|
|
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
2. June 2010 @ 03:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by John_Donn:
Originally posted by Mez:
In the bad old days when the RIAA was hammering Limewire and Kazza they used to get the OS serial # of the host till some smart lawyer asked how did you get that without a warrant! That was the end of their reign of terror. They can't prove who is actually downloading the goods. However, the laws in the US are in the process of changing. When that day comes only fools will have a dirty computer hooked up to the internet. They will start with the fools still downloading (the same ones using PeerGuardian with 6 month old lists) but if they run out of them they have you all on a list. If you are clean, they will have to guess you are smart enough not to get caught or it wasn't you in the first place.
Then they will go after newsgroups.
Ha good luck coming after newsgroups
Unless the laws are made retrospective, which is very very hard to do, so that exact scenario is unlikely to happen.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
cammobus
Newbie
|
2. June 2010 @ 04:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
What they are going to run into is an IP address is good enough for a warning but not for $1,500. Still, their point is made some will pay just for pease of mind.
Torrents has just gotten a bit more risky.
the only IP Address they are going to get is the one for my WiFi Router
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. June 2010 @ 09:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Unless the laws are made retrospective, which is very very hard to do, so that exact scenario is unlikely to happen.
What can't be done? Nothing needs to be retroactive.
I assure you they (the media) has very large lists of IP addresses compiled from multiple sources with all the stuff they think you have downloaded and total up and down loads they get from your client if they are not blocked. I assure you someone will get through at least once a month. That is all they need. In most countries they can't do anything legally about it. All this info was obtained legally. If the law in your country changes allowing a gov org to hack your computer if they suspect wrong doing, you don't think they will? You think the media will not provide the org with that list for their country? You don't think they will not hack into your computer if you downloaded more than a terabyte of stuff just to see if is still there. Maybe they will, maybe they will not. I do not think I will risk that. The colder the trail the bigger offender you will need to be for them to check you out. Lets say they catch you with a terabyte of stuff and they ask you were you got it. The list, gotten legally, says you got a terabyte from torrents. You will be hard pressed to deny it unless you can show proof that you have copyrights for everything. You think the media went to the expense of collecting all that info for nothing? Mind you no law has been passed in the US and who knows if it will be passed but they are working on it. Until it is passed you don't know what it will contain.
|
|
John_Donn
Member
|
2. June 2010 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
Originally posted by Jemborg:
Unless the laws are made retrospective, which is very very hard to do, so that exact scenario is unlikely to happen.
What can't be done? Nothing needs to be retroactive.
I assure you they (the media) has very large lists of IP addresses compiled from multiple sources with all the stuff they think you have downloaded and total up and down loads they get from your client if they are not blocked. I assure you someone will get through at least once a month. That is all they need. In most countries they can't do anything legally about it. All this info was obtained legally. If the law in your country changes allowing a gov org to hack your computer if they suspect wrong doing, you don't think they will? You think the media will not provide the org with that list for their country? You don't think they will not hack into your computer if you downloaded more than a terabyte of stuff just to see if is still there. Maybe they will, maybe they will not. I do not think I will risk that. The colder the trail the bigger offender you will need to be for them to check you out. Lets say they catch you with a terabyte of stuff and they ask you were you got it. The list, gotten legally, says you got a terabyte from torrents. You will be hard pressed to deny it unless you can show proof that you have copyrights for everything. You think the media went to the expense of collecting all that info for nothing? Mind you no law has been passed in the US and who knows if it will be passed but they are working on it. Until it is passed you don't know what it will contain.
he is talking about newsgroups. they (isp) have no clue what im downloading, and no one uploads on newsgroups. it is not like torrents
|
Senior Member
|
2. June 2010 @ 13:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you say so mate.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. June 2010 @ 14:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Got it. Newsgroups with the secure connection there is nothing for them to see. Yes, you do not upload so you probably safe even without a secure connection. I feel they are good with movies but not so diverse with music as the torrents. I only pick up very rare music these days. I usually can't be bothered downloading a movie I can rent for $1.
|
|
John_Donn
Member
|
2. June 2010 @ 14:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
Got it. Newsgroups with the secure connection there is nothing for them to see. Yes, you do not upload so you probably safe even without a secure connection. I feel they are good with movies but not so diverse with music as the torrents. I only pick up very rare music these days. I usually can't be bothered downloading a movie I can rent for $1.
agreed
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
2. June 2010 @ 16:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cammobus:
Originally posted by Mez:
What they are going to run into is an IP address is good enough for a warning but not for $1,500. Still, their point is made some will pay just for pease of mind.
