backtop

Print 101 comment(s) - last by gixser.. on Jun 2 at 6:42 PM
Voltage Pictures files a lawsuit in DC

"You mess with the bull, you get the horns." It appears that filesharers that illegally downloaded "The Hurt Locker" over BitTorrent are about to feel the wrath of Voltage Pictures, the producers of the film.

The producers threatened legal action against pirates back in early May. At the time, it was reported the Voltage Pictures had the cooperation of 75 percent of the ISPs involved with the illegal downloads. According to artflaw, the producers filed a lawsuit against 5,000 "John Does" in a Washington, DC federal court.

The complaint notes that "Defendants' infringements allow them and others unlawfully to obtain and distribute for free unauthorized copyrighted works that the Plaintiff spends millions of dollars to create and/or distribute."

A Defendant's distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people."

In closing, the lawsuit note that the pirates "unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will continue to cause the Plaintiff great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money."

Voltage Pictures has the IP addresses of those that download copies of "The Hurt Locker", and it "believes that information obtained in discovery will lead to the identification of each of the defendant's true name."

Voltage Picture is declaring was on pirates and it doesn't appear to be fazed by any negativity that comes with such actions from the torrent community. Voltage Pictures President Nicholas Chartier made that abundantly clear a few weeks ago when he blasted a person that had genuine concerns about the scope of the impending lawsuit.

Chartier went nuclear, stating, "I'm glad you're a moron who believes stealing is right. I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference. Until then, keep being stupid, you're doing that very well."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
oh noes
By FallenHero on 5/31/2010 6:59:30 PM , Rating: 5
I'll wait for 4chan to bring everything related to the Hurt Locker to it's knees and hack the producers private accounts.




RE: oh noes
By Exodus220 on 5/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By sprockkets on 5/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: oh noes
By Noya on 5/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By sprockkets on 6/1/2010 9:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. And for all the idiots posting about whether it is right or wrong are completely missing the point:

It's also illegal to speed, even the grace 5mph over the limit. Does anyone care? No, not even the police unless you are being a jerk and a safety hazard.

You can make something illegal, and it won't stop everyone from doing it. In fact, making something illegal encourages people sometimes to do it.

We don't live in an ideal world people. RIAA, MPAA, the sham US Copyright group of anal lawyers, get over it. On second thought, GFY.


RE: oh noes
By FaceMaster on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: oh noes
By theplaidfad on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By flatline76 on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: oh noes
By theplaidfad on 6/1/2010 9:42:18 AM , Rating: 4
I'm sure most common thiefs makes a justification for doing something illegal. Too bad that it doesn't fly, and it's still illegal.


RE: oh noes
By flatline76 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By theplaidfad on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: oh noes
By flatline76 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By theplaidfad on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: oh noes
By conejo99 on 6/1/2010 10:11:00 PM , Rating: 1
Copyright infringment and stealing are a bit different. When you steal the owner has less than he started with. On the other hand, let's be honest. People commit copyright infringement because they want the product, not because it is booring.
And to complete the circle, I don't care if they commit copyright infringment on music or movies or not. It's hard to fell positive to infringers, but I don't much care for the entertainment industry either.


RE: oh noes
By clovell on 6/1/2010 11:30:12 AM , Rating: 5
Then - don't watch it.

God, why is that so hard?


RE: oh noes
By The Raven on 6/1/2010 10:37:14 AM , Rating: 5
It is illegal but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong.


RE: oh noes
By clovell on 6/1/2010 11:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
1 sentence counter - You're using something without paying for it, and it's illegal.


RE: oh noes
By The Raven on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By jnolen on 6/1/2010 12:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
The piracy issue has nothing to do with how terrible shows and movies are perceived to be. Your logic is that if the quality is good enough you would purchase the film/game/song even if the ability to pirate it for free remained. That is ludicrous. Why would anyone purchase groceries from a grocery store if they could take them from the farmer for free, against his will yet outside his ability to protect his property or punish the perpetrators? No one would purchase anything, effectively putting the grocery store and the farmer out of business.

If you want to really draw the logic above out, then the movie industry could blame the pirates who are not purchasing the movies/music/games from them for the drop in quality of the movies/music/games. Why? The revenue stream is being depleted by pirates who steal instead of purchasing meaning there is less cash for them to spend on high quality actors, directors, scripts, special effects, etc.

Theft will occur as long as 1) there is no punishment (or not severe enough punishment) for said theft and 2) as long as mankind exists. The producers of Hurt Locker are perfectly justified in their attempts to protect the property they created with the hard earned dollars they spent. The "inconsistencies" (I haven't seen the film so I cannot comment on them) and "unrealistic interpretation of war" (are you a former soldier flatline76? Just curious how much of your opinion is based on experience) are irrelevant.


RE: oh noes
By FaceMaster on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: oh noes
By The Raven on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By clovell on 6/1/2010 11:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
The only truth here is that pirates use something without paying for it. If I go out to a lake at night and 'pirate' a paddleboat for an hour that rents for $40/hour during the day, I haven't stolen anything; I haven't deprived anyone of income; I really haven't put any wear & tear on the boat.

But it's still illegal. And, it still not right. If the paddleboat is sh!t, then I'm a dumbass for even messing with it. If the paddleboat is too expensive, then I should find a cheaper way to use it - like maybe split the cost with a friend. There's this whole ocean of options available to me before I get to the point of breaking the law.

But - I frankly don't expect someone who thinks people would pay to watch a ballet or play on YouTube to understand that.


RE: oh noes
By The Raven on 6/1/2010 5:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah buddy, I just mentioned ballet and not anything about comedians or anyone else. But really that is exactly my point: no one will go to the ballet because movies at home are more convenient and the studios then use that $ to get you to go see their (often times) crap in the theater.

Your boat analogy is crap by the way, because you are risking that the boat will be damaged somehow. And who would get sued if you drown? And who owns the lake? Not to mention you are getting a different product because you can only use it at night.

But I'll try to work with it.

Saying that using the boat at night is like saying you are watching a movie that you have on DVD at home, and using the boat during the day is like watching the movie in the theater. If the boat dudes say that you can use the boat at night when they are closed for business (provided you sign a waiver and promise not to rent out the boats to others) then wouldn't you think that would be cool?

I would. And that is pretty much what the studios would be doing if they did not prosecute these people.

