Whatever. Ok. Why is the window so small?"
"You clicked the wrong thing. This player's full-window control is the square, not the arrows."
"Screw this, I'll watch 'All My Circuits' some other time. Let's watch a show where we can skip ads."
"Ok, let's watch 'Everybody Loves Hypnotoad' because its player works better."
"Yay!"
"Click. Click. Ok, here we go. E. E. So many Es to scroll through."
"Just do a keyword search. There can't be many hypnotoads."
"You're thinking of that other player. This one doesn't have as good of searching and indexing. ER. ET. EU. Everybody. Here we go. The hypnotoad. Play. Oh. Ignore that, just wait."
"Buffering? Is this a joke? You subscribed to this one months ago. Surely it has downloaded by now!"
"No, this is streaming, not local. You don't cache things quite so aggr--"
"We've been talking about this for seconds! Why isn't it done yet?"
"I guess I have a lot of activity right now. Don't worry, it won't take too l-- see? Here we go."
"We already saw this episode."
"Oh, yeah, I guess the current episode isn't out in our region yet. I know, let's watch 'The Sound of Nazis.'"
"Ok. They say that one is funny."
"Just a minute. Ok, good, I already have that tab open over here. Oh, it was playing an ad. Maybe that's why Hyponotoad was slow. Doesn't matter. Sound of Nazis. Sound of Nazis. Here we go."
"Ooooh, pretty! This one is fast! And no ads!"
"Yeah, I guess you could say we finally have the perfect player here, and nothing could possibly go wrong in any sort of embarrassing way at this point."
"Yep. Hey, wait. 'Sauerkraut in my lederhosen?' I think I misunderstood that. Can you make the subtitles English? My German's not so good."
"Uhhh.."
"I know you can get subs for this movie. I saw them online."
"Maybe so, but I don't think I can load subs into the player. It only plays whatever content is on the remote server."
"Ok, let's watch 'Death Blow'!"
"Death Blow! When someone tries to blow you up, not because of who you are, but for other reasons altogether!"
"Muahaha! Yeah! Let's watch it!"
"Oh. They removed it last month," you say. But then the world goes grey and YOG-SOTHOTH appears.
YOG-SOTHOTH: "You are now merely complaining about a miscellaneous service limitation, not a problem with players and services being tied together. Even with standard players, a service

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re: Warning by theCzechGuy · 2015-08-21 19:33 · Score: 1

Calm down and read the rest of the comment.
Re:Warning by farble1670 · 2015-08-23 06:30 · Score: 1

Excellent. Now, which one of the things you just mentioned, doesn't completely suck in such an overwhelmingly over-the-top hysterical comedy of disgrace, that it didn't make what you had a decade earlier, look like so-much-higher tech that it was indistinguishable from magic?
i use probably 3 video services, and one music service and a regular basis and none of them suck.
netflix
youtube
twitch
google play music

lol by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 03:57 · Score: 0

It's always an Adam Sandler movie. I suppose they have to make some money back somehow.

The New Napster by wiggles · 2015-08-20 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

How is this Popcorn Time app any different than Napster? Easy and professional looking it may be - legal, it isn't, and right or wrong, the users are liable. The news here isn't that the users got busted, it's why it took so long.

Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 04:09 · Score: 0

The news here isn't that the users got busted, it's why it took so long.
That's just because no one had heard of Popcorn Time until this happened.
Few users, no MPAA awareness, nothing at all until those Danish cops arrested both people who new about the program.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 04:27 · Score: 2, Informative

On a purely legal basis, it's no different at all, it's still piracy.
But it IS different.
Napster was a method of sharing on a 1 to 1 basis, you find my listing, download directly from me. You are downloading a copy of whatever mp3 it is.
Popcorn time uses bittorrent as the backend, meaning they provide the application, that's it. People in the torrent swarms are the ones committing piracy. Popcorn time makes it pretty simple and easy and looks much like netflix.
The key difference is you are streaming. Without jumping through some hoops, if you stream a popcorntime movie, you don't have a digital copy after you are done. But you have indeed downloaded it, and shared it with any peers in the swarm.
Popcorntime, well the first iteration, i have no trust for this one, doesn't even run the trackers, they simply find content on public trackers and point you to them. It's a merger of bittorrent and traditional streaming that changes the playing field considerably. With caveats, old barely seeded content will not stream well without long delays. As well, since you are a peer in a swarm with NO CONTROL over your torrent client, you can't really cap your download or uploads to reasonable levels.
There's no argument possible to say this isn't illegal, it's 100% illegal. The application has no legitimate purpose, and in fact provides torrent links via their content selection, it's no different that running a tracker in a sense, but when you see that it's devoted to illegal content, the devs aren't in the clear and neither are the users.
This is a honeypot and I would never let my ip into any of those swarms.
Re:The New Napster by Travis+Mansbridge · 2015-08-20 04:29 · Score: 2

Are you kidding? Popcorn Time has been well known for a while, though its heyday was last year before the original version came down under MPAA pressure.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 04:39 · Score: 0

From your linked article:
"An anonymous reader writes:
You may recall Popcorn Time, the software that integrated torrents with a streaming media player."
Yeah, exactly, we already knew about it BEFORE that post because that post was related to the offshoot programs after popcorntime got shutdown the first time.
Sorry about your butthurt for not being in the loop.
Re:The New Napster by o_ferguson · 2015-08-20 04:42 · Score: 2

I have an argument that says it isn't illegal: I live in a jurisdiction that doesn't recognize the legitimacy of copyright law.