Torrents has just gotten a bit more risky.
the only IP Address they are going to get is the one for my WiFi Router
If RIAA gets your IP address they send a letter off to the ISP asking for the details as it's become a matter in a court and generally it's expected the ISP has to comply so they send all your details to RIAA.
How else do you think they get the names and addresses.
Your router means nothing as it uses the IP address that your account is connected with, even on a dynamic DNS it won't matter because RIAA log the time you were on.
The only saving grace is most ISPs can't be bothered anymore because it's a waste of staff time.
With the laws how they are in the USA if you get taken to court for this then it you are already guilty and it's up to you to prove you didn't pirate it, that's the major fuck up.
I do wonder if these go under the 3 strike system because if it does then a few people could get life behind bar simply for downloading something.
the USA has 1% of it's own people in jail, the highest amount in the world.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
2. June 2010 @ 17:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
If RIAA gets your IP address they send a letter off to the ISP asking for the details as it's become a matter in a court and generally it's expected the ISP has to comply so they send all your details to RIAA.
How else do you think they get the names and addresses.
Your router means nothing as it uses the IP address that your account is connected with, even on a dynamic DNS it won't matter because RIAA log the time you were on.
The only saving grace is most ISPs can't be bothered anymore because it's a waste of staff time.
With the laws how they are in the USA if you get taken to court for this then it you are already guilty and it's up to you to prove you didn't pirate it, that's the major fuck up.
I do wonder if these go under the 3 strike system because if it does then a few people could get life behind bar simply for downloading something.
the USA has 1% of it's own people in jail, the highest amount in the world.
I believe ISPs see the copyright infringers for what they are cheap whores that want something for nothing. They demand everyone to jump through hoops for them and when they ask for a little expense money and they will not pay for anything.
|
Newbie
|
2. June 2010 @ 19:53 |
Link to this message
|
I am sure that the service providers can put up a list of ip addresses (or cable modems) that has large bandwidth usages. This does not imply,however,that those were used to download movies. i don't know about routers, either wifi or lan, in apartments or what. But they may be able to pinpoint some errant ip addresses. Imagine the time t will incur to produce such a list.
I believe that the propagation of pirated "Hurt Locker" movies may have come as a result of lax security on the producers' part.
They should also be careful about the promotions that they spread for this movie. Some of them may be in the form of watermarked dvd's.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
2. June 2010 @ 23:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
they also need to define the word pirate. the simple downloader under the current definition is not a pirate.
Powered By
 |
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
3. June 2010 @ 03:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
I believe ISPs see the copyright infringers for what they are cheap whores that want something for nothing. They demand everyone to jump through hoops for them and when they ask for a little expense money and they will not pay for anything.
The problem with this is... if RIAA get your IP address and complain about it they want you off the net straight away.
Most ISPs aren't dealing with the emails or disconnections because they lose out on money and a customer only because a 3rd party isn't happy, and usually don't bother with the RIAA notices because they know they RIAA actually break the law themselves by downloading/uploading the "pirated" files they don't want pirated in the first place only to get IPs from the tracker.
In Australia the RIAA notices don't comply with Australian law because they get the IPs illegally and also don't go via the legal system so become invalid also iiNet get sent about 10,000+ RIAA notices for disconnection on a quiet hour, and they say this is silly as no one could be expected to look at 10,000+ emails an hour checking everything out and then disconnecting people, you'd go through a million customers in about a month at that rate.
ALso an email isn't a legal as there's no letter head and no address on them and simply say disconnect IP 22.103.61.204 due to downloading X files at X time, thanks RIAA.