Anyway, I tried working with your example. How about you try explaining where all the falsehoods are up in my original reply.

quote:
The only truth here is that pirates use something without paying for it.


You aren't 'using' something when you pirate The Hurt Locker. If it is illegal, it is because 'we the people' made it that way. If so many people think it is ok to do it then 'we the people' must think that the laws need changing. Unfortuantely we have built Hollywood into its own huge lobby that prevents us from revising law, and infact make new ones on its own (see DMCA). It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit on the back of the bus, but I'm sure you don't think there is a need for a reform of legislation there, right?

These pirates are following the forces of the free market. Unfortuantely, our society is unprepared for the effects of the free market. The studios and legislators (and by extension voters) need to wake up.

And how about you look at the situation like this?

quote:
If the cost of making a movie is too expensive, then I should find a cheaper way to make it - like maybe split the cost with a friend. There's this whole ocean of options available to them before they get to the point of suing their customers .


But - I frankly don't expect someone who doesn't know how to read to understand that.


RE: oh noes
By clovell on 6/1/2010 6:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
> Yeah buddy, I just mentioned ballet and not anything about comedians or anyone else. But really that is exactly my point: no one will go to the ballet because movies at home are more convenient and the studios then use that $ to get you to go see their (often times) crap in the theater.

I only had a problem with the ballet, so I only mentioned it. Your point is trash, and in no way speaks to mine - exactly as I predicted, you don't get it. People pay for the experience of ballet, operas, plays, & orchestras.

> Your boat analogy is crap by the way, because you are risking that the boat will be damaged somehow. And who would get sued if you drown? And who owns the lake? Not to mention you are getting a different product because you can only use it at night.

No, - when I dismissed wear & tear on the boat, it meant I wasn't worried about damage. As for drowning - what the hell does it matter? And who owns the lake? I didn't mention it because I didn't think it needed to be explicitly stated that the lake is for public use.

> Saying that using the boat at night is like saying you are watching a movie that you have on DVD at home, and using the boat during the day is like watching the movie in the theater. If the boat dudes say that you can use the boat at night when they are closed for business (provided you sign a waiver and promise not to rent out the boats to others) then wouldn't you think that would be cool?

Yeah, it would. But, if they don't, and I still use it, then it's not cool. Not right. Not stealing - but piracy. I'm having trouble following you here - I thought you were going somewhere, but you managed to just make my point.

> You aren't 'using' something when you pirate The Hurt Locker. If it is illegal, it is because 'we the people' made it that way. If so many people think it is ok to do it then 'we the people' must think that the laws need changing. Unfortuantely we have built Hollywood into its own huge lobby that prevents us from revising law, and infact make new ones on its own (see DMCA). It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit on the back of the bus, but I'm sure you don't think there is a need for a reform of legislation there, right?

No - when you watch the movie - you're using somebody else's work. By the way - EVERYTHING is illegal because we the people made it that way - so take your tired craptacular argument somewhere else. Comparing the civil rights movement to the infringement of Intellectual Property that's not barely even a year old is the single dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on Dailytech. And you think my analogy was bad?

> These pirates are following the forces of the free market. Unfortuantely, our society is unprepared for the effects of the free market. The studios and legislators (and by extension voters) need to wake up.

No - the pirates are breaking the damned law. You dumbasses who think you're the next Rosa Parks or John Connors need to stfu and partake only of the entertainment you can afford and stop whining about how you deserve to gain access to other people's work for free.

> If the cost of making a movie is too expensive, then I should find a cheaper way to make it - like maybe split the cost with a friend. There's this whole ocean of options available to them before they get to the point of suing their customers .

Even more atrocious than your other analogies, and it flies in the face of the entire concept of a Free Market. This is entertainment - not air, water, food, gas, or electricity. The people who make entertainment can set their own prices. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Doesn't give you any right to use it for free. The Onus here is not on the entertainment producers, but on the entertainment consumers.

> But - I frankly don't expect someone who doesn't know how to read to understand that.

Keep up the handout attitude, kid - you'll go far.


RE: oh noes
By Fracture on 6/2/2010 10:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
You just attacked an analogy instead of providing any reasoning yourself.

I found that the major problem with your premise is here:
quote:
The people who make entertainment can set their own prices. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Doesn't give you any right to use it for free.

The issue is that copyright is an artificial monopoly created by government interference. It is impossible to preach anything about the free market with it in place, and it greatly restricts the options that we can spend money on.

The truth is that the entertainment industry does set its own prices - budgets spent on movies dictate expected earnings, those earnings set the price of the reels sold to movie theaters and the number at which they are shown, which ultimately drives ticket price.

You seem to have a problem with the fact that people en masse would challenge laws that seem either outdated or misguided - I think that a lot of people would feel that the struggle from digital persecution parallels some aspects of the civil rights movement. Consider that the entire copyright act could just be deemed a failure, that it indeed did not promote the progress of science and the useful arts and instead bred industries centered around lawyers and closing ideas and keeping them secret.

The way you sling insults makes it seem to everyone that you have no basis to stand on or argument to make. Art is something made to be shared and enjoyed by others, and on as large a scale as possible. Please provide support why you believe this is not the case and why copying is wrong, since as I've stated before, "its illegal" is not a justification of right or wrong by itself.


RE: oh noes
By The Raven on 6/2/2010 3:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
As I said, I think you are missing my point altogether. I am not denying that this is piracy or that it isn't straight theft. I am denying that it is necessarily wrong. And I bring up the civil rights movement only because I don't think many people disagree with the fact that people JUSTIFIABLY broke laws in order to change them. Not because sitting where you want on a bus is equivalent to being able to see a movie that you don't pay for.

Civil rights may not be the equivalent of movies, but tea is. I mentioned the old revolutionary Boston Tea Party to someone earlier and you can say that tea and movies are similarly are not necessities. But people rebelled at the fact that they were getting gouged when they bought the stuff. That was gov't imposed. This is studio imposed. And though I don't necessarily want to liken a revolutionary to a media pirate, I am saying that the forces that were at hand then are still here today. The hand that Adam Smith wrote about may be invisible, but it never really 'disappears' so to speak.

