Hurt locker creators to sue illegal downloaders.

hightower1

Hurt locker creators to sue illegal downloaders.


Note: this only applies to US based IP's.
The days of copyright infringement are done and over with.


http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=17882&count=0

And the initial report...


http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=17688



We recently reported that Voltage Pictures has filed a lawsuit against the many fans who downloaded "The Hurt Locker" illegally online. The film that won six Oscars, including Best Picture, earned only $17 million in US theaters. Many believe that the suit is a way to make more money.

The company is seeking $1,500 from each defendant in order to settle the suit, making it one of the biggest lawsuits against individuals in history. Voltage warns that people don't pay up, they will be taken to court where they will have to pay ten times that amount ($15,000).

Voltage already has a very large list of names (as many as 5,000) and is still going through the many IP addresses to figure out the rest. The lawsuit is expected to go into effect this week.

Source: FilmoFilia





*Please note I post this in regards to the fact that it doesn't relate to European or Irish law but however holds relevance in relation to other recent copyright infringement discussions here.

Papa_Lazarou

hightower1 wrote: »

Hurt locker creators to sue illegal downloaders.


Note: this only applies to US based IP's.
The days of copyright infringement are done and over with.


http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=17882&count=0

And the initial report...


http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=17688



We recently reported that Voltage Pictures has filed a lawsuit against the many fans who downloaded "The Hurt Locker" illegally online. The film that won six Oscars, including Best Picture, earned only $17 million in US theaters. Many believe that the suit is a way to make more money.

The company is seeking $1,500 from each defendant in order to settle the suit, making it one of the biggest lawsuits against individuals in history. Voltage warns that people don't pay up, they will be taken to court where they will have to pay ten times that amount ($15,000).

Voltage already has a very large list of names (as many as 5,000) and is still going through the many IP addresses to figure out the rest. The lawsuit is expected to go into effect this week.

Source: FilmoFilia





*Please note I post this in regards to the fact that it doesn't relate to European or Irish law but however holds relevance in relation to other recent copyright infringement discussions here.

Surely they cant go and actually sue 5,000 people as wouldn't all those 5000 people be entitled to a day in court meaning this could potentially go on for years? Wouldn't it be possible for these people to go out and buy the DVD and say the download was just as a backup> (am i correct in saying your are entitled to a backup of a movie as long as you don't distribute the backup?)

hightower1

Papa_Lazarou wrote: »

Surely they cant go and actually sue 5,000 people as wouldn't all those 5000 people be entitled to a day in court meaning this could potentially go on for years? Wouldn't it be possible for these people to go out and buy the DVD and say the download was just as a backup> (am i correct in saying your are entitled to a backup of a movie as long as you don't distribute the backup?)

Dont know how the court process would work out in this case but downloading any copyrighted material is illegal whether you own a copy of the legally purchased dvd or not. Also they are targeting p2p downloaders of the movie meaning it would have to have been shared with others.
Should be interesting to see how it works out.

Leeg17

Laz,
AFAIK, you're only allowed 1 back-up copy of a dvd you have legally purchased. Ofc an ilegally downloaded version of a movie doesn't count as the 1 legal back-up copy.

Tibbers

If this hits Ireland, Im in so much 'manure' it's not even funny
Honestly...the amount of dumb yet good excuses you can say in court is vast. Your IP can easily become sombody elses IP due to lack of security.
Anyways, VPN, Anonymous IP's and all that will keep illegal downloaders safe. Well, the one's that know what they're at.

You don't need to have a degree in computer or internet technology to realise P2P is a sure-fire way to get caught sharing media.

With the likes of Megaupload, Rapidshare, Netload, etc. then I don't understand how P2P is so popular.


I'm not a big downloader myself (90% of my 'illegal' downloads would be WWE Media that never got official releases), but if people are willing to pay for premium rapidshare accounts and the likes, then surely people would be willing to splash out for a downloader license (i believe this has been mentioned before)?


