|
Hurt Locker producer files suit against 5000 alleged pirates
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 29 May, 2010
In early May we reported that "Hurt Locker" producer Voltage Pictures was preparing to sue thousands of alleged pirates for downloading the film online.
This week, that suit has come to fruition, with Voltage suing 5000 unidentified pirates accused of downloading the 2009 Best Picture.
Says the suit: "A Defendant's distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
5fdpfan
Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 11:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Again I say as I did when an earlier article talked about this guy preparing to sue all these "pirates." As long as studios continue to release popular or highly anticipated films in some countries while making others wait for it to come to them, this is what you get. Release the stinkin films worldwide all at the same time and this sort of thing won't be as bad. Sure, people will still steal your movie, but at least everyone will at least be given equal opportunity to go and pay to see it. The way it is now, some movie will being in theaters across the pond but we for some stupid reason are teased with having to wait 6 months before it reaches our theaters. That's BS. So this guy can just suck it up and quit his bellyaching. Blame the studios or whoever it was that did this to his films, not the "pirates" who downloaded it. It still made a good chun of change.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Senior Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 13:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
I would be scared out of my mind if I pirated this movie, but I don't even know this movie.
Can he really get away with suing 5000 people? There has to be some sort of litigation against choosing people at random rather than those most likely to be responsible for the leak.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. May 2010 @ 13:06
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. May 2010 @ 13:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good luck in keeping your lawyers fed.....
|
|
DoomLight
Junior Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 13:25 |
Link to this message
|
sorry about them. but if they let a full dvd copy get leaked online. its no fault but their own for not guarding their movie with extreme secresy.
sueing a bunch of people that downloaded it sounds like a waste of time.
at 1500 a pop. the producer hopes to get 7.5 million? LOL yeah right.
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 13:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the film only grossed $17 million USD domestic in theaters.
Yeah, and how much did they make worldwide?
.... and how much on DVD?
.... and how much on legitimate download?
..... and how much on TV deals?
..... and how much on Blu-ray?
They think people are stupid and will swallow their ridiculous 'poor me...' tales.
They'll pick a few examples ('pirates? don't make me laugh) to ruin to hold up to try and scare the rest with.
Meanwhile the real 'pirates' (ie those producing and selling a physical copy) will carry on regardless.
Thank God I don't live in the USA with that stupid lunatic mess that is the US interpretation of copyright.
|
Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 16:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 21Q:
I would be scared out of my mind if I pirated this movie, but I don't even know this movie.
Can he really get away with suing 5000 people? There has to be some sort of litigation against choosing people at random rather than those most likely to be responsible for the leak.
I personally downloaded this move about an hour after it hit the pre-db.
I wish them good luck finding me and even more attempting to sue me.
;)
|
|
Tristan_2
Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 16:49 |
Link to this message
|
Theirs also a lawsuit a Soldier about the movie I will put it from quotation from its Wiki.
"Sarver lawsuit
In early March 2010, army bomb disposal expert Master Sergeant Jeffrey Sarver filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against The Hurt Locker. Sarver's lawsuit claimed he used the term "hurt locker" and the phrase "war is a drug" around Boal, that his likeness was used to create the character William James, and that the portrayal of William James defames Sarver. Sarver said he felt "just a little bit hurt, a little bit felt left out" and cheated out of "financial participation" in the film. Sarver claimed he originated the title of the film; however, the title is a decades-old colloquialism for being injured, as in "they sent him to the hurt locker". It dates back to the Vietnam War where it was one of several phrases meaning "in trouble or at a disadvantage; in bad shape". Boal defended himself to the press, saying "the film is a work of fiction inspired by many people's stories"; he said he talked to more than 100 soldiers during his research. Jody Simon, a Los Angeles-based entertainment lawyer, noted that "soldiers don't have privacy", and that when the military embedded Boal they gave him full permission to use his observations as he saw fit. Summit Entertainment, the producers of the film, said in early March that they hoped for a quick resolution to the suit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_locker_%28film%29
Also I have yet to see a physical copy of this film in stores, but apparently its been out sense January 12, 2010 yet as I said I never see this in store shelves so I find this suspicious in it self I find it funny that this director is willing to sue thousands for 1,500 Dollars for a roughly20-40 dollar movie while he's in a lawsuit all ready.
|
Senior Member
28 product reviews
|
29. May 2010 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DoomLight:
sorry about them. but if they let a full dvd copy get leaked online. its no fault but their own for not guarding their movie with extreme secresy.
sueing a bunch of people that downloaded it sounds like a waste of time.
at 1500 a pop. the producer hopes to get 7.5 million? LOL yeah right.