Now you might not think it is justifiable and that is your opinion, and I really don't care about the issue on the basis of a single consumer because I appreciate many forms of entertainment and as soon as it isn't viable to watch/listen to one of them I won't. But I do care about the fact that the labels and studios have used the IP law in this country to screw over most other forms of entertainment, become the biggest fish in the pond and then bully people like they are now.

The only movie I have ever DL'd illegally was Transformers 2 that was a crappy theater/camcorder version. One coworker was raving about how awesome it was but his opinion is suspect for my tastes. But if you recall there was a bit of controversy about the "black robots" not being able to read and jive talkin'. So, as a half joke, I said I wouldn't give money to such a despicable production if that were the case. So I had to illegally DL it in order to find out if I would go to see it in the theater. (Also, as a parent of 3 and 0.5 year olds I have to choose my theater attendance very carefully!)
I watched a bit of it and (expectedly) determined that the controversy was a bunch of hooey to increase viewership. I didn't end up going to see it in the theater.

~Epilogue~

As a Netflix subscriber I rented it when it came out on DVD, watched half of it and sent it back (FYI being a Hollywood Video employee ~2 years made me uber critical of movies). Legally. I now haven't been to a movie theater since before Transformers 2 first started screening.

quote:
I only had a problem with the ballet, so I only mentioned it. Your point is trash, and in no way speaks to mine - exactly as I predicted, you don't get it. People pay for the experience of ballet, operas, plays, & orchestras.


You completely missed my point which I may not have stated very clearly. My point is that people DON'T pay to go to the ballet AT ALL! The reason is that the movie industry has made it too easy to see their movies v. going to the ballet. Thus society doesn't appreciate the "fine" arts as much and spends less on watching/listening (read: supporting) them.

quote:
No, - when I dismissed wear & tear on the boat, it meant I wasn't worried about damage. As for drowning - what the hell does it matter? And who owns the lake? I didn't mention it because I didn't think it needed to be explicitly stated that the lake is for public use.


I was trying to show that it is not the same thing. Which was your point. I don't have to worry about breaking the movie. Or hurting myself on it. Then there is the lack of an opportunity cost for those who would not pay to see the movie. This is an apples to oranges comparison and to say they are the same is asinine.

quote:
Yeah, it would. But, if they don't, and I still use it, then it's not cool. Not right. Not stealing - but piracy. I'm having trouble following you here - I thought you were going somewhere, but you managed to just make my point.


You missed this part:
quote:
Anyway, I tried working with your example.

I was TRYING to follow your logic. But then I was stating that I think that they should be cool and just let these people "use their boats at night". I didn't say that they had too or that they shouldn't be ABLE to try and prevent it. I just think this is a douchy move by the studios. And usually when you are a douche, people do not treat you with respect.

I said this because you were saying that using a boat was the equivalent of pirating a movie. And you can't compare the two.


RE: oh noes
By The Raven on 6/2/2010 3:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way - EVERYTHING is illegal because we the people made it that way - so take your tired craptacular argument somewhere else.


Where is your disagreement here? We are talking about IP law and the fact that they could possibly win this case. Yes, all laws are dictated by the populous in this country and we happen to be talking about laws relating to the entertainment industry here. If that is craptacular then you are in the wrong country.

quote:
pirates are breaking the damned law


See! Even you think the law sucks! ;-p

quote:
Even more atrocious than your other analogies, and it flies in the face of the entire concept of a Free Market. This is entertainment - not air, water, food, gas, or electricity. The people who make entertainment can set their own prices. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.


These people aren't buying it. That is the point.
If I set up an air stand (like a lemonade stand) and offered people some air for 50 cents, how many people would pay for it? Zero. Because they can get it elsewhere. And I would stop selling the crap.

These days, entertainment is like air in that people can be entertained by Youtube videos, video games, sports, music, pictures, paintings, TV, etc. And all of these have 'free' options, whether it is a highschool football game, Assault Cube, Wikimedia entries, public domain books and movies, home video, comments below a blog post, etc. With all of these options, people AREN'T willing to pay to watch these movies. If the studios have a problem with that then they can stop making them. But no, they get plenty of money and notoriety from them so they continue to make them. And they have so much money that they can spend a gazillion dollars on legal fees and political lobbying.

The disconnect here is that the studios and tools like you think that watching is the same as 'buying' without paying.
These people wouldn't buy them.

Think of FOSS. Do you think people are stealing from Open Office if they don't pay for it? It is the work of others. I did not pay for it. Am I a pirate? No. The difference here is that the studios are expecting a certain amount of money for their work. My point is that people aren't willing to pay what they are asking for it. You're right. The onus is on the consumer and they are saying that they won't pay. Now the onus is on the studio to respond to that. In this case they are suing people for copyright infringement. I am suggesting they stop making movies if this is what they feel they need to do. When the consumers come crawling back to them, they can charge whatever they want. But nobody is crawling right now. Entertainment is too cheap and plentiful.

And stop using my words without my permission. You didn't pay to use them. And you are USING them. I put them up here expecting people to watch them. But you are USING them.

And I am not about handouts. I buy (as in "pay money for") movies that I love. I work hard to entertain my kids too. But I am more likely not to donate to Arnold's "I need another Hummer fund" (no disrespect to the Governator) than take my kid to the Muny here in St. Louis.

You on the other hand think that people should be able to make something and get paid gads of money to get hopped up on drugs and what not for years before they ever make anything again. Now that is what I call a handout. Go join a MLM scheme if you like that system.


RE: oh noes
By TheDoc9 on 6/1/2010 10:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
They really aren't doing anything wrong, copying and watching a movie is not 'wrong'. I think the wrong you're talking about is the missed profits by the producers. It's wrong they don't get paid as far as they're concerned.

Which is the greater wrong though; ruining someone's life over copying and watching a movie, or you loosing a few dollars over some little punk not paying you to see it...

These producers get ecstatic, almost glee and lustful sensations just at the taught of getting these little punks and putting them in their place (as evidence by the email in the story). It's as if they're in the heat of battle slaughtering the enemy - an enemy with no defense against a team of multi-million dollar lawyers.

It's actually almost better to be a cocaine dealer and even a murderer in some states than to download a movie. This is a huge injustice and one day people will hopefully look back at this time like they do the wild west.


RE: oh noes
By Astral Abyss on 6/2/2010 3:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Go ahead and sign me up for the "enjoys getting these little punks and putting them in their place".

Where's my popcorn? This is better than any movie.