That said, if I downloaded the Hurt Locker, and was brought to court over it, I believe my argument would be that I didn't cost them any money (except legal fees, which could be avoided by not bringing me to court). I'd argue the fact that I'd have no intention of paying to see the movie in the first place. If I couldn't get it for free, I just never would have seen it.

In fact, by downloading it, I may have liked one or two of the actors and their performance could sway me to pay to see one of their films in future.

Of course, this common sense approach would never be respected.

AlmightyCushion

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't need to have a degree in computer or internet technology to realise P2P is a sure-fire way to get caught sharing media.

With the likes of Megaupload, Rapidshare, Netload, etc. then I don't understand how P2P is so popular.

Torrents are free, the others are not. Simple as that really. While some will happily pay for things like rapidshare etc, there are a lot that won't. Plus a lot of people don't think or know they can be caught.

FloatingVoter

The funny thing about this is "The Hurt Locker" has been floating around the web since last July. Not that I downloaded it, it should be emphasised.
Anything out that early must have come from a studio leak. Perhaps the studio should look to its own security protocols first, or could it be that it was deliberately leaked to generate pre-release word of mouth publicity.
Surely not, that kind of thing only happens with low-budget Oscar hopefuls.:rolleyes:

conor.hogan.2

Budget - $15,000,000.

Worldwide Gross revenue - $48,593,078 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hurtlocker.htm

Greed.

The hurt locker was origanly released on 10th oct 2008!!!

Its all the oscsar crap that threw it back into the limelight, terrible film.
But yes its just pure greed.

yoyo

Deleted User wrote: »

With the likes of Megaupload, Rapidshare, Netload, etc. then I don't understand how P2P is so popular.

You would be actually suprised how many people cannot understand these methods. Torrents are, you to to tpb, you download utorrent, open torrent in utorrent, it sits there downloading, rapidshare et all requires knowledge of sharing forums (not exactly hard to find but still), hot to configure a download manager etc, and of course, you need premium to benefit from these services in reality


Nick

dub45

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

Budget - $15,000,000.

Worldwide Gross revenue - $48,593,078 http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hurtlocker.htm

Greed.

Would "greed' not be the appropriate tag for people who want something for nothing? Particularly when that "something" requires a huge amount or work, artistic, manual etc etc on the part of ordinary people and gifted people too?

Anyone with a bit of cop on would also realise that there is a huge difference between gross revenue quoted above and actual profit.

And how long will the people who put up the initial "15,000,000"s continue to do so when people apparently regard it as their so called right to be able to see the results of their investments for nothing?

Sandvich

dub45 wrote: »

Would "greed' not be the appropriate tag for people who want something for nothing? Particularly when that "something" requires a huge amount or work, artistic, manual etc etc on the part of ordinary people and gifted people too?

Anyone with a bit of cop on would also realise that there is a huge difference between gross revenue quoted above and actual profit.

And how long will the people who put up the initial "15,000,000"s continue to do so when people apparently regard it as their so called right to be able to see the results of their investments for nothing?

It seems to me your argument is based more on guilt tripping than logic or ethics...

People who put all the burden on the "Little guy" in these arguments will always come off badly.

Sandvich

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Torrents are free, the others are not. Simple as that really. While some will happily pay for things like rapidshare etc, there are a lot that won't. Plus a lot of people don't think or know they can be caught.

There's generally a max file limit on most of those which makes downloading movies awkward anyway.

dub45

Sandvich wrote: »

It seems to me your argument is based more on guilt tripping than logic or ethics...

People who put all the burden on the "Little guy" in these arguments will always come off badly.

Yes I admit it is outrageous to ask someone to pay to see a film that someone has invested 15,000,000 dollars pounds or whatever in. How dare someone risking this amount expect a 'little guy' to pay to see such a film.