--
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Re:The New Napster by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-08-20 05:05 · Score: 1

The news here isn't that the users got busted, it's why it took so long.
That's why it's good news. Before they never dared or face public backlash and clog up all the courts with cases. Now that they're "going there", the system can start to break down. Thank goodness (sorry for the poor sods who get caught in the crossfire but the government will show up with guns, not has-been Adam Sandler's lawyers) because copyright is for a non-digital era.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 05:30 · Score: 1

Remember how in the '90s they wanted to build censorship technology into everything to stop the porn industry?
They wanted to stop porn because it was offensive, or degrading to women, or because it was being viewed by children.
They could have simply enforced the part of the copyright law that says obscenity can't be copyrighted.
But they didn't. Why? Because stopping the porn industry wasn't the point. Censorship was.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 05:43 · Score: 0

Even though the front end presents pirated video, couldn't the underlying technology be used to steam any sort of video? Isn't it possible to use it as a distribution mechanism for your independent film? Just because it's a torrent doesn't mean it's an illegal torrent.
Re:The New Napster by Junta · 2015-08-20 05:50 · Score: 1

copyright is for a non-digital era.
If anything it is more important in a 'digital era'. The whole point of copyright is to try to protect intellectual 'property' because it's been relatively more trivial to replicate the essence of your work compared to real physical goods. In the 'digital era', the contributing factors to wanting copyright are even stronger as it becomes even more trivial.
Arguments can be made about how you get people to produce this content in an ideal versus a real world, or how long copyright should ask to balance rewarding new creations versus being able to use those works in new and exciting ways. However the realities that have thus far driven the existence of copyright are unchanged.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:The New Napster by TWX · 2015-08-20 06:22 · Score: 1

question... What if I own a copy of the movie that I'm streaming? Like, I can produce the disc and the jacket and those little "Proof of Purchase" cutouts located inside of the jacket?

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:The New Napster by TWX · 2015-08-20 06:24 · Score: 1

They could have simply enforced the part of the copyright law that says obscenity can't be copyrighted.
Are you saying that Adam Sandler movies wouldn't be copyrighted then?

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 06:40 · Score: 0

under current copy write law you are still liable of you are running something like popcorn because:
a) you are making another ( illegal ) copy by watching the film.on popcorn.
b) you automatically redistribute the copy you make through bit torrent , so not only are viewing illegally distributed content you are also providing resources as a distributor.
I will note you could possibly claim ignorance of b and a could be a question of semantics , but the problem is so can the lawyer who is suing you and possibly the judge might see it differently. You will at least be on the hook for multi hour court appearances and possibly thousands of dollars of court and legal bills , even if , in the unlikely event, you happen to win.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 06:45 · Score: 0

It's still based on bittorrent, which probably means you're uploading as well as downloading. Buying a legal copy doesn't give you the right to upload it to others.
Re:The New Napster by amRadioHed · 2015-08-20 06:45 · Score: 1

Doesn't make a difference. It's a torrent so you're illegally distributing the movie at the same time that you're watching it. The distribution part is what is likely to get you in trouble anyway, lawyers usually don't care about people who are just downloading.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:The New Napster by CurryCamel · 2015-08-20 06:53 · Score: 1

No he is not kidding. Are you?
Yesterday was my first time too hearing about Popcorn Time:
https://xkcd.com/1053/
Re:The New Napster by suutar · 2015-08-20 07:02 · Score: 1

True, it is more important that copyright be applied _well_. Previously, the barrier to copying was not the copyright, but the process of copying; that kept the amount of copying low enough that it wasn't a big problem but it was still possible to ignore silly-bad copyright rules. Now copying has gotten easy, so it's a problem. The attempt to fix it in ways that enforce the silly-bad copyright rules is a different problem. What we need is solid enforcement of sane rules, but that requires having sane rules so folks will tolerate the enforcement.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 07:49 · Score: 0

you appear to be conflating different legal concepts in order to arrive at a desired conclusion. Obscenity has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright (a creative work set in a tangible form), and what constitutes obscenity varies considerably between jurisdictions.
Pornography is a rather ill-defined term (that, thanks to the wonders of natural language, everyone "knows" what it is and can talk "intelligently" on the subject). Being pornographic (whatever that is) does not necessarily imply obscenity (in the legal sense).
Perhaps you are trying to justify your pornography pirating habit, but pornography *is* copyrighted, and is possibly more likely than other works to have that copyright registered.
Attempts at censorship usually target the less acceptable material, such as child exploitation, but also pornography. Its just like the "war" on terrorism where you can't oppose the legislation because that means your a child pornographer, terrorist, whatever. Of course, once a hook for censorship is in place it is abused (look at Australia, UK, where ever).
But that is a general problem that has nothing to do with obscenity, pornography and copyright
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 08:08 · Score: 1

It's not any different from Napster.
If you want to make a truly different and disrupting deployment...
The solution to the copyright/patent mess is to keep on sharing
till their business model is completely destroyed.
Start by ripping and sharing all the physical media you own.
And do it over anonymous overlay networks such as I2P and Phantom.
That way you can share 24x7x365 without fear of the MAFIAA.
No one needs to feed the machine (with at least $9.50 to the machine and
$0.50 to the artist) and you can Bitcoin your money straight to the
artists that make a difference in your life.
The only thing these labels and distribution companies exist to do
is to tax both you and the artist and to payoff politicians.
SCREW THAT.
Crush these useless "intellectual property" companies once and for all.
Share and share at will my brothers!
*** Approved Tools ***
http://www.freebsd.org/
https://www.archlinux.org/
http://open-zfs.org/
https://geti2p.net/
http://code.google.com/p/phantom/
https://transmissionbt.com/
http://xiph.org/flac/
http://xiph.org/paranoia/
http://www.cdda2wav.de/
http://cdrtools.sourceforge.net/
http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/
http://www.labdv.com/aacs/
http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html
http://www.dvdfab.cn/mlink/download.php?g=DVDFAB9
http://ffmpeg.org/
Quality is paramount, bandwidth and storage are cheap, therefore...
CD and DVD *must* be shared losslessly, as FLAC and VOB dirs only.
BluRay *may* be shrunk to DVD-9 iso/vob before sharing.
Don't waste people's time and quality by jacking around with other formats.
Re:The New Napster by Junta · 2015-08-20 08:17 · Score: 1