RE: oh noes
By room200 on 6/1/2010 9:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
This country has NEVER been all THAT "glorious".


RE: oh noes
By leuNam on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: oh noes
By Icehearted on 5/31/2010 11:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't count on it. 4chn's been pretty indifferent to causes other than sauce" or trolling these last few years. Unless you count that moot vote thing they pulled.

Not personal army etc might apply here.

Also, I think we just broke the first two rules of the internet :x


lol
By AliShawkat on 5/31/2010 6:11:29 PM , Rating: 5
They must be desperate for some way to make cash. I guess their creativity wasn't enough.




RE: lol
By Exodus220 on 5/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By sprockkets on 5/31/2010 8:22:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Is this really your view? That since the movie didn't gross hundreds or millions of dollars it was a failure and therefore they need to recoup by going after people that are illegally sharing files through torrents?


Yep, pretty much. Plenty of other movies are pirated and still make money.

If 2500 of those initial 5000 cave in and paid $2500, that is $6.25 million. As torrentfreak pointed out if they sued 20000 then they will have made more suing than they did on the movie itself.

quote:
Perhaps they do not appreciate people stealing their product and then sharing it illegally with others over the internet. They have every right to do this and it has nothing to do with them not making enough money or being creative enough.


Sure you can sue. What they don't understand is they won't get ahead, and they never will now.


RE: lol
By StevoLincolnite on 6/1/2010 2:58:47 AM , Rating: 1
Also worthy of mention is that not one single music artist, or movie producer has gone broke directly due to piracy.


RE: lol
By theplaidfad on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By TheDoc9 on 6/1/2010 1:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
If only I had a billion dollars to pay off some politicians and make file sharing LEGAL...


RE: lol
By clovell on 6/1/2010 11:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
Nah, they probably just don't appreciate the sentiment that their work should be used free of charge. Their creativity seems to have served them well enough at the Oscars.

Oh, and by the way - they offered a nominal settlement to all defendants prior to filing suit. If they were 'desperate', one would think they'd just sue for the maximum statutory damage.


RE: lol
By adiposity on 6/2/2010 6:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, and by the way - they offered a nominal settlement to all defendants prior to filing suit. If they were 'desperate', one would think they'd just sue for the maximum statutory damage.


Gotta disagree here. People who are desperate would rather settle up front. If you are desperate you don't sue for a huge amount against someone who has no money. Whatever you are desperate for, suing an 18-year-old for $250k (or whatever the max is) probably won't get it for you.

On the other hand, if you just want some money, you can sue a huge number of people and offer them "nominal" amounts hoping you make a few million without actually having to try a case. Brilliant, huh?

So sorry, I don't agree that trying to settle means you aren't desperate. Often, it means you definitely are.


RE: lol
By adiposity on 6/2/2010 6:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
what a terrible movie
By GILSTRAC on 5/31/2010 11:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
I rented this movie. I heard it was not very good. I never asked where they watched it. I wish I had my money back and even more I wish I had the time back. I am frequently amazed how such terrible movies get to the theater. I was even more amazed to hear it is critically acclaimed. I suppose it was a hail mary by everyone with a vested interest to get some of their investment back. I am sure the people in the industry rationalize it as being OK but I compare it more to a sleazy car sales man that takes advantage of customers and then justifies it as being OK and blames everyone but himself for his actions. This lawsuit demonstrate the pure arrogance of the this industry and lack self of accountability for their product. The critically acclaimed accolade highlights this industry's disconnect with their customer base.




RE: what a terrible movie
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/1/2010 6:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
OK, what does any of this rant have to do with someone illegally obtaining a copy of the movie, and then getting sued for doing so?


RE: what a terrible movie
By leuNam on 6/1/2010 8:44:07 AM , Rating: 3
there might be a conspiracy here.. they made some movie up, made sure that it is like any other movie(though the plot and everything sucks), and made plans on creating money out of suing pirates...


Married
By AliShawkat on 5/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Married
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/31/2010 6:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Were married... (1989–1991)


RE: Married
By carniver on 5/31/2010 6:54:13 PM , Rating: 5
Apparently they're not a good couple. One created a movie that broke box office records worldwide, the other one broke her bank and had to blame it on piracy.


RE: Married
By Exodus220 on 5/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Married
By FaceMaster on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
Oh, the irony
By Gungel on 6/1/2010 7:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
The producer of Hurt Locker was sued last month for stealing the story from Master Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver he was interviewed by a journalist embedded with his Army unit in Iraq but did never see a penny for his story. He even came up with the name "The Hurt Locker". Looks like the production company is looking for ways to pay for that lawsuit.




RE: Oh, the irony
By ClownPuncher on 6/1/2010 1:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but even 16 years ago when I was just a kid, we were saying someone "got put in the Hurt Locker" if they got their asses kicked or got in trouble at school. He didn't come up with anything, though he should be compensated for his story IMO.


hm
By whocares123 on 6/1/2010 5:06:54 AM , Rating: 3
"A Defendant's distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people."

"nearly instantaneous" -- false it will take the average dsl user up to 1.5-2 hours to completely download a typical ~700 mb divx. It varies. It can be faster. But this isn't anywhere close to "instantaneous."

"limitless number of people" -- what? There are only 6-7 billion people on the planet-- many of whom don't use the internet. Either way, that's not limitless not even close.

Hogwash.




It really is so simple.
By Thelookingglass on 6/1/2010 4:09:40 PM , Rating: 1
Argueing semantics about whether copying is stealing doesn't address the issue.

Perhaps copying is copying, but in this case its illegal copying. So stop trying to justify your lack of integrity/conscience through semantics.

The problem here is based on the fact that idiots are idiots. The people who steal (aka ILLEGALLY COPY) this stuff know they're getting away with something that isn't right/legal/moral, but they'll go to the ends of the earth to try and justify it so they can keep stealing (aka ILLEGALLY COPYING) without consequence.

The internet's lack of accountability exemplified.

Picture analogy incoming. I predict idiots argueing semantics.

So taking a picture of Top Secret government documents isn't stealing that information?

Let's get a little less serious for the semantic argueing idiots.

So taking a picture of sensitive business documents without their knowledge or permission isn't stealing that information?

Let's keep breaking it down...

So taking a picture of someone's social security card or ID isn't stealing that information?