It is only right to expect unlimited free entertainment for everyone who has a broadband connection. Indeed bb companies should also make massive investments in intrastructure to provide said 'little guy' with the fastest possible bb speed to download this free entertainment. And come to think of it why should bb companies be charging the little guy for the bb signal?

It is pure greed on their part to do so.

Cabaal

Lads just a warning, can all the idiots admitting to downloading copyright material please stop, any further such posts will be removed and they will be banned for a week

Sandvich

dub45 wrote: »

Yes I admit it is outrageous to ask someone to pay to see a film that someone has invested 15,000,000 dollars pounds or whatever in. How dare someone risking this amount expect a 'little guy' to pay to see such a film.

It is only right to expect unlimited free entertainment for everyone who has a broadband connection. Indeed bb companies should also make massive investments in intrastructure to provide said 'little guy' with the fastest possible bb speed to download this free entertainment. And come to think of it why should bb companies be charging the little guy for the bb signal?

It is pure greed on their part to do so.

See the problem is that apart from the two snobby individuals who thanked your post, most people are going to think you're a jerk for making such a one-sided attempt at moralising.

Do most studio execs struggle to pay their rent? No, I doubt it. You're trying to instigate a pity party on behalf of a group of people who need none, and come off as some kind of objectivist apologist. In the case of most major commercial movies, which are the ones most hit by piracy, people don't generally don't put up money they don't have or seriously risk losing. Most blockbusters are funded by big studios with big name actors.

And yes, your argument is pure guilt trip too. There may very well be a reason why it's bad to see something for free that people invested money in. However, you do not provide it in the slightest.

Pulling this "How dare someone risking this amount expect a 'little guy' to pay to see such a film." just makes you look like an obnoxious rat and doesn't explain WHY it's wrong to pirate. It just phrases it in a way that makes it look absurd - which is the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

The ethics of piracy is certainly a very interesting subject and one that has to be discussed; but people like you, and quite frankly Cabaal have no place anywhere near it if you can't see the relevancy of putting forward an actual lengthy argument in place of one sided moralising.

Your Airbag

Worldwide Gross revenue - $48,593,078

does that include dvd sales?

Sandvich

An stuff like poster sales?

dub45

Sandvich wrote: »

See the problem is that apart from the two snobby individuals who thanked your post, most people are going to think you're a jerk for making such a one-sided attempt at moralising.

So if somebody points out the logic that someone or some institution who makes a considerable investment might expect a return on said investment (and by the way by making such investment provides considerable employment opportunities for people who would probably pass your definition of 'the little guy') that is a one sided attempt at moralising? You also ignore the fact that essentially that is the way any captialist society works. An investment is made and people expect a return on it.

Sandvich wrote: »

Do most studio execs struggle to pay their rent? No, I doubt it. You're trying to instigate a pity party on behalf of a group of people who need none, and come off as some kind of objectivist apologist.

It is irrelevant whether studio executives struggle to pay their rent. Are you inferring that it is ok to rip off people who dont struggle to pay their rent?
Also I presume that many of the studio execs you are referring to are actually paid by the studios concerned rather than being the copyright holders. I am not trying to instigate a 'pity party' on behalf of anyone I am simply pointing out the logic that someone who makes an investment expects a return on it. I havent got the foggiest notion what an 'objectivist apologist' is but I would expect someone who uses such big words to give some evidence that they have thougth about what they are trying to argue about:rolleyes:

Sandvich wrote: »

In the case of most major commercial movies, which are the ones most hit by piracy, people don't generally don't put up money they don't have or seriously risk losing. Most blockbusters are funded by big studios with big name actors.

And where exactly do you think that studios get the money to invest? Does it magically appear in their accounts?

So you have never heard of a studio being hit hard by a film doing badly at the box office?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28film%29

Sandvich wrote: »

And yes, your argument is pure guilt trip too. There may very well be a reason why it's bad to see something for free that people invested money in. However, you do not provide it in the slightest.