For the court case iiNet had to print out all the emails sent over a 2 weeks they stopped when they had 6x1000 A4 (court bond) boxes stacked up on about 20+ wheeled carts and when iinet started rolling them in the judge said roll them back out I think there's a photo of the cart with the paper on them.
As you can't use emails in a court case, they don't mean anything unless printed out.
Even the judge was telling FAST(RIAA) sending this amount of emails is silly.
Anyway, ISPs aren't fussed about downloaders as they pay for a connection and generally pay top dollar because they want the best connections and at the end of the day.
Would you drop your best customer... because I told you they were idiots and you need to drop them straight away, probably not. in fact you'd probably tell me to get stuffed and that's whats a lot of ISPs are doing now as they are getting fed up with RIAA overall.
All RIAA have to do is an apple itunes type thing and they'd get some cash or simply take a pay cut and only become content producers and leave the selling to others but they aren't interested in any of that and own to control everything but really it too late for them to control much anymore.
|
Senior Member
|
3. June 2010 @ 04:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by Mez:
I believe ISPs see the copyright infringers for what they are cheap whores that want something for nothing. They demand everyone to jump through hoops for them and when they ask for a little expense money and they will not pay for anything.
The problem with this is... if RIAA get your IP address and complain about it they want you off the net straight away.
Most ISPs aren't dealing with the emails or disconnections because they lose out on money and a customer only because a 3rd party isn't happy, and usually don't bother with the RIAA notices because they know they RIAA actually break the law themselves by downloading/uploading the "pirated" files they don't want pirated in the first place only to get IPs from the tracker.
In Australia the RIAA notices don't comply with Australian law because they get the IPs illegally and also don't go via the legal system so become invalid also iiNet get sent about 10,000+ RIAA notices for disconnection on a quiet hour, and they say this is silly as no one could be expected to look at 10,000+ emails an hour checking everything out and then disconnecting people, you'd go through a million customers in about a month at that rate.
ALso an email isn't a legal as there's no letter head and no address on them and simply say disconnect IP 22.103.61.204 due to downloading X files at X time, thanks RIAA.
For the court case iiNet had to print out all the emails sent over a 2 weeks they stopped when they had 6x1000 A4 (court bond) boxes stacked up on about 20+ wheeled carts and when iinet started rolling them in the judge said roll them back out I think there's a photo of the cart with the paper on them.
As you can't use emails in a court case, they don't mean anything unless printed out.
Even the judge was telling FAST(RIAA) sending this amount of emails is silly.
Anyway, ISPs aren't fussed about downloaders as they pay for a connection and generally pay top dollar because they want the best connections and at the end of the day.
Would you drop your best customer... because I told you they were idiots and you need to drop them straight away, probably not. in fact you'd probably tell me to get stuffed and that's whats a lot of ISPs are doing now as they are getting fed up with RIAA overall.
All RIAA have to do is an apple itunes type thing and they'd get some cash or simply take a pay cut and only become content producers and leave the selling to others but they aren't interested in any of that and own to control everything but really it too late for them to control much anymore.
iinet should of charged the RIAA a large fee for the paper work and filed a harrassment lawsuit against them.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
cammobus
Newbie
|
3. June 2010 @ 06:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by cammobus:
Originally posted by Mez:
What they are going to run into is an IP address is good enough for a warning but not for $1,500. Still, their point is made some will pay just for pease of mind.
Torrents has just gotten a bit more risky.
the only IP Address they are going to get is the one for my WiFi Router
If RIAA gets your IP address they send a letter off to the ISP asking for the details as it's become a matter in a court and generally it's expected the ISP has to comply so they send all your details to RIAA.
How else do you think they get the names and addresses.
I have followed the antics of RIAA for a number of years now, and have read about several cases that were dropped, because once a log request was made and it became apparent RIAA Lawyers could not prove exactly which "Computer" made files available and was doing the downloading .... there wasn't much of a case ....
not a perfect solution, but better than one PC connected to the cable modem ....
oh and then there is the open WiFi .... :)
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
3. June 2010 @ 09:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xboxdvl2:
iinet should of charged the RIAA a large fee for the paper work and filed a harrassment lawsuit against them.
iinet won the case against RIAA.