If you'd like to keep argueing semantics about whether copying is stealing or what have you...

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO POST A FEW PICTURES OF YOU SOCIAL SECURITY CARD AND STATE ISSUED ID ON THE FORUMS.

I'm not going to steal them. I'm just going to copy them... for my own use...




RE: It really is so simple.
By Fracture on 6/1/2010 5:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
So do you have any reasoning why copying is wrong?

Beyond the "its illegal" or "it loses them money" argument since those that practice and create copyright law will do so in such a way to keep it lucrative, they will never make themselves obsolete. Losing money isn't justification either - who's crying about what the internet has done to newspapers?

Better methods and models come along, old ways go extinct.

Is there any point to your analogy?


By ImSpartacus on 5/31/2010 6:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
Now, I in no way condone these actions, but why don't all film companies do this sort of thing?

I mean, the cost to mail threats to individuals is paid by the ~$2000 settlement offer that most take. Then the few souls that push for justice usually get slammed with thousands of dollars in fines and other charges.

Either way, the film maker makes a little money. So why don't they all do these mass threat-campaigns?

Is it the bad PR or do they usually not get all the fine money back?




Instantaneous Distribution
By Alexstarfire on 5/31/2010 7:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
If one person torrenting the movie can create instantaneous distribution then why don't the movie companies take advantage of the technology. Sure, some like the movie experience but a lot of people care about the movie more than the experience. They might as well make their own private tracker(s) to distribute movies. Naturally you'd pay for them.




usenet newsgroups anyone?
By taber on 6/1/2010 12:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's ironic that one of the older ways to get dubious material is one of the safest and I've not seen any lawsuits recently for it. Why is it that ISPs maintain logs of the IP addresses of their customers anyway? I'd imagine it's the government, but I'd just like to know specifically why.




By toshareisfair on 6/1/2010 10:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
Here is the response from Nicholas Chartier, Voltage Pictures:

"From: "Nicolas Chartier"
Date: May 15, 2010 2:30:30 AM PDT
To: [redacted]@[redacted].com
Subject: RE: Hurt Locker lawsuit

Hi Nicholas, please feel free to leave your house open every time you go out and please tell your family to do so, please invite people in the streets to come in and take things from you, not to make money out of it by reselling it but just to use it for themselves and help themselves. If you think it's normal they take my work for free, I'm sure you will give away all your furniture and possessions and your family will do the same. I can also send you my bank account information since apparently you work for free and your family too so since you have so much money you should give it away... I actually like to pay my employees, my family, my bank for their work and like to get paid for my work. I'm glad you're a moron who believes stealing is right. I hope your family and your kids end up in jail one day for stealing so maybe they can be taught the difference. Until then, keep being stupid, you're doing that very well. And please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies, I actually like smart and more important HONEST people to watch my films.

best regards,
Nicolas Chartier, Nicolas@voltagepictures.com
Voltage Pictures, LLC"

Nicholas may fail to understand some very simple things. Downloading a movie from the net would not be the same as entering a home and robbing it of a real tangible item. The copy of the DVD, although the intellectual property of Voltage, is not the same as an actual DVD when it comes to monetary loss which is what the movie industry is concerned about. For the 5000 copies of the Hurt Locker that were downloaded and shared over the net, I can guarantee you had that not been possible for 1 copy of the movie to be downloaded, it would not have resulted in 5000 movie sales or dvd rentals. Maybe of the 5000 downloads 500 would have seen the movie in one legal form or another, and yes Voltage lost some money on this. However it will be up to the courts to consider the correct punishment. First of all; imagine that all you had to do to copy a $20 bill was use a computer, scanner and printer and you would get a nearly 100% perfect copy. I am sure a lot more people would do it. It doesn't make it any less illegal. However, one of the things the Treasury department has done is use techniques which make it very, very hard to copy and duplicate; thus the amount of counterfeiting is low. If the MPAA had some intellectual skills (Other than Mr. Chartier stating "I hope your family and your kids end up in jail" perhaps Voltage pictures and other studios could take some of the millions of dollars earned of the movie entertainment industry and make a platform that is more resilient and protective of their intellectual property. First Voltage should really look at how to make a good movie though. I have talked to several people who have served in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation, and for a movie that was advertised to be realistic of the situation, it fell far short of that goal, not to mention it was just boring enough for me to fall asleep before the end. I purchased the blue ray dvd, and believe me, I wish I had my money back. So Mr. Chartier, to use your own sentiments, keep being stupid about the property you develop and the way in which you secure it; you are very good at it, and you are very easy to take advantage of.

Have a nice day

Estimated 50,000,000 plus bit torrent users and growing.




How about this scenario?
By grampaw on 6/1/2010 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
You pay for and directly download (no torrents) an "advance" copy (i.e. before the DVD is released) of Hurt Locker.
You place that sole copy on a non-internet accessible drive so no one else can access it.
You watch this advance copy (great movie, BTW), then delete the file.
You rent the DVD, when it comes out, to see the Extra Features on the DVD, or just to make your prior viewing seem "ethical." You just rent DVDs, never buy, anyway.
Do the Legal Beagles get sic'd on you?




Nothing more than a Money Grab
By HrilL on 6/1/2010 3:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
This is nothing more than a extortion scheme. The simple fact is that they'd have a very hard time proving the person behind a given IP address is the actual person that infringed on their copyright.

No one should ever pay if they get one of these letters. They don't even plan on taking people to court because that would cut into their profits from the people that just pay up without thinking.




By derricker on 6/1/2010 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
They are suing 5000 -->John Does<--, it will be 5000 thousand American citizens unjustly sued over this crap of a movie, is this joke really to stop piracy?? or to try and find alternative ways to raise money out of a B picture???

Is US judicial system coming to this?? letting itself be exploited in extorting money out of taxpayers?

but wait, they don't even have the 5000 names yet.




By changecopyright on 6/1/2010 10:18:23 AM , Rating: 1
Things TO DO TO STOP LEGAL EXTORTION- UDATED 6/1/2010

CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN!!! CALL YOUR CONGRESSMEN!!!