I am really sorry for damaging your extreme sensitivity to guilty feelings.
Funny how you cannot extend any empathy to people who might have sensitive feelings about having their work ripped off?

And I would have expected that pointing out that someone who invests considerable sums of money in a project might expect a return would provide a reasonable enough argument against copying/file sharing etc to most people and especially one who can use big words like 'objectivist apologist'.

Sandvich wrote: »

Pulling this "How dare someone risking this amount expect a 'little guy' to pay to see such a film." just makes you look like an obnoxious rat and doesn't explain WHY it's wrong to pirate. It just phrases it in a way that makes it look absurd - which is the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

Again I really am sorry to have hurt your delicate sensitivities but unfortunately what I wrote is the logical conclusion of your 'arguments'.

Sandvich wrote: »

The ethics of piracy is certainly a very interesting subject and one that has to be discussed; but people like you, and quite frankly Cabaal have no place anywhere near it if you can't see the relevancy of putting forward an actual lengthy argument in place of one sided moralising.

I really dont see what a lengthy argument has to do with the issue at all. If you want lengthy arguments full of the big words you appear to crave there are plenty of avenues for that.

In the meantime it is quite possible explain very easily why piracy is wrong but you do not want to acknowledge that. There are none so blind etc etc.

And by the way you have absolutely no grounds for making personal remarks about other posters - I am presuming you dont know them from Adam (or Eve) as the case may be. If you had a decent argument then it would not necessitate personal remarks.

Sandvich

Again I really am sorry to have hurt your delicate sensitivities but unfortunately what I wrote is the logical conclusion of your 'arguments'.

The anti-piracy crowd seem to be some of the most smarmy human beings you can (fail to) hold a discussion with.

Thing is, your opinion is in the majority here, and people are still no doubt continuing to illegally download as they please.

If you wish to actually convince people, then stop acting like a complete tool.

Sandvich

dub45 wrote: »

So if somebody points out the logic that someone or some institution who makes a considerable investment might expect a return on said investment (and by the way by making such investment provides considerable employment opportunities for people who would probably pass your definition of 'the little guy') that is a one sided attempt at moralising? You also ignore the fact that essentially that is the way any captialist society works. An investment is made and people expect a return on it.

Actually; people benefit off other people's investments all the time. People sneak into pubs to go the toilet. People try out guitars and amps they might not buy.

The internet is FULL of people not getting a return of investment. For example, if you visit a site supported by ads using an adblocker - you're just as guilty. If you visit a site about a product you don't intend to buy but want to be more knowledgable of, you're just as guilty. The fact is that these things regardless of "freeloaders" still manage to get a return on investment. Blaming freeloaders is nothing but a crutch when the majority of people are still willing to pay.

Are any of these things morally reprehensible? No.

"This is the way capitalist society works", yes the same capitalist society that ends up with people going homeless. Saying dem's the breaks isn't really an argument, especially when you're trying to convince a majority; since apparently, dem's not the breaks.

It is irrelevant whether studio executives struggle to pay their rent. Are you inferring that it is ok to rip off people who dont struggle to pay their rent?

Is it equally as bad to rip off people who are struggling to pay their rent as it is someone who has more than enough? Blah blah blah who decides "More than enough", that's why we argue about things to begin with.

And actually, I would argue that in some cases, if someone is a greedy ****, I see nothing wrong with "ripping them off", in the case where you can't prove they're losing any money anyway.

This it the crux of the argument - studies have often found the opposite result. While it may be inaccurate, if Piracy was so wildly harmful.

The main result of piracy is that MORE people watch MORE stuff, and have roughly the same amount of money to spend on "stuff". There are a number of effects(such as a vast increase of word of mouth) that seem to counter the effects piracy would normally have.

But, debating on this would be to actually debate facts and statistics, not some pathetic desire to see pirates get their faces kicked in.