I agree, maybe next time they should be careful as to who they give a screener to. The real "pirates" at fault here are the ones who UPLOADED it, not downloaded it. Just another way for these greedy bastards to make even more money than they really deserve to.
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
29. May 2010 @ 18:11 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by 21Q:
I would be scared out of my mind if I pirated this movie, but I don't even know this movie.
Can he really get away with suing 5000 people? There has to be some sort of litigation against choosing people at random rather than those most likely to be responsible for the leak.
Since the RIAA has the supposed "government's backing and the movie industry's back" they can pretty much do what the want when they want. I can just see those idiots rubbing their hands together when they see all that money they'll get! Hypocrites!!
|
|
beanos66
Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 19:34 |
Link to this message
|
it's considered a new revenue stream, intentionally leak your movie then sue the people who didn't want to pay six quid at the cinema. the lawyers will grab about 30%.
Originally posted by Interestx:
Quote:
the film only grossed $17 million USD domestic in theaters.
Yeah, and how much did they make worldwide?
.... and how much on DVD?
.... and how much on legitimate download?
..... and how much on TV deals?
..... and how much on Blu-ray?
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/HURTL.php
worldwide $40,450,000
US DVD Sales: $28,857,356
Production Budget $15,000,000
the reason it "only" made 17 mill. at the box office is coz this is not the type of movie that US parents or tweens will go to see
Now if Robert Pattinson and Justin Bieber were in it and they occasionally sang modern renditions of 70' classics whilst defusing the IEDs then...
|
Senior Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 21:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
They are going to have a lot of trouble with that suit...
First, they are suing down-loaders and then saying that if that down-loader makes it available it becomes a problem for the copyright holder.
But, if it's the up-loaders who are the problem then the suit would be against up-loaders, not down-loaders.
They will also have a hard time proving any kind of damage by "downloaders" above the cost of the stupid thing... maybe $20
And then further, any defendant worth his salt will point out to the judge that he is but one of MILLIONS and was arbitrarily picked out. The law doesn't like that much.
The real losers will be the saps who pay the $1500 of blackmail.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
29. May 2010 @ 21:56 |
Link to this message
|
Voltage is setting itself up for a healthy serving of Whoop Ass.
|
Senior Member
|
29. May 2010 @ 22:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Tristan_2:
Theirs also a lawsuit a Soldier about the movie I will put it from quotation from its Wiki.
"Sarver lawsuit
In early March 2010, army bomb disposal expert Master Sergeant Jeffrey Sarver filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against The Hurt Locker. Sarver's lawsuit claimed he used the term "hurt locker" and the phrase "war is a drug" around Boal, that his likeness was used to create the character William James, and that the portrayal of William James defames Sarver. Sarver said he felt "just a little bit hurt, a little bit felt left out" and cheated out of "financial participation" in the film. Sarver claimed he originated the title of the film; however, the title is a decades-old colloquialism for being injured, as in "they sent him to the hurt locker". It dates back to the Vietnam War where it was one of several phrases meaning "in trouble or at a disadvantage; in bad shape". Boal defended himself to the press, saying "the film is a work of fiction inspired by many people's stories"; he said he talked to more than 100 soldiers during his research. Jody Simon, a Los Angeles-based entertainment lawyer, noted that "soldiers don't have privacy", and that when the military embedded Boal they gave him full permission to use his observations as he saw fit. Summit Entertainment, the producers of the film, said in early March that they hoped for a quick resolution to the suit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_locker_%28film%29
Also I have yet to see a physical copy of this film in stores, but apparently its been out sense January 12, 2010 yet as I said I never see this in store shelves so I find this suspicious in it self I find it funny that this director is willing to sue thousands for 1,500 Dollars for a roughly20-40 dollar movie while he's in a lawsuit all ready.