FAST(RIAA) owe iinet a few million or more can't remember the full amount could be 5-10 million or more.
Currently RIAA are trying to get out of paying iinet the full amount they are saying they shouldn't have to as the payout is too much for them.
Kind of funny don't you think seeing as they are more than happy to sue everyone and tell you have to pay out the full amount or get taken to court and might have to pay out more to RIAA.
They just can't handle what they dish out to everyone else.
RIAA got fully smashed in this case to the point where they can't appeal or sue another ISP for the same thing again.
|
|
Daniel_1
Suspended permanently
|
3. June 2010 @ 18:21 |
Link to this message
|
Open WiFi or "borrowing" your neighbors internet will not help you, and I dont see why this myth is still around. See you can change you IP address, but what you CANNOT change is the NNTP that is added to every action you do on the net with your computer. Even replying to this thread the server keeps a log of the nntp ID's and with that the RIAA can track you right to your doorstep as each one is as different as a finger print. And the nntp id CANNOT be changed without hosing your system as it is fine coded into each and every OS.
ANY hacker or cracker or computer coder will tell you this.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
3. June 2010 @ 20:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Daniel_1:
Open WiFi or "borrowing" your neighbors internet will not help you, and I dont see why this myth is still around. See you can change you IP address, but what you CANNOT change is the NNTP that is added to every action you do on the net with your computer. Even replying to this thread the server keeps a log of the nntp ID's and with that the RIAA can track you right to your doorstep as each one is as different as a finger print. And the nntp id CANNOT be changed without hosing your system as it is fine coded into each and every OS.
ANY hacker or cracker or computer coder will tell you this.
please define your NNTP, the only NNTP I'm aware of is for newsgroups. and if your referring to MS's Alexa it can be disabled.
Powered By
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. June 2010 @ 20:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Daniel_1:
Open WiFi or "borrowing" your neighbors internet will not help you, and I dont see why this myth is still around. See you can change you IP address, but what you CANNOT change is the NNTP that is added to every action you do on the net with your computer. Even replying to this thread the server keeps a log of the nntp ID's and with that the RIAA can track you right to your doorstep as each one is as different as a finger print. And the nntp id CANNOT be changed without hosing your system as it is fine coded into each and every OS.
ANY hacker or cracker or computer coder will tell you this.
Which are you a hacker or computer coder?
If this is true, why did the RIAA get so many false hits and why did they hack the computers to get the OS serial #? I am not saying you are wrong but are they that inept? I know many web apps check your router's IP address. They don't use the full address because your IP address may be dynamic. I am a computer coder and I don't know about this. I even know some pretty good hackers and they don't know about this. Since this is such common knowledge, can you direct me to a url that explains this concept?
Thanks!
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
4. June 2010 @ 00:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Daniel_1:
Open WiFi or "borrowing" your neighbors internet will not help you, and I dont see why this myth is still around. See you can change you IP address, but what you CANNOT change is the NNTP that is added to every action you do on the net with your computer. Even replying to this thread the server keeps a log of the nntp ID's and with that the RIAA can track you right to your doorstep as each one is as different as a finger print. And the nntp id CANNOT be changed without hosing your system as it is fine coded into each and every OS.
ANY hacker or cracker or computer coder will tell you this.
Nar, servers don't log that, I've ran servers for a few years, using someone else's router would work as the account's IP is with someone else but you'd be breaking the law and in some country it's classed the same as break and enter.
I think what your talking about is MAC addresses and they can be spoofed anyway so again the above wouldn't mean much.