I agree. There are outlandish things that are forbidden. For example, the DMCA means my ripping of my own personal DVD and Blu Ray discs to HDD is not lawful, which is absurd. Sure string me up for sharing the result of that effort or selling the original while keeping my copy, but that transfer from media to disk itself should absolutely be legal.
However in the case of popcorn time, I don't really see the violation being some silly thing (though claims of how much 'harm' is done in judicial terms can be absurd, jailtime and/or unrealisticly high amounts of damage).
I can also go on an offtopic rant about how the copyright holders are unwilling to provide me a quality experience. I just want to buy a DRM-free mkv or mp4 of their media with high quality and then use some very good software to curate the content (like Emby for example). Popcorn time I've never used, but the principle of the thing doesn't appeal either, I want to actually have my library at hand at any given time.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:The New Napster by iceaxe · 2015-08-20 08:51 · Score: 1

I think the basic issue is that we are still treating individual electronic copies of a work as if they had inherent measurable value. The data on some medium never had any measurable value. The measurable value was inherent in the following: the production of the work, the physical medium itself, the imprinting of the medium with the data, the distribution of the medium, and marketing effort. The value of many of these have now been reduced or effectively eliminated for the type of works under discussion.
What we need is a way of rewarding those activities that produce value, without propping up defunct systems with artificial scarcity.
I think we are getting closer to that future than when I last commented on this topic. It's been an interesting ride, and it's still evolving.

--
WALSTIB!
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 08:55 · Score: 0

Yup. I agree 100%. Fry the cheap jerks.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 09:00 · Score: 0

Thank you. Most of the rapid freeloaders around here hate to admit these things.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 09:44 · Score: 0

Hardly relevant, since the GP wasn't making fun of his parent poster for not having heard of PT, but rather for suggesting that nobody had until yesterday.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 11:57 · Score: 0

Promoting copyright infringement is also illegal.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 11:58 · Score: 0

You sure? Most every nation that has reliable Internet access recognizes copyright law and has their own version of what the US calls the DMCA.
Re:The New Napster by thegarbz · 2015-08-20 12:33 · Score: 1

The key difference is you are streaming. Without jumping through some hoops, if you stream a popcorntime movie, you don't have a digital copy after you are done
You mean the checkbox that says "Clear tmp folder after closing app?"
Technically if you don't close the client you have a copy of the film even if you don't jump through any hoops.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 13:02 · Score: 0

Informing copyright violators of the law is aiding and abetting and is therefore illegal.
Re:The New Napster by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 18:51 · Score: 0

We need to extend copyright law to include results of physical labor as well. Licensing fees for waling on escalators, using toilets, driving on roads, etc. The people who built those things are being robbed every single day. They have lost trillions of dollars and should be compensated. How many times have you been stealing today?
Re:The New Napster by Some_Llama · 2015-08-21 05:23 · Score: 1

if ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, and informing violators of the law is illegal, how does anyone avoid being a criminal?
Re:The New Napster by farble1670 · 2015-08-21 07:26 · Score: 1

There are outlandish things that are forbidden. For example, the DMCA means my ripping of my own personal DVD and Blu Ray discs to HDD is not lawful, which is absurd.
i love how people use things like this to reject copyright laws all together. NO ONE is bashing in your front door and tazing you because you made a copy of a DVD you purchased. in fact, how about referencing one single instance where that has happened. no?

Popcorn time I've never used, but the principle of the thing doesn't appeal either, I want to actually have my library at hand at any given time.
PT is just a torrent client. the movies are downloaded to your computer (or mobile device). all the "streaming" mode does is download the blocks in-order, and download up to a certain amount of them before it starts playing.
Re:The New Napster by Junta · 2015-08-24 02:12 · Score: 1

i love how people use things like this to reject copyright laws all together. NO ONE is bashing in your front door and tazing you because you made a copy of a DVD you purchased.

I did not reject copyright laws altogether. I complained that something that should be legal is not. The argument that no one is *bothering* to prosecute is not a defense of a law existing that could be used to prosecute. If there is a situation that should be legal, the law should be changed to allow that. That doesn't mean 'no copyright', it means that DMCA should be repealed (the things enabled by the DMCA were *already* illegal, DMCA just tries to get ahead of things to prevent even attempting, which interferes with fair use). This isn't a theoretical thing, getting software that decrypts DVD/BluRay is tricky precisely because that software is *actively* pursued.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:The New Napster by farble1670 · 2015-08-24 05:56 · Score: 1

The argument that no one is *bothering* to prosecute is not a defense of a law existing that could be used to prosecute.
no, but if you are spending your time worrying about it, you have too much time on your hands.
it's also illegal to go 1MPH over the speed limit. are you worried about that?

poor quality is no defense by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 04:03 · Score: 1

I don't recall anywhere in copyright law where you get a lesser punishment because you violated the copyright of something crappy.

And if they streamed that movie instead of paying a measly couple of dollars to view it legitimately, they deserve to pay up.

However, where we are going wrong is by not defining reasonable statutory damages. I think $100 per illegally streamed hour of content is a reasonable penalty to pay. We should have a process whereby the copyright owner can serve you notice for statutory damages and give you a reasonable time period to pay. Then if you pay the penalty fee, a few hundred dollars perhaps, you can avoid a lawsuit and/or criminal charges.

It's just like riding the subway in most cities--pay the $2 fare or jump the turnstile and risk paying a larger "penalty fare". But if you try to duck paying the penalty fare, then you cross the border into criminal behavior.