It is important to call your senators and congressmen to let them know about this extortion/shakedown scheme. You can make a difference but you have to call or pyhsically write letters. or if you want DO BOTH. when you call read/write the following:

"I wanted to inform the congressman about an important issue. Currently there is legal extortion going on in this country. A Group of Lawyers using the name US Copyright Group are filing thousands and thousands of lawsuits in federal court in washington DC. They are actually ilegally bundleing thousands of people's names together in an effort to have a kind of reverse class action lawsuit against people it claims have illegally downloaded movies of their clients.

"This US Copyright group is sending out 50,000 plus presettlement letters to people using filmsy evidence which basically tell them "Pay us 2,500 dollars or else we will take you to federal court and sue you for much more" The congressman needs to know that this is a shakedown, an extortion scheme. A group of 12 lawyers cannot possibly take 50,000 plus people individually to court. They are counting on a certain percentage of people recieving the letter and getting scared and mailing in the payment. Innocent people will have to pay much more than the settlement price in order to prove their innocence and the only evidence of wrongdoing is easily corrupted and invalid. But the US copyright group could care less how many innocent people are sued due to filmsy evidence. The US Copygroup lawyers have said "we are creating additional revenue streams for content providers" They are using the court system to pad their bottom lines.

Tell the congressman to please work to change copyright law with monetary caps on individual people and enact legislation that would outlaw these "revese class action fishing lawsuits from goups like the US copyright group" because this is only the beggining. If the US Copyright group is successful, expect copycat companies to emerge to use the same tactics. So it would be beneficial for the congressman to get on the forefront of this issue becuase you will be recieving more calls about it soon.
------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------

You can also call multiple congressmen in your area, just look at what the congressman's local office zip code is and say you live in that zip code.

Call you ISP and tell them not to violate your privacy!!!

Comcast Legal Response Center
650 Centerton Road
Moorestown, NJ 08057

Normal business hours (M-F, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm EST)
866-947-8572

Attorneys behind the US copyright group, who are hiding behind the name
US Copyright group:

Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver

Washington, D.C. Office
1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 316-8558
Fax: (202) 318-0242

Bennett, Ellis L. - ebennett@dglegal.com
Chang, Phillip - pchang@dglegal.com
Dunlap, Thomas M - tdunlap@dglegal.com
Dureska, Geoffrey M. - gdureska@dglegal.com
Grubb, Daniel L. - dgrubb@dglegal.com
Ludwig, David - dludwig@dglegal.com
Moore, Mike - mmoore@dglegal.com
Kurtz, Nicholas A. - nkurtz@dglegal.com
Novel, Sur - snovel@dglegal.com
Policasti, Eugene - epolicasti@dglegal.com
Tate, Christopher F. - ctate@dglegal.com
Weaver, Jeffrey William - jweaver@dglegal.com
Whitticar, Michael C. - mwhitticar@dglegal.com
Gurganous, Tom - tgurganous@dglegal.com

IMPORTANT!! CONTACT WASHINGTON DC BAR
they are they only people you can really complain to
us justice department says refer complaints to them.
here is how to contact them.

From the home page "www.dcbar.org"

For the public > working with lawyers > when problems arise.

under the heading "filing a complaint" download the english pdf form

http://www.dcbar.org/for_the_public/working_with_l...

it has to be faxed or mailed back, NO EMAILS

Mail to:

Office of Bar Counsel
Board on Professional Responsibility
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street NW
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, DC 20001
Fax (202)638-0862

YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT ONE COMPLAINT FORM PER LAWYER ONLY

hilariouly you cannot combine lawyers at the same law group the way this criminal lawyers are combining thousands of defendants

under attorney complain of write:

Thomas M. Dunlap
1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: (202) 316-8558
Fax: (202) 318-0242

Write under details of complaint

"Thomas M. Dunlap is leading a group of attorneys who are filing mass "reverse-class action lawsuits." using easily inncorrect evidence (ip addresses) Thomas M. Dunlap is suing tens of thousands of people for copyright infringement. He sends out presettlement letters by the thousands. His small law firm cannot possibly bring thousands of cases to court. This is extortion at its most basic level. Most federal courts charge a $350 filing fee per case, along with a new set of paperwork. Each case also creates another docket to keep track of, making thousands of cases an administrative nightmare.

Instead of going this route, plaintiffs have simply filed mass lawsuits against groups of "John Does," in some cases by the thousands. It is not evident from the complaint in this case that there is anything common to the 5,000 defendants that would justify joining them in a single litigation... Courts facing these identical circumstances have repeatedly held that a plaintiff may not join in a single action multiple defendants who have allegedly downloaded or facilitated the download of copyrighted material at different times and locations.

"Thus, if the plaintiff wants to sue these 5,000 defendants, it owes this court 5,000 separate filing fees, and it must file individual actions. Plaintiff then would be unable to combine together a single, massive discovery request with which to burden non-party ISPs"




Speeding
By The Raven on 6/1/2010 10:30:56 AM , Rating: 1
How many of these tools that claim piracy is equivalent to shoplifting drive at speed above the speed limit?

You all should turn yourselves in. You are endangering the lives of those around you.

And no, I don't think you are necessarily being self righteous. I think you actually believe the crap that you are spewing.




Sooner or later
By Beenthere on 6/1/2010 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 1
If you pirate you will pay. The only good pirate is dead or in prison.




Hurt Locker
By killerclick on 5/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hurt Locker
By Alexstarfire on 5/31/2010 7:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
As cost goes down value goes up.


Torrents?
By SlimCharles on 5/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Torrents?
By dark matter on 5/31/2010 6:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think a private torrent site is any more secure than a public tracker. Unless you personally know everyone on the private tracker that you're at risk, and if you know everyone personally you may as well send flash cards through the post!


RE: Torrents?
RE: Torrents?
By Gholam on 6/1/2010 12:57:10 AM , Rating: 4
You've just violated copyright. Expect a letter from Warner Bros' lawyers in the mail.


RE: Torrents?
By someguy123 on 5/31/2010 7:00:29 PM , Rating: 3
When you register to private trackers you have to agree to their privacy guidelines before you can browse/post.

It would be like a cop breaking the window of your house and finding some cocaine. They wouldn't be able to make the charges stick if they obtained it illegally.


RE: Torrents?
By JonnyBlaze on 5/31/2010 7:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Are you serious? I use private trackers and have nothing against them but do you really think the agreement is a legally binding document?


RE: Torrents?
By ImSpartacus on 5/31/2010 7:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
It might be enough to get evidence thrown out of court. Idk, I'm not a lawyer.