What a router does pass is the actual IP that is requesting the data from a server and this could be tracked, but server stats don't bother logging it server stats would give everyone away on a tracker site if it's used on one without anyone download or uploading anything.
|
|
Daniel_1
Suspended permanently
|
4. June 2010 @ 10:44 |
Link to this message
|
No, I may have mispoke and named it the nntp, I will have to recheck that, but thre is a specific code that is placed on every action that you do on the net, sort of a computer ID number. That "ID" is specifically set to your system and cannot be spoofed nor changed and that is the basic tenet of internet activity. See while it is possible to hide an IP address by using a private Proxy server, This helps to conceal your private IP information to a certain extent; it just is no safer then not hiding it.
A Proxy server is a network service which utilizes a dedicated computer on a remote network allowing internet users such as yourself to make indirect connections to other computers / websites using its own network connection. When using a proxy server, the recipient of your communications will see an IP address of the proxy server and not yours. There are plenty of proxy servers establishments on the world wide web that offer free online user accounts to hide your online identity. This, however, is not a bullet-proof method as there a risk using a Proxy Server. Really? Most definitely. Using an anonymous proxy server computer to hide your IP actually presents a more serious threat that contributes to the digital information leak. Since the digital data has to pass through a proxy server, any information you transmit through that server can be intercepted and searched, including your account login and password information that you may utilize for any of the online services/searches/downloads. In attempt to search a better privacy on Internet, people search and find the tools like the proxy servers, not realizing that the danger is actually greater using the proxy servers. Furthermore, in order to trace people's illegal activity, some governments setup the proxy servers to monitor activity of those people who are most likely to have something to hide.
Never access any of your digitally stored financial account information, including online credit card banking systems, initiate transfer of funds, pay your bills or mortgages online or register any online banking accounts that contain a secure information while using a free proxy server. As a matter of fact, most of the electronic identity theft cases targeted at financial sectors and being investigated worldwide are the direct result of digital information theft via utilization of so called free proxy servers that offer free online user accounts.
The problem grows even larger as every single Internet user has an IP number, therefore a chance of you becoming a victim of a malicious attack is minimized by the overwhelming pool of IP addresses available to those who exercise this type of activity. Second of all, to protect your privacy, the Internet Service Providers do not release any digitally stored legal or financial bank information to anyone but legal authorities. Therefore your private information connected to your ISP provider generally remains very secure. BUT, they still keep a record of every time you log in or log onto the net,how long you were on and where you went. Your computer also makes a log for this activity as well and most people are just not smart enough to know where to find these logs and even more think just deleting the logs will cover their tracks. The problem with that is these logs cover far more info then just surfing and could actually cause some major damage to your computer if you have a problem and neither you nor the techs have a log to find out exactly what happened to cause the problem.
There is still a chance though that you may become a target of an internet hacker attack. The IP address attack spoofs your local Internet connection by trying to forge your computer's IP via software vulnerabilities. If have your computer connected directly to a DSL or Cable Modem without a router or a firewall, a hacker may be able to access the private data on your computer, especially if you use file sharing. In this situation, it would not be a bad idea to get a good Firewall software along with an Antivirus software commonly used by people such as Antivir or Avast!, or a hardware router with a built in digital firewall. There is a definite advantage of having a hardware firewall built-in into a router. While a software firewall is good and gives you full control, it may be susceptible to viruses, misconfigurations and crashes, while a hardware firewall always runs in the background, allowing only outgoing traffic, giving you somewhat a limited control of your inbound traffic while providing you with the best possible protection from a dangerous inbound traffic.
Even so, there is still nothing you can do to hide your tracks by using someone else's WiFi as when you log onto it, that system makes a record of your computer ID fingerprint in it's logs clearly showing who what and when. So you would have to be able to have access to that set of logs to delete as you leave. And you have to admit that the skill needed to do this is just not available to 99.9% of computer users today and 99.9% of the people on this thread. I am not saying I possesses this skill either, nor am I saying I dont. What I am saying is that the vast majority of the people who use spoof programs just do not seem to understand that this does not make them a damn bit more safe in any event. And you also have to understand that this is how the Government got these people with Napster, as they traced this back to the user and I would bet that some of them thought they were safe as they were using spoofing programs, and found out that they didnt work. Same with Pirate Bay and torrents and ISO Hunt as well.