Always figured it was a honeypot by Nyder · 2015-08-20 04:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't know about anyone else, but Popcorn Time seems like a trap to me. Make a program that using bit torrent to share the movies between it's users. Let it run for a few years. Start testing the waters will a small lawsuit against a few users. If that succeeds, then use the info you gathered over the last few years to bring a lot of lawsuits against a lot of people.

--
Be seeing you...

Re:Always figured it was a honeypot by Zak3056 · 2015-08-20 05:18 · Score: 1

I don't know about anyone else, but Popcorn Time seems like a trap to me. Make a program that using bit torrent to share the movies between it's users. Let it run for a few years. Start testing the waters will a small lawsuit against a few users. If that succeeds, then use the info you gathered over the last few years to bring a lot of lawsuits against a lot of people.
Laches[1] and, probably, estoppel would apply, the former because the studio waited years to bring a claim despite having the knowledge of an issue for that whole time, and did nothing to prevent it, and estoppel because it's hard to argue that your movie is being pirated when you yourself are the one distributing it across bittorrent.
[1] - Laches may not apply, as the Supreme Court recently eviscerated it with regard to copyright law. That decision did not, however, touch on file sharing, and the reasoning used would be really hard to apply to a file sharing case ("we waited until the lawsuit was worth it" doesn't really work when the person you are suing will never, ever be able to afford to pay the statutory damages).

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re:Always figured it was a honeypot by edtice1559 · 2015-08-20 06:19 · Score: 2

I'm not familiar enough with the Supreme court case with regard to Laches to make a very nuanced legal argument. (IANAL, et cetera). However, I'm not surprised as it seems very similar to "bait cars" that police departments use to catch car thieves. In many large organizations people arrive at 09:00 and leave at 5:00pm or so. Car thieves would know that they could come to the parking lot around 10:30, steal a car, and nobody would be the wiser until the end of the work day. So police departments would put commonly-stolen vehicles in the lot with GPS trackers. When the car got stolen, it was easy to catch the thieves. Defense attorneys tried to make the Laches argument and failed for the same reason they probably would here. The person set out to steal a car. The fact that they go the bait car didn't change the fact that they, well, stole a car. Sure the car was *intended* to be stolen (for purposes of catching thieves) but that line of reasoning was absurd. If I set out to engage in retail piracy and it turns out that the copyright owners happen to have mixed some of their bait in with the goods I'm casing, doesn't change the fact that I set out to commit the crime and just happened to get bait instead of the real thing. Now if they actively *encouraged* the piracy, that might be different. That would be entrapment by the police and may invoke Laches in civil cases. But the fact that you got caught in a sting while committing a crime doesn't make you any less guilty.
Re:Always figured it was a honeypot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 06:35 · Score: 0

So I looked up laches on Wikipedia and found the following statement: "Because laches is an equitable defense, it is ordinarily applied only to claims for equitable relief (such as injunctions), and not to claims for legal relief (such as damages)." But in this case, the question is whether they can collect damages after the fact. Laches wouldn't seem to help with that.
Re:Always figured it was a honeypot by Zak3056 · 2015-08-20 08:48 · Score: 1

An excellent argument on your part, and your point is well taken.
That said, I'll counter with the idea that your analogy (as all analogies are) is flawed. A more appropriate analogy would be the police leaving the bait car, with the keys in the ignition, the engine running, and a giant sign on it saying, "free car." I think there's a very important distinction between creating the opportunity for a theft to occur (as the police are) and actively encouraging it as a studio or their agent using a honeypot would be. "Please, please, download this movie" is a far cry from an anonymous vehicle in a parking lot.

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

Defendants have a clear defense... by sconeu · 2015-08-20 04:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Anyone who deliberately downloads an Adam Sandler movie is obviously insane.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by CanadianMacFan · 2015-08-20 04:17 · Score: 2

Yes, but then so is the movie company for making an Adam Sandler movie in the first place.
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 04:29 · Score: 1

Actually they are quite sane; his movies cost around ~80mil to make and pull in 100mil and up. Despite the morality of making his movies, financially they are a very sound investment.
http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Sony-Pictures-keep-making-Adam-Sandler-films
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2015-08-20 04:38 · Score: 4, Funny

Not this one. It's had 5 figure box office take it's first weekend. Low 5 figures. I never even heard of the Cobbler other than the bad reviews and lack of ticket sales. I never heard of Men Women and Children til I googled this. Pixels radically underperformed. I'd rather see the Pixels short on youtube over and over than the Sandler movie.
Cobbler did inspire a great quote tho:

So I just saw 'The Cobbler' and all I can assume is that Adam Sandler got tired of everyone saying 'Little Nicky' was his worst movie.
— Stephen Whitty (@StephenWhitty) March 3, 2015
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by sims+2 · 2015-08-20 04:54 · Score: 2

Reminds me of the time I discovered that lemonade tycoon would let you sell empty cups.
They didn't sell very well but it was profitable enough that you could buy anything in the game in under the 1 hour trial.

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 05:10 · Score: 0

This 'quora' post is nonsense. It portrays box office GROSS (ticket sales) as pure studio profit, in reality the studio gets at best 60% of that gross (in case of a big hit) and as little as 40% of that gross if it's a dud, the rest remains with the theatres. And that's domestically, the cut of foreign box office gross is even lower.
Then we have the fact that the production budget numbers which are being shown do NOT include promotion/advertising which at the very least adds another $10-$20 million.
As to how Sony is supposedly making money off their Sandler movies, there's got to be some really creative number magic going on there.
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by jedidiah · 2015-08-20 07:38 · Score: 2

Now you're the one posting nonsense. Cinemas don't get anywhere near 40% of the gross. That's why they have to sell those annoying overpriced concessions. With some big films they may see NONE of the initial ticket proceeds.
Although promotion is something else that's not included in the production budget. It's another important factor to consider in terms of "profitability". Although your numbers horribly wrong.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by viperidaenz · 2015-08-20 10:40 · Score: 1

Except opening weekend for this movie pulled in a massive $24,000
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by Firethorn · 2015-08-20 14:27 · Score: 1

Even if I'm downloading it to torture the captives in my basement?
Oh wait...