RE: Torrents?
By gixser on 6/2/2010 6:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
A contract to conduct illegal activity is unenforceable.

See http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Contract-Basics.ht...

Look on page two under "Legality".


RE: Torrents?
By someguy123 on 5/31/2010 7:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think a legally binding document is?

If your IP is associated with one that agreed with the terms of site registration you are legally bound unless the terms are also illegal, misrepresented, or impossible.


RE: Torrents?
By inighthawki on 5/31/2010 9:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you think a legally binding document is?

This:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_o...


RE: Torrents?
By CZroe on 5/31/2010 9:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Umm... IIRC, the original Napster had you agree not to use it for copyright infringement. Didn't help them any, did it?


RE: Torrents?
By Exodus220 on 5/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Torrents?
By twhittet on 5/31/2010 7:43:33 PM , Rating: 5
And I get tired of people like you who get fooled and think it's realistic
quote:
Although I do not serve in the military

Having served, there are quite a few pieces in this movie that just piss me off for not only how unrealistic they are, but how dumb they are - while still pretending to be anything close to real. If they were small, unimportant aspects - i'd be fine with it. When someone shoots 100 rounds of their pistol without reloading, I go with it. But not this movie.

I'd be interested in a poll of those who actually have been in Iraq (outside the fence) - and see what they think about the movie. Your opinion....is garbage.


RE: Torrents?
By jonmcc33 on 5/31/2010 8:34:27 PM , Rating: 4
Or how about that Barrett sniper rifle? It should punch holes through a small building like that, not put off small pecks of dust.


RE: Torrents?
By XSpeedracerX on 5/31/2010 7:48:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I get so tired of the tech community complaining about the movie sucking...


Then stop coming to the tech community to hear about it. It's a movie. Some people aren't gonna like it. That's the way it is, go on ahead and get over it.


RE: Torrents?
By seamonkey79 on 5/31/2010 7:55:48 PM , Rating: 5
When a movie is being portayed as realistic, then it should be realistic. Attempting to tell a story that is based on events, and then utilizing age-old movie cliche's that don't work in the real world is lame and makes a movie bad, regardless of whether tech people are complaining about it or not. The movie was lame, no if ands or buts about it.


This Is So Simple
By mgilbert on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: This Is So Simple
By Redwin on 6/1/2010 9:37:12 AM , Rating: 4
With you on point 1.. It is stealing.

Have to disagree a little on point 2 though. If you walk into a store and steal the disc you've not only stolen a copy of the movie (what we'll call a "license to watch it"), you've also removed a physical object (the disc) from someone else (the store's) use.

If you download a movie, you have "stolen" it in that you now possess the ability to view it without a license to do so. Since the theft was 100% digital however, you have not deprived anyone of anything besides the lost purchase cost of the movie, assuming you would have paid for it if you couldn't get it for free (big assumption). The use of the stolen item has not been removed from anyone else. This is the missing component of traditional "theft" when we speak of piracy, so drawing a straight 1-to-1 correlation between them is not 100% accurate.

On the flip side, when you steal a disc, the law pretty much limits your "liability" to the cost of the disc and any fines for the misdemeanor of shoplifting... you would be very unlikely to do any jail time or pay more than a few hundred dollars in fines and/or community service.

For downloading (and with bittorent; you're simultaneously distributing) a movie, case law is starting to indicate the damages are "unlimited" because you could have uploaded pieces of the file to everyone on the internet. Your possible civil liability is therefore similarly pretty much unlimited. Essentially, if you're caught, you're in WAY more trouble for pirating a movie than just stealing it from the store.

I'm not justifying piracy, but I will say that currently I don't believe the punishments fit the crimes when you compare the "Shoplifting" case with the "Downloading" case.


RE: This Is So Simple
By mgilbert on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: This Is So Simple
By Fracture on 6/1/2010 12:19:16 PM , Rating: 1
The semantics of knocking down a strawman argument are made to be confusing because these arguments make leaps to assume things that they shouldn't.

If you steal a copy from the store, you've deprived the use of that copy from someone else. You have it in your hands.

If you make a download, you have a copy and the person you copied from has theirs, no one has lost anything.

And no, you don't share the responsibility of copying with those that copy from you. Each person makes the choice to copy by themselves.

Using your logic, I could say that the director, actors, and studios are all responsible if they have ever made a digital version of the film to copy since "that makes you partly responsible for the distribution of thousands and thousands of copies". And yes, they're putting them on the DVDs now and in iTunes and some studios even upload the torrents themselves just in the hope you download it so they can sue.


RE: This Is So Simple
By mgilbert on 6/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: This Is So Simple
By Fracture on 6/1/2010 1:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Limewire case (much like the errant Grokster ruling) is setting bad case law because the courts are holding the service providers to be responsible for somehow magically finding the infringing material. This should be overturned since it defies section 230 safe harbor provisions of the DMCA - the copyright holder should be the one to notify of the specific infringments and the service provider should take them down in a timely manner.

Misassigning and misunderstanding whose responsibility is whose is hardly any inciting, much less guilt.


RE: This Is So Simple
By flatline76 on 6/1/2010 9:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
Because you're wrong on so many different levels that it hurts me.


RE: This Is So Simple
By jnolen on 6/1/2010 12:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain....


RE: This Is So Simple
By Fracture on 6/1/2010 9:40:51 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is so simple... Obtaining copies of movies, songs, or software in any way, shape, or form without paying for them is copying , period.

It doesn't matter how bad the movie is. It doesn't matter how unethical or wealthy the producers and distributors of the movie are. It doesn't matter how much, or how little they made on the movie. It doesn't even matter if the producers and distributors are breaking laws. Two wrongs don't make a right. Copying is copying , regardless of how you do it.

There is no difference in downloading a movie, and walking into a store and walking out with something you made yourself with your own materials without paying for it. None! And you can whine all you want about how you got caught. Everybody knows that all your whining isn't really about how they caught you. It's about the fact that you got caught, and it might cost you.

Why is that so hard to understand?


There. Fixed it for you.

Copying is not stealing, in fact, you're doing the producer a service by reducing the cost of distribution. That's one more copy they didn't have to ship, or buy the distribution medium, or print labels for.