You need to understand that just because you have a "spoof" program, there is no documented proof that you are going to be any safer in using it then if you didnt.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. June 2010 @ 12:55 |
Link to this message
|
That does not surprise me in the least that WIFIs ID your computer. That is relatively new vs the internet is very old, pre gui. Some persons interchange wireless networks with WIFIs.
Again you are way off with Napster. That was at the turn of the millenia. They didn't get any of the traders, only Napster. The RIAA figured that would be the end of piracy.
|
|
Daniel_1
Suspended permanently
|
4. June 2010 @ 18:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
I know Mez, and some of the people reading this thread will ignore the advice given to them and after the people start getting knocks on their doors or letters demanding payment, they will look back and wish they had.
I can only give them this info, what they do with it is up to them
|
Senior Member
|
5. June 2010 @ 05:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'll guess we'll see how this case goes then.
Then you can give everybody a big, "I told you so!".
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. June 2010 @ 05:26
|
Newbie
|
5. June 2010 @ 06:10 |
Link to this message
|
OK, so now let us presume that one of us is caught downloading big files from the internet, with the help of these servers. Now how would the "Hurt Locker" lawyers prove that this particular movie was the one downloaded. Remember that the producers' case would be against a specific downloading of the "Hurt Locker" movie. The case they will build will be a case relevant to this movie and nothing else. They still have to prove that the files downloaded were this movie's files.
Also, they have to prove that the source of the file (if they can determine which ip address is the source, is the source of this movie, and nothing else.
Even if one is caught with the movie in his possession, the source has to be pointed out. In other words, the case will need a source of the "Hurt Locker" movie, the transmission apparatus, time and duration transmitted, the ip address of the receiver of the files, and the disc generated by these files.
Their lawyers may have to prove that there has been proper security to prevent such pirate downloads, because if security is lax, or there has been no security at all, then the courts may decide that the producers are actually throwing the movie to the pirates.
It will be a big headache for the lawyers to catch even one culprit. I do not say that nobody will get caught. If they really are persistent in bringing one to court, they will bring one to court eventually.
Think about it this way, a download of a movie does not necessarily mean that the producers will lose money from this particular download. This will only be true if it is presumed that if there were no download of this movie, the one who failed to download it will go and pay to watch the movie. What about the presumption that the movie itself is not good enough to pay for?
But while we are talking about what the producers have threatened to accomplish, why don't we just wait and see if they will catch somebody.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. June 2010 @ 06:33
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
MDStorm
Newbie
|
5. June 2010 @ 07:07 |
Link to this message
|
$17 million dollars! That's absolute bullshit, man, because the ratings were steady at 78% on the unofficial Internet download chart over various websites that hold the film on its linked pages.
There are DVD's & BluRay movies today actually released to various "Sourced" websites for sharing throughout the P2P Communities, a fact that is seldom taken seriously. Simon Moon of Sharereactor may ring true with this fact. Read the Official details HERE.
If this Director wants to Blacklist himself from the public - Boycotting his future releases - then leave him to it.
You don't buy a car without a test drive first. With so much technology available on the Internetwork World Wide Web, you want to make sure that a film is worth the £5.00 to see at the cinema, while Cinema's charge over priced refreshments and food that is enough to keep even the most well paid publicans away.
In the future all Films will be rated this way, especially as DVD Screener's are put out 2 to the penny.
The very least that could happen is that the Users will leave their current IPS and go with one that agrees with the "Public Domain Law"; Anything that reaches the public domain becomes FREE of Copyright, unless that said file is being distributed "Knowingly" to another user. In lamons terms, if you leave a film in your "Download Folder" then you could be prosecuted. Move the file and you are safe.
I for one will be staying away from this Director's future releases on my P2P, for the fact that he lied about the Gross, which is in fact $40,016,144 and for the fact that someone else behind him is pulling the strings because they didn't get the fat wage cheque they were expecting.
Read More on the lying Director and the film he believes is worth losing a possible 5000 future Cinema/DVD Viewers HERE.
I'm outta here.
|
|