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Defendants have a clear defense... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-21 00:19 · Score: 0

Wikipedia says Pixels gave about a 2x return, $157 million (worldwide). Besides, it hasn't even been in the theatres for a full month yet. Or released on DVD, or sold to TV stations, or...
I think that's a roaring success for the studio, no matter how bad the film is.

The New Business Model by Hydrian · 2015-08-20 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. Release shitty movie.
2.Somebody illegally downloads it to see how bad it is. (because no movie theater will show it)
3. Sue the downloader!
4. Profit!

--
No good deed goes unpunished.

Re:The New Business Model by cdrudge · 2015-08-20 04:43 · Score: 1

The rights to the move are owned by Voltage Pictures. They've been going after downloaders since The Hurt Locker came out and for multiple movies since. It's hardly a "New Business Model".
Plus, even if they get the statutory maximums they are still going to be well short of what the film cost to make and distribute. It had a estimated budget of $10m and box office/VOD receipts of $24k.
Re:The New Business Model by meta-monkey · 2015-08-20 05:11 · Score: 2

The Producers 2.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:The New Business Model by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 08:40 · Score: 0

It's a new business model compared to the traditional one. You know;
1. Make a product someone actually wants to buy.
2. Sell it to them for more than it cost you to make it.
3. Profit.

Let's sue these assholes for infringement! by fustakrakich · 2015-08-20 04:07 · Score: 1

It is infringement of our free speech rights. If we don't push back much harder, we are doomed to watching The Rockford Files the rest of our lives

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Recoup Costs by ftldelay · 2015-08-20 04:07 · Score: 1

Hey - the movie tanked - how can we recoup some of our costs? I know! Let's sue some file sharers!!

Re:Deserve by hackwrench · 2015-08-20 04:10 · Score: 1

Deserve is a funny thing. The Christians think we all deserve to go to eternal torment. Some people think we deserve to have everything about us repaired, even including our thought processes.

Also, I fail to see how much of anything is reasonable when it comes to modern copyright law and much of copyright's history as well.

..something smells.. by nult · 2015-08-20 04:17 · Score: 1

Something reeks of desperation ...

Dark side of Streisand by lq_x_pl · 2015-08-20 04:19 · Score: 1

Funny how this comes on the heels of a high profile event involving Popcorn time.
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd put $20 on the complainants not knowing about Popcorn Time until ars' recent article.

--
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".

Change Subject to... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 04:22 · Score: 0

The Cobbler film makers sues the only 11 persons that ever watched the film.

Fines should be like banks by tekrat · 2015-08-20 04:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

When a big Bank breaks the law, they are fined a tiny percentage of the money they made breaking the law. If a Bank makes $500 million illegally, their fine comes out to something like $20 million.

If corporations are people, it should work the other way as well. Therefore, if someone downloads a movie they would have otherwise paid $14 to see in a theater, the fine should be about 2 bucks.

The only reason fines are so huge for file sharers is because every company thinks that whatever crap it is that they "own" (i.e. "intellectual property") is always worth millions or billions, but it's not. Hell, CEOs probably take a dump in the executive crapper and think it's worth billions.

I recently had a fire, and lost plenty of property, both real and intellectual. Do you think the insurance company compensated me for millions or billions?

Why are things held to one standard for large corporations, while ignoring people? Why are rights several curtailed for actual people? Why is property move valuable than life?

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Fines should be like banks by Theaetetus · 2015-08-20 05:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

When a big Bank breaks the law, they are fined a tiny percentage of the money they made breaking the law. If a Bank makes $500 million illegally, their fine comes out to something like $20 million.
If corporations are people, it should work the other way as well. Therefore, if someone downloads a movie they would have otherwise paid $14 to see in a theater, the fine should be about 2 bucks.
That makes perfect sense. And by the same logic, if someone uploads or shares a movie that a distributor would have paid between $10-20 million for the rights to distribute, the fine should be about $50-150k.
It's important to remember that people aren't being sued for downloading, they're being sued for uploading. And distribution rights are expensive. Apple doesn't pay Warner Brothers $1, once, in exchange for being able to distribute some new song. AMC Theaters doesn't give New Line Cinemas a simple $14 for the rights to show Straight Outta Compton on a thousand screens for the next three months.
Remember back when Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights to the Beatles' catalog for several million? It worked out to around $20-30k per song... which happens to be right about the same amount Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum had to pay for their infringement.
Re:Fines should be like banks by Ravaldy · 2015-08-20 05:57 · Score: 1

The studios are desperate to see mass copyright infringement disappear. When it was 1 in 1000 people using these services it wasn't so much an issue but now 1 in 3 people I know own a TV box that uses XBMC or Popcorn Time or other services. That's revenue they'll never see because it's too easy to avoid paying because for most it doesn't feel like its illegal (Ignorance is bliss).
The reality is that in court they will settle for much less as previous cases listed here have shown. In Canada software piracy fines are minimal and usually only include the requirement to purchase all pirated software hence making things even.
Re:Fines should be like banks by JackieBrown · 2015-08-20 06:07 · Score: 1

I guess the bank thing is going to be brought in every discussion of jail times or fines, huh?
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 06:08 · Score: 0

If we keep our seed ratio below 1, are the damages pro-rated?
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 07:14 · Score: 0

Because you have no money, thus no power, thus no say.
You are a part of a society which lusts after and admires and abides power all because of the shared delusion that one day it could be them pissing on other people.
God Bless America.
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 07:26 · Score: 0

The answers should be obvious.
Why are things held to one standard for large corporations, while ignoring people?
Large corporations are rich. Their wealth makes them powerful, which automatically grants them different treatment under the law. Plenty of Justice-Idealists say this should not be so....and maybe they are right....but this is how the world has worked since the concept of wealth existed, and there is absolutely no reason to expect it to be different now.
Why are rights several curtailed for actual people?
The people in question don't have very much money, and hence only have political power when they act as a group with a common purpose. The protection of consumer rights hasn't seen sufficient action on the part of this group, and therefore, they don't get the rights that you think they deserve.
Remember: protection of freedom is never automatic...it just sometimes seems so when some other group already fought the fight, and you ride in on the aftermath of their success. Here, the group has not fought the good fight, so they don't get these rights. It is that simple.
Why is property move valuable than life?
The laws in place are the result of a political process. The political process is one of application of political power. Those who have and are applying their power see copyright infringement as a bigger threat to them than murder or fire or other things that might threaten their lives, and so they are focusing on ramping up enforcement. They are not, have never been, and will never be motivated by a concern for balance against other laws. What incentive would they have for that?
In sum, the answer to any question about law is generally a matter of researching the history, intent, and power level of the interested parties. All else is bullshit.
Re:Fines should be like banks by will_die · 2015-08-20 07:41 · Score: 0

When a big Bank breaks the law, they are fined a tiny percentage of the money they made breaking the law. If a Bank makes $500 million illegally, their fine comes out to something like $20 million.
Show one example of what you illogically think.
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 09:05 · Score: 0

A perfectly fair point.
And btw, the banks aren't fined such a measly percentage. They're often fined 5-10 times what they make when they break the law.
And it's important to recognize that the laws most banks are said to break are extremely technical and hard to understand. They're rarely accused of something as clearcut as piracy.
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 09:32 · Score: 0

When a big Bank breaks the law, they are fined a tiny percentage of the money they made breaking the law. If a Bank makes $500 million illegally, their fine comes out to something like $20 million.

Cite please.
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 09:34 · Score: 0

flaw with the argument due to the technical details of how bittorrent swarms operate: there is no -one- distributor.
therefore the argument does not make "perfect sense" and by the same logic, the fine should be at most about 1/120000th (assume a relatively popular hashID) what you contend makes "sense".
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 10:12 · Score: 0

OP's point was that incorporated entities are routinely fined in amounts that don't even wash away the direct profit made from illegal activity. An uploader's profit is zero in this case, so let's apply the usual and customary corporate fine: 60-80% of zero.
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 11:09 · Score: 0

It's important to remember that people aren't being sued for downloading, they're being sued for uploading.
Thanks for playing, but no. In New Zealand, the law requires the complainant to submit only evidence that the person was downloading - this evidence may not be challenged, and is accepted as correct up front. In other words, they submit a text file or a printed piece of paper with your IP, without any backup whatsoever, and it's a legal fiction that proves you were doing what they claim you were doing. I'm not sure the dipshit who wrote this law has ever heard of notepad.
Re:Fines should be like banks by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 11:46 · Score: 0

Is it illogical? If I made $50 million by stealing from banks and investors, it'd be jail for me.
Re:Fines should be like banks by HiThereImBob · 2015-08-20 15:39 · Score: 1

That makes perfect sense. And by the same logic, if someone uploads or shares a movie that a distributor would have paid between $10-20 million for the rights to distribute, the fine should be about $50-150k.
It's important to remember that people aren't being sued for downloading, they're being sued for uploading. And distribution rights are expensive. Apple doesn't pay Warner Brothers $1, once, in exchange for being able to distribute some new song. AMC Theaters doesn't give New Line Cinemas a simple $14 for the rights to show Straight Outta Compton on a thousand screens for the next three months.
Remember back when Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights to the Beatles' catalog for several million? It worked out to around $20-30k per song... which happens to be right about the same amount Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum had to pay for their infringement.
I'm not sure if you don't understand the underlying economics of the movie industry, or if you don't understand how popcorn time works - or both. Companies don't pay a lump sum for "distribution rights". Using AMC Theatres as you did, the studio would be paid per ticket sold to see the show (basically the entire ticket price, with the venue making income on concession sales). So if a ticket is $8, and 10 people attend the movie, AMC pays New Line $80. If 1,000,000 people attend, AMC pays $8,000,000. Your theoretical example of a Hollywood studio only making $14 in theaters can and does happen. Here is a list of 11 movies that made less than $400 gross while they were in theaters - some staring actors you probably recognize: http://mentalfloss.com/article...
Popcorn time seeds the torrent while you are watching the movie. So if I watch a movie and "upload" 4% of it to 12 different people before it ends, I only "distributed" 48% of a single movie in total. Using our $8 ticket price, wouldn't I owe $3.80? I can't imagine it getting to $50,000 - $150,000 as you suggest. The only exception to this would be the one person who originally uploaded the movie to the internet... but that would be both off topic and contrary to your 'uploads' statement so I won't address it.

Sandler's company rather aggressive? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2015-08-20 04:41 · Score: 2

So there's this, and them blindly going after anything named Pixels any place and specifically on Youtube. Sandler's movies are doing bad enough recently, Do you really want him hated for over-aggressive Rights/Restrictions management? Whatever you think of the piracy around Metallica, their popularity really fell off the map once they lost their fans from what some felt was over-aggressive policing.

Re:Sandler's company rather aggressive? by luther349 · 2015-08-20 05:54 · Score: 1

sandler's films haven't been funny sense the 90s he had one funny angle he beat to death when he relisted that dead horse was in fact dead he literately just flounders on screen for 2 hrs using other washed up actors. but they seem to keep giving him money for more movies.
Re:Sandler's company rather aggressive? by amiga3D · 2015-08-20 06:36 · Score: 1

Doing anything else would require creativity and that's mostly non-existent in hollyweird anymore.
Re:Sandler's company rather aggressive? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 12:02 · Score: 0

While the Napster thing did a lot to destroy Metallica's image as a fan-oriented band, let's be honest here: they had been alienating their fans for years before that, starting with "Load" - also known as the most accurately-titled album in music history.
If anything, it was amazing that the band who once helped invent thrash metal found a way to sell out harder than hooking up with Bon Jovi's producer and playing blues rock.