Studios have done practically everything they can as a disservice to their customers -
-Movies are loaded with unskippable previews
-Movies are loaded with DRM that prevents copying disks you legitimately own. Have a 2 year old that likes chewing on them? Tough.
-Studios sue their fans who laud and share the movies and don't pay for the positive advertising that they've done.
-Basic economics tells us that if supply of a good reaches infinity, then marginal cost should equal zero. If the cost of each additional copy (to the studio) is zero, then I think everyone is paying their share!


RE: This Is So Simple
By michal1980 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: This Is So Simple
By flatline76 on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: This Is So Simple
By mgilbert on 6/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: This Is So Simple
By Fracture on 6/1/2010 11:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts


This is the basic principle that copyright law is based upon - that by protecting specific artistic expression society is better off. Current ideologies such as yours about intellectual property have found their ways into laws, but have no basis upon the original intention toward progress.

Look at any industry where copying is the norm - clothing & fashion, food, furniture, and other utilitarian items. Innovation here occurs much more rapidly and much more money is made. Artists don't become famous or wealthy for copying, but for their insight, ingenuity, and quality. If the studio (or artist, for the sake of my argument) can make a DVD or Bluray that has any advantage in these things and gives consumers a reason to buy then they won't turn toward the cheaper alternative.

The mistaken approach you've taken is to assume that profit would have been made in the first place. Those who choose to copy have no intention of ever buying - but let's take it one step further. Say that copying was the norm, and that legitimate customers now copy since that is the de facto behavior. Those legitimate customers will continue to spend on their interests. They buy movie tickets to theaters for the experience, not just the movie.

There has to be some limited, scarce quality to a good that can justify its price. Value is perceived, and is different to each person. Morally, you can find a number of arguments such as the lack of alternatives or appropriate price points. You could argue that since I bought a VHS of Disney's films locked up in the vault that I have a right to download a digital copy of that as backup.

And I very highly doubt you can use logic to prove anything at all.


RE: This Is So Simple
By mgilbert on 6/1/2010 12:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Most, but not all, of those who download movies would never buy them - but a percentage would, if they had no other option. And that's how the industry loses money.

Your analogy to the clothing industry doesn't fly. The people who copy a design and manufacture that copy, provide jobs. When millions download a movie, they cost people their jobs. If they went out and made a similar movie, or even a remake of a movie, that would create jobs, and that is a more accurate analogy.

You seem to be saying that movie producers should just ignore those who pirate movies, and that the pirates are actually doing them a favor! Perhaps you are right to a degree, but, if pirating isn't stopped, it will become so common that it will hurt the industry. It's just too easy to do.


RE: This Is So Simple
By Fracture on 6/1/2010 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Where are you guaranteed this imaginary percentage that would buy? Movies flop because this imaginary percentage doesn't exist for them, in theaters and in the stores.

How do you explain that more movies are being made than ever with more revenue? If anything, this proves file sharing is a better form of advertising and is creating jobs.

The industry makes money if they came up with free streaming versions supported by ads.
The industry makes money if they removed the crazy release windows.

Stop thinking industrial age and learn to think in the digital age. Perhaps to remain competitive, the industry just cant earn as much money anymore.
Sell the scarcities - advertising, merchandising, licensing - and use the downloads to make them more valuable.


RE: This Is So Simple
By acer905 on 6/1/2010 12:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree that copying is not stealing... in order to steal you need to deprive someone of an object, something impossible with a digital medium, and I have an idea that would help fix the entire problem.

Movie makers simply need to start selling their movies direct digital, with just the movie and nothing else, for the low low price of whatever their actual profit is per unit sold. That is, the price of the actual movie, without the disc, without the case, the label, without the shipping and distribution, without the store's cut. So a few dollars at the most. I think I would pay up to $7 for a movie, but $15-$30? I don't have that kind of money. When I buy a DVD, it's usually from Wal-Mart's bargain bins.
I believe that if they were to sell it directly for the price of what they would have made anyways, more people would buy copies instead of pirating them. And you can even limit the Special Features section to DVDs, because it's hard to find a download with them anyways. You'd have to get a .iso, and those are a pain. (lol)


RE: This Is So Simple
By wolrah on 6/1/2010 10:03:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is no difference in downloading a movie, and walking into a store and walking out with a copy without paying for it. None!


Actually there is a huge, absolutely gigantic difference. If I walk in to a store and steal a copy, that store is now down one copy. They have lost whatever they paid for that disc. If I download a copy or rip my own from a rented or borrowed disc, the original it was ripped from still exists and remains in the possession of whoever owns it.

As far as I'm concerned, theft requires one party to lose and one party to gain something. This is copyright infringement, not theft. One has gained while the other has lost nothing.

To put it another way, if I had a device that let me scan your car and it output an exact copy at no cost to me or anyone else, I obviously didn't steal your car. How does that change if I do that to a DVD instead?

Doesn't change the point that anyone complaining about the fact of being sued is just whining, since they did commit copyright infringement, but comparisons to real physical theft are idiotic.


RE: This Is So Simple
By mgilbert on 6/1/2010 11:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
So, millions of people download a movie "for free", and it doesn't cost anybody anything? If people couldn't easily steal movies, at least a percentage of those who would have downloaded the movie would actually buy it.

If this form of "theft", or whatever you want to call it, is allowed to continue, it is just going to get worse and worse. The people who did all that work, from the producer, to the clerks at video stores, will ultimately lose their jobs.

If you could clone my car, you would be violating hundreds of patents. You'd be stealing all the engineering and hard work that went into designing and producing that car. Car companies wouldn't be able to sell as many cars, and people would lose their jobs. Good analogy. Thanks!


RE: This Is So Simple
By denru on 6/1/2010 4:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, stealing is wrong but this argument is grossly oversimplifying what is taking place here. I believe it was Larry Ellison who asked, nearly twenty years ago, when speaking of software, how long we could expect people to keep driving to a store to buy a box of ones and zeros that could be more easily sent to them over the telephone line. The move to low cost digital distribution of movies is inevitable and it is simply asking too much to expect people to wait for the industry to figure it out. The music industry filed pointless lawsuits for years until Apple came along and ate their lunch.

Also, going to a movie theater doesn't just cost me twelve dollars or so, it costs about a quarter of my day. Few movies are worth it. The day first run movies become available on cable or satellite for a low price, this important convenience factor will shift toward this option and away from piracy.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki