Slashdot Mirror
LionsGate Wants Pirate Sites To Pay For 'Expendables' 3 Leak (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes: During the summer of 2014, the movie studio LionsGate suffered a major setback when a high quality leak of the then-unreleased Expendables 3 film appeared online. Fearing a massive loss in revenue, the movie studio sued the operators of several websites that allegedly failed to remove the infringing files. Over the past year there has been little progress in the case as most of the accused site operators failed to respond to LionsGate's complaint. In a new filing at the California district court, LionsGate indicates a desire to move forward by asking for a default judgment against the operators of LimeTorrents and the (already defunct) Dotsemper and Swankshare sites. Previously LionsGate settled with the operator of video hosting service Played.to.
I think theft of art is a serious crime. Good thing no such crime was committed here.
Yeah, methinks the studio knew it would be a turd and released it so they could try to make money by suing people.
I mean, it's Expendables 3 for crying out loud ... who the hell even knew there was a 3?
According to IMDB, it cost $90 mil to make and grossed $38 mil which means nobody gave a damn. Which makes it even more shocking that there's apparently going to be a number 4.
You can't sue for damages if you can't prove people would have seen the movie. And I'm not so sure of that.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I think you're confusing it with Expandables 3, which was the movie about three middle aged women who battle food addiction and are secretly ex-Special Forces commandos who take down an international arms dealer and then learn to love and accept themselves for who they are.
I'm pretty sure Sylvester Stallone was in that one, too, playing the husband of one of the commandos. He develops botox poisoning and dies but not before having so much plastic surgery that his eyes point in two different directions and his skin looks like it's made from the Naugahyde recliner that's been in my basement since 1983.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is also how cable companies have often gotten judgments against their customers. They'd set up a court date, pay a couple of lawyers (even though they're not allowed by state law to have legal representation for these low-$ civil cases) and schedule a whole group of customers to come in. The customers don't get to challenge the court date and time, because 100 cases are scheduled to be heard. And most of them default.
I had this pulled on me once because I had refused to pay a bill for 4 months of service I hadn't received. I had a witness and documentation. They had no witness and no documentation. Judge ruled against me anyway, because he said he "could not believe" the cable service people would simply fail to show up when they said they would.
It was my first brush with the corrupt practices of US cable companies.