Freenet by BigBuckHunter · 2015-08-20 04:46 · Score: 1

Freenet:
https://freenetproject.org/

Freenet freenet, freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet free-net freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet. Freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet. Freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet freenet free-net freenet.

Freenet, Freenet Freenet

Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.

What do they earn per hour? by DarkKaplah · 2015-08-20 04:48 · Score: 1

How many times have we each thought "they should pay me for having watched that piece of crap"? Maybe it's time to try that out.

--
Coffee: The lifeblood of intelligence in civilization.

Re:Deserve by Ravaldy · 2015-08-20 04:55 · Score: 0

The law is pretty clear and since the laws are defined by the many representatives we elected it's not like it's a unfair.

Right or wrong it's not fictive and it spells out that copyright infringement is punishable by law.

Voltage Pictures, what do you expect... by Flukester69 · 2015-08-20 04:59 · Score: 1

Its Voltage Pictures and they are known to go after illegal downloaders. I for one refuse to see any movie with their name on it. All they make is crap movies anyway.

Re:Voltage Pictures, what do you expect... by amiga3D · 2015-08-20 06:37 · Score: 1

It's usually the shitty companies that like to litigate the most.

Cobbler, an Adam Sandler Flem by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 05:00 · Score: 0

They should be thankful anyone watches it at all.
Adam Sandler = Gag reflex

Relevant? by bigdavex · 2015-08-20 05:03 · Score: 0

Why is it relevant that it's a shitty movie? That seems like a reason NOT to download it.

I get it, someone will say it's not worth $1 to rent it from Red Box, so the studio isn't out anything. There's no lost sale. But if it's not worth the money to rent it, how is it worth your time to watch it?

--
-Dave

Re:Relevant? by Flavianoep · 2015-08-20 06:04 · Score: 1

It's relevant because no one will watch that movie if they have to pay for it.

--
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Re:Relevant? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 06:12 · Score: 0

I don't go to gyms because they're not worth the monthly fees. Therefore it is not worth my time to exercise.

Welp, ok then... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 05:21 · Score: 0

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie since the late nineties, and my time is more valuable to me than his notable lack of funny. Now, now, I realize that the studio is doing this and not Adam Sandler - even though you would be hard-pressed to find me believing he doesn't wield enough clout and self-financing to hold considerably sway over these things. Even still, I'm torrenting the BluRay as we speak from hdbits, because fuck him and fuck the studio. Cocksuckers.

Re:Welp, ok then... by xenotransplant · 2015-08-20 05:47 · Score: 1

Adam Sandler hasn't made a good movie.
Re:Welp, ok then... by luther349 · 2015-08-20 05:48 · Score: 1

yea all that shit talk wile downloading his shitty move that sounds rite these days.even thow i really don't watch his new stuf the only thing that will happen watching his new things is brain damage not even worth downloading.
Re:Welp, ok then... by luther349 · 2015-08-20 05:50 · Score: 1

i mean that to he used up his funny angel's years ago. dunno why people keep giving him money and screen time.

Re:The New Business Model - Flaw in item #2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 05:38 · Score: 0

1. Release shitty movie.
2.Somebody illegally downloads it to see how bad it is. (because no movie theater will show it)
3. Sue the downloader!
4. Profit!

ITS NOT ILLEGAL TO DOWNLOAD. ITS ILLEGAL TO SHARE IT.

Thanks big movie studios! by jfbilodeau · 2015-08-20 05:45 · Score: 1

I never knew about Popcorn Time...now--thanks to your marketing--I do.

--
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.

Liability? And what took so long? by xenotransplant · 2015-08-20 05:45 · Score: 1

I learned about Popcorn Time from the CEO of Netflix when he claimed they were one of their biggest competitors.This software is designed from the ground up to distribute illegal copies of movies and TV shows. How are the owners of the Popcorn Time software not being held accountable? It's pretty blatant they're in it for the piracy, they even link you to VPN services that are compatible with their product for fucks sake. I have no words to describe the feeling I have for the idiots who actually wanted to see the Cobbler bad enough to pirate it.

I suppose the man that makes the hammer is not responsible for what the carpenter hits with it.

Re:Liability? And what took so long? by amiga3D · 2015-08-20 06:39 · Score: 1

I can't imagine wasting the bandwidth to see an Adam Sandler movie. I could always go outside and watch the grass grow, it's more entertaining by far.

Re:The New Business Model - Flaw in item #2 by xenotransplant · 2015-08-20 05:50 · Score: 1

And by downloading an illegal share, you are in fact participating in the sharing. To share is not a one way transaction. Learn two word english.

Re:Deserve by hackwrench · 2015-08-20 05:56 · Score: 1

I don't see how rigged selections for final candidates to office is fair.

Less than half of voting age Americans voted for these people in power, but they don't count the votes not cast as a count against the person elected actually taking office. There are voting methods that more accurately reflect the will of the people and then there's the problem of only having one day to vote. People have obligations that interfere with having one day to vote. Make it a week to collect votes or something.

And as for your original statement, the conclusion that "it's not unfair" does not follow from your premise, "since the laws are defined by the many representatives we elected".

Douglas Adams, The wrong lizard

And I don't get your usage of fictive, which is defined as creating or created by imagination, because all laws are fictive.

let's see 10 years a moive you can get less time f by Anonymous Coward · 2015-08-20 06:21 · Score: 0

let's see 10 years a movie you can get less time for viewing CP.