Hmm, the term "Hurt Locker" has been around the military for a while, prior to that it was called "Hotel Tango" or "Hurtin' Turkey" Good luck trying to claim ownership of a phrase associated with the military jargon, no one knows who started it and everyone uses it. MSgt Sarver should be awarded damages if the writers used his life as a basis for the film and didn't compensate him for his part in the movie creation.
Just my 2¢ worth.
|
|
VENOM79
Junior Member
|
30. May 2010 @ 20:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
hurt locker sux balls anyway! watched 15 minutes and deleted it. this is the reason to pirate, for crapy movies like this.thank god i didnt waste my hard earned money on this crap
|
|
gr8joel
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. May 2010 @ 01:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
The way I see it is that they (meaning the movie industry) don't give a sh*t about us, so why should we give a sh*t about them.
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 07:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ThePastor:
They are going to have a lot of trouble with that suit...
First, they are suing down-loaders and then saying that if that down-loader makes it available it becomes a problem for the copyright holder.
But, if it's the up-loaders who are the problem then the suit would be against up-loaders, not down-loaders.
They will also have a hard time proving any kind of damage by "downloaders" above the cost of the stupid thing... maybe $20
And then further, any defendant worth his salt will point out to the judge that he is but one of MILLIONS and was arbitrarily picked out. The law doesn't like that much.
The real losers will be the saps who pay the $1500 of blackmail.
This is a federal civil suit so they can freeze your bank accounts or garnish your paychecks as well as your tax refunds so they will get their money and who is going to spend $10,000 to an attorney to defend a $1500 request they are smart.
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 07:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by VENOM79:
hurt locker sux balls anyway! watched 15 minutes and deleted it. this is the reason to pirate, for crapy movies like this.thank god i didnt waste my hard earned money on this crap
You did waste your money if you were one of the thousands who download the movie. They are going come knocking and they have them by the short hairs. Thats why I don't screw around and download movies there are other ways of getting them without having to download them.
|
|
editmon
Junior Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 11:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
The lawyers have duped these poor ignorant souls into believing they are losing money by feeding them a line of crap to better fill a law firms pockets.
Once again I say don't pirate, and remember to boycott the producer, studio, an distributor until they decide to act like humans.
It would work, but people need their fix, so they just keep feeding the legal frenzy.
|
|
rick930
Newbie
|
31. May 2010 @ 11:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
The problem is that in order to prove their case they have to prove that it is actually illegal to download from the Internet. Which of course it is not. In 1996 Bill Clinton stated that the uploading of copyrighted materials to the Internet without the consent of owner of the material is illegal, but the downloading of such material is not. Basically in a nutshell Clinton made it clear that simply downloading material from the Internet was not illegal since those downloading said material were not the ones who broke the law in the first place by putting it out on the Internet. Clinton recognized that the Internet was an entity that could not be controlled through normal laws, and that the focus of illegal piracy should be placed on those who actually upload the copyrighted materials in the first place. Which is why so many cases of "piracy" fail since these groups go after the downloaders, rather than those who originally put it out on the Internet. And lets look at the rationale behind this alleged lawsuit, they have to be able to prove that anyone they set as a defendent actually broke a law. Downloading is NOT illegal, therefore they have the burden of proof against them, and the defendent simply has to ask the question of where is their proof? Every piracy case that has failed has done so because the "plaintiff" has failed time and again to provide the proof. You know why they can't? Because it is illegal to track what any specific ISP account is doing with their Internet access. In order to do so you must already have a court order in place, and clearly you can only get those when you can demonstrate to a judge that a crime is actually being commited. Apparently these guys haven't learned that lesson. They soon will when they spend millions of dollars trying to pursue lawsuits that they don't have a chance of winning. I agree, those who pay the "settlement" offer will be the losers.
|
|
bandoogie
Junior Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 12:54 |
Link to this message
|
If you used a program like peer guardian 2, will they stll be able to know you downloaded the movie?