Also I presume that many of the studio execs you are referring to are actually paid by the studios concerned rather than being the copyright holders. I am not trying to instigate a 'pity party' on behalf of anyone I am simply pointing out the logic that someone who makes an investment expects a return on it. I havent got the foggiest notion what an 'objectivist apologist' is but I would expect someone who uses such big words to give some evidence that they have thougth about what they are trying to argue about:rolleyes:

And where exactly do you think that studios get the money to invest? Does it magically appear in their accounts?

I wasn't aware that piracy had caused all the studios ever to go bankrupt. In fact I'm pretty sure most are still going despite piracy existing.

It seems to me you have no concept of what actually happens in the real world, only what should happen on paper. People pirate stuff, yet the people making it can still make money. Crazy, I know. So are a lot of things that exist outside of your head.

Home viewing will pretty much never be a replacement for cinema, anyway. But these kind of facts get ignored.

So you have never heard of a studio being hit hard by a film doing badly at the box office?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28film%29

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure bittorrent wasn't around in 1980.

Of course as I said Piracy's been around longer than the internet, but how do you know it was responsible for that film's failures? It doesn't even seem to mention it on that page.

I am really sorry for damaging your extreme sensitivity to guilty feelings.
Funny how you cannot extend any empathy to people who might have sensitive feelings about having their work ripped off?

They can't prove they lost a sale. Plus, boo ****ing hoo if Michael Bay can't afford another Bentley, there's no evidence piracy is to blame for his ****ty movies not doing even more ridiculously well anyway.

And I would have expected that pointing out that someone who invests considerable sums of money in a project might expect a return would provide a reasonable enough argument against copying/file sharing etc to most people and especially one who can use big words like 'objectivist apologist'.

But they do get a return on their investment. If I was making millions on a movie I would not give a **** if people got to see it for free. Why would I? Sure if everyone started pirating it; but would they? As long as piracy has some level of negative stigma against it, the majority will not engage in it.

Of course, actual facts and reality are pretty low on your list of priorities.

I really dont see what a lengthy argument has to do with the issue at all. If you want lengthy arguments full of the big words you appear to crave there are plenty of avenues for that.

Gee yeah whoever thought a lengthy argument might be necessary for exploring a complex issue?

In the meantime it is quite possible explain very easily why piracy is wrong but you do not want to acknowledge that. There are none so blind etc etc.

If it's quite possible very easily, why aren't you explaining it?

And by the way you have absolutely no grounds for making personal remarks about other posters - I am presuming you dont know them from Adam (or Eve) as the case may be. If you had a decent argument then it would not necessitate personal remarks.

Yet it's acceptable for Cabaal, a moderator of this forum who should show responsibility, to call people idiots.

And quite frankly if people like that are getting pushy towards people who disagree with them without showing their reasoning, then yes it is justified.

If I had a decent argument it wouldn't necessitate personal remarks? Personal remarks do not alter the truth value of my argument. If you had a decent argument, you wouldn't need to write my argument off because it contains "personal remarks"(none of which were particularly aggressive).

Oh, and please read up on your logic before getting into a debate again.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Style_over_substance

Personal remarks are not necessarily Ad Hominem, but Style over Substance is ironically a form of it(or red herring).

Cabaal

Sandvich wrote: »

Yet it's acceptable for Cabaal, a moderator of this forum who should show responsibility, to call people idiots.

Enough is enough,
If you have a problem with my moderation then you will follow boards.ie rules, these rules do not include questioning decisions on thread or in this forum.

Your registered long enough on boards.ie to know this.

My previous post was a warning to others to enforce general warnings which you've previously been aware of regarding people admitting to downloading copyright material.

If people download copyright material and take my warning to heart then thats their problem not mine, however if they have a problem they can follow the esculation procedure for boards.ie

The warning is still valid.

Sandvich wrote: »

If you wish to actually convince people, then stop acting like a complete tool.

So between your questioning my modding and your abuse against other forum users (above) you've now got yourself banned for 7 days.

Take the time to cool off before you post here again

This thread has reached the end so its locked