Re:let's see 10 years a moive you can get less tim by amiga3D · 2015-08-20 06:43 · Score: 2

They could get less time for killing the CEO of the company responsible for the shitty movie. Especially if they beat him to death with a chair or something instead of using a gun. Time off if they record the murder and post in on youtube.

Re:Deserve by suutar · 2015-08-20 07:04 · Score: 1

"generated by elected representatives" != "fair". It comes closer than some systems, but history has shown quite a few clear examples where they're not the same.

Re:Deserve by jedidiah · 2015-08-20 07:33 · Score: 1

Actually, the law is pretty unclear because this sort of "crime" gets split up between commercial use and personal use and value.

The value part gets tricky because the content owners never want to talk about how valuable something is. They never want to admit what the actual damages were.

Its just fine if corporations get a break if they maim or kill someone but tolerating any sort of petty theft from the proles just won't be accepted.

Tort reform for the rich, crime and punishment for the poor.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

buy a ticket, support the bullshit by AndyKron · 2015-08-20 07:40 · Score: 1

How can anyone, anywhere support big media? You are the problem if you do.

Re:Darker side of Streisand by ZombieBraintrust · 2015-08-20 08:02 · Score: 1

These lawsuits could be considered promotion for the movie. I didn't know about this movie till this story came out.

Re:The New Business Model - Flaw in item #2 by JackieBrown · 2015-08-20 08:38 · Score: 1

There are other ways to download stuff that does not involve sharing. Heck, even bittorent can be set not to share.

I assume they're using the Prenda Law model by GrumpySteen · 2015-08-20 08:42 · Score: 1

Threaten to sue people for downloading the most embarrassing shit you can imagine (i.e. freaky porn or an Adam Sandler movie) and then send them a letter offering to settle for a few thousand dollars to keep their name out of the publicly accessible legal filings.

Re:The New Business Model - Flaw in item #2 by xenotransplant · 2015-08-20 08:58 · Score: 1

I don't have time to debate the meanings of words. I have to go home and kick the dog. Pay close attention to the definition of share when used as a verb.

Re:Deserve by Ravaldy · 2015-08-21 04:13 · Score: 1

I'd say that the current system is the best we've come up with in human history. Is there room to improve, yes but I wouldn't be took quick to call it fair or unfair.

Re:Deserve by Ravaldy · 2015-08-21 04:14 · Score: 1

The good thing about law is that there's people involved and that brings some level of humanity to the whole process. If we make it black and white that's when we really get screwed by the process.

Re:Deserve by Ravaldy · 2015-08-21 04:30 · Score: 1

I don't see how rigged selections for final candidates to office is fair.

That stems from conspiracy theories. I'm not going to argue that there's influence in many cases and obviously that differs from country to country. And even if there were some rigged elections, how many weren't rigged that offered what democracy is truly about.

Less than half of voting age Americans voted for these people in power

Which is why it's important for people to vote. If you want the 30% of the population to pick your destiny than it's how it's going to be.

then there's the problem of only having one day to vote

I don't know where you live but where I live you can vote up to 30 days ahead if for any reason you believe you won't be able to on election day. And where I live your work must accommodate you for voting. The only reason people don't make it to the polls is because they don't care.

People have obligations

Yes. As state previously there's ample options for those people.

And as for your original statement, the conclusion that "it's not unfair" does not follow from your premise

That's because you already decided that the system is corrupt without having actual facts to back it up. I'm not denying there's corruption but not in the quantities you believe there is.

And I don't get your usage of fictive, which is defined as creating or created by imagination, because all laws are fictive.

Fictive as "UNREAL". The laws regarding copyright infringement being a crime are real.

Your casual dating by SultanaMahmudaSiddiq · 2015-08-21 04:45 · Score: 1

Casual dating is keep your options open and give chance playing the field as you can figure out what type of person you are most well-matched with..6 rules of casual dating which help you to move on.and teach about how to do a casual date.Go here http://goo.gl/5yrSHc

Re:Deserve by hackwrench · 2015-08-21 07:18 · Score: 1

I'm a little confused about your distinction between real and unreal. The fact that a book of fiction exists is real, it's contents as far as we know didn't happen to real people. Laws don't happen to people, they are just tools that people create in order to get something they want done to happen or something they don't want done to stop. As long as you can figure out situations in which a law won't be enforced, you are okay most of the time in breaking it, and if you find enough like-minded people you may have a chance of getting the law removed, replaced, or rewritten, so that what you are doing isn't illegal. That's how most laws get overturned, by enough people breaking the law and finding like minded people, That goes for alcohol, marijuana laws and sexuality laws and probably more that aren't in the spotlight at the moment.

You can't cast a vote for none of the above, and until you can do that it's a waste of time to vote, if you don't believe in or trust both candidates.

I was saying that even if my statement about things being rigged by limiting the selection process to only Republicans can vote for which Republican candidate appears on the final ballot and only Democrats can vote for Democrats on the ballot, and is rigged by not being the best way to vote to determine which candidate best reflects the will of the people as illustrated by my link around "voting methods" above isn't true, that still doesn't mean you can logically deduce representative elections of people results in fairness.

Re:Deserve by Ravaldy · 2015-08-25 06:16 · Score: 1

I'm a little confused about your distinction between real and unreal

When I first used unreal it was saying that laws aren't "unreal". They are written and available for people to follow or break.

You can't cast a vote for none of the above, and until you can do that it's a waste of time to vote, if you don't believe in or trust both candidates.

At then end of the day a group of people needs to be in charge because you cannot have 300 million people voting on every issue. The good thing about democracy is that nobody gets a final say, instead a group of people with each their own say gets to vote for or against.

We are far from the days where kings slaughtered people because they didn't agree. The current system has it's issues but for the most part has allowed society to grow and prosper in a very reasonable way. It will continue to improve as time goes forward.

Slashdot Mirror

Movie Studio Sues Individual Popcorn Time Users For Infringement

144 comments