|
|
writer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. May 2010 @ 13:00 |
Link to this message
|
This is a very lame attitude and excuse. Avatar made a ton of money and I bet it was downloaded a lot more than this film. They only won the Academy Awards for political reasons. Besides, winning the Oscar doesn't mean that the film will automatically gross hundreds of millions. If they got a poor return at the box office it is because audiences didn't care for the movie. And it is really ridiculous to try to blame individuals who downloaded it for their failure. Bad producer...
|
|
Riff88
Newbie
|
31. May 2010 @ 13:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am glad I didn't download the movie but I would like to know how you sue 5000 people at once!
I think it's more of a scare tactic than anything else. If not, then good luck to the producer, wasting all that money trying to get more money back. This thing could turn ugly!
Perhaps the producers of the movie should have prevented the movie getting leaked in the first place. Why not sue the guy who was responsible for keeping the movie in the safe?
Personally I don't download movies - it's such a waste of time and the image is never 100% top quality, I'll rather rent it and copy it - much easier.
As for catching "alleged pirates" - I may sometimes download a few music albums and I use Peerguardian 2, but there is no guarantee it will work.
I feel this pirate nonsense is rubbish, though. I used to tape-trade (a music cassette) back in the eighties and early nineties and my friends saved a ton of money with me copying music for them.
It's the same as file sharing. Exactly the shame. The record companies didn't complain back then, did they?
I am going to stop downloading music for a few months and see how this lawsuit is going to unfold. I read somewhere some company in Germany trace your IP address, it's all just hearsay but I cannot be caught downloading music - a lawsuit will follow and the billpayer will be pissed off like hell.
Good luck everyone!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. May 2010 @ 13:56
|
|
Riff88
Newbie
|
31. May 2010 @ 13:49 |
Link to this message
|
TherOriginally posted by bandoogie:
If you used a program like peer guardian 2, will they stll be able to know you downloaded the movie?
I use it myself, there is no guarantee that PG2 works.
Just remember when they do sent you a letter just keep on denying everything! Deny, Deny!
Good luck buddy!
|
|
xtwister
Newbie
|
31. May 2010 @ 15:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Directv tried to use an extortion lawsuit like this.
It was easily beaten by ignoring the letters.
The ones who responded who either ended up setting or taking
them to court.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Daniel_1
Suspended permanently
|
31. May 2010 @ 15:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by rick930:
The problem is that in order to prove their case they have to prove that it is actually illegal to download from the Internet. Which of course it is not. In 1996 Bill Clinton stated that the uploading of copyrighted materials to the Internet without the consent of owner of the material is illegal, but the downloading of such material is not. Basically in a nutshell Clinton made it clear that simply downloading material from the Internet was not illegal since those downloading said material were not the ones who broke the law in the first place by putting it out on the Internet. Clinton recognized that the Internet was an entity that could not be controlled through normal laws, and that the focus of illegal piracy should be placed on those who actually upload the copyrighted materials in the first place. Which is why so many cases of "piracy" fail since these groups go after the downloaders, rather than those who originally put it out on the Internet. And lets look at the rationale behind this alleged lawsuit, they have to be able to prove that anyone they set as a defendent actually broke a law. Downloading is NOT illegal, therefore they have the burden of proof against them, and the defendent simply has to ask the question of where is their proof? Every piracy case that has failed has done so because the "plaintiff" has failed time and again to provide the proof. You know why they can't? Because it is illegal to track what any specific ISP account is doing with their Internet access. In order to do so you must already have a court order in place, and clearly you can only get those when you can demonstrate to a judge that a crime is actually being commited. Apparently these guys haven't learned that lesson. They soon will when they spend millions of dollars trying to pursue lawsuits that they don't have a chance of winning. I agree, those who pay the "settlement" offer will be the losers.
Really? And you can prove what you are claiming with a site or where in US law that Clinton had the basis and was able to make this statement? Not that I dont believe you, it is just that I would not believe Clinton if that fat tub of lard told me the sky was blue on a sunny day. I mean it does sort of ruin your rep when you got caught lying and then lying under oath!
|
