|
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.
|
|
forkndave
Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 15:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Daniel_1:
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!
Actually, if you downloaded this movie via bit torrent you probably have also uploaded it. If you don't that is called "hit and run" and can get you banned at some torrent sites for having a poor ratio. Usually you are uploading at the same time you are downloading. I've never downloaded this movie however. My ISP has shut down my service a couple of times for uploading copyrighted material that I was downloading. They don't personally care, but they received complaints from some group. I don't recall who they were, but it wasn't the RIAA or MPAA. Since I've started using "Hide My Ass" service I haven't been bothered. That costs me about $80.00 a year, but it seems to be worth it so far anyhow. This is not a plug for them since I believe there are other people that will do the same thing for you.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
sssharp
Junior Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 16:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
Taken was leaked a good 3 months early, how did it do? It made 80 million because that was a good movie. That is all it comes down to, do they want us to see it or do they want to win an award that means nothing to the general population.
|
|
nopcbs
Junior Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 17:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
I rented this movie through NetFlix after hearing the hype about it and, I must say, it's not a very good movie. I'd call it OK. I thought Brothers in Arms was WAY better, but then that's a documentary about real Marines doing real things and Hurt Locker was just fiction based on how Hollywood thinks soldiers behave. (Clueless Hollywood at work, in other words.)
Pity of it is, looks like a bunch of people who desparately wanted to see a mediocre movie are going to get a much bigger thrill FOR watching it than they got FROM watching it.
|
|
kfir1
Member
|
31. May 2010 @ 17:10 |
Link to this message
|
Voltage is a crack-head. His movie sucked and I wasted $6.00 and my time going to the theaters. Good thing I didn't buy the drink and popcorn.
Voltage is trying to make money from a B movie. LMAO.
|
|
PurplePat
Newbie
|
31. May 2010 @ 18:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by writer:
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...
Spot on mate. They just wanted to smack James Cameron in the face for highlighting corporate greed. What better way than to give his ex-wife the Oscar which he most definitely earned?
|
|
malone78
Newbie
|
31. May 2010 @ 20:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by nopcbs:
I rented this movie through NetFlix after hearing the hype about it and, I must say, it's not a very good movie. I'd call it OK. I thought Brothers in Arms was WAY better, but then that's a documentary about real Marines doing real things and Hurt Locker was just fiction based on how Hollywood thinks soldiers behave. (Clueless Hollywood at work, in other words.)
Pity of it is, looks like a bunch of people who desparately wanted to see a mediocre movie are going to get a much bigger thrill FOR watching it than they got FROM watching it.
Brothers in Arms is Army....not Marines.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
31. May 2010 @ 23:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by PurplePat:
Originally posted by writer:
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...
Spot on mate. They just wanted to smack James Cameron in the face for highlighting corporate greed. What better way than to give his ex-wife the Oscar which he most definitely earned?
I figured the reason that they only made $17 million on this POS is that they had to spend $100 million on bribing the judges to win the "Best Picture" award. Even the people who liked this movie didn't think it was the best movie of the year. I can't even remember a TV promo for it...I guess that is what happens when you spend your advertising budget on bribery.
|
Senior Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 01:09 |
Link to this message
|
Ahh.. the magic of hindsight.
I bet they'll win.
|
Senior Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 01:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
i bet its just scare tactics.Just think about it 5000 people being sued over 1 movie and then information about it popping up all over forums.They are trying to make an example of these 5000 people to make people think twice before committing piracy.
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.
|
Newbie
|
1. June 2010 @ 02:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Another reason why Blockbuster Video is in trouble financially.
If I only knew it could be downloaded in DVD-quality......
Where do you guys get them, anyway?
OOOOPS!
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 03:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bandoogie:
If you used a program like peer guardian 2, will they stll be able to know you downloaded the movie?
yes because it only blocks the IP ranges in the list.
RIAA etc go onto torrent servers and do a bit of downloading and upload themselves and log all the IPs on the torrent.
This came up in the FAST vs iiNet case in Australia.
The iiNet lawyer asked them if they are downloading the files then wouldn't they be breaking the copyright law but FAST(RIAA) said they have copyright permission so can't be sued or some BS.
FAST(RIAA) lost this case and are appealing because they don't want to pay iinet's legal bill and other fees, it around the 500AUD million mark.
Round two starts this month, where FAST(RIAA) try to get out of paying money themselves for stupid court cases.
FAST tried suing an ISP and having them do a mass payout but iinet said you can't expect to send us 10,000 emails with IP we need to disconnect every hour, and that this goes past the court system.
See RIAA and others are trying to go around the court system once you point that out lawyers and judges don't like people/companies who try to to use the law with out going through them.
Some people will end up paying out, your best to simply never answer back to the letters and act real stupid in fact if you did get send an email probably best to move your computer hard drives etc to somewhere else and use a clean HD with only paid for software etc.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 03:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
I figured the reason that they only made $17 million on this POS is that they had to spend $100 million on bribing the judges to win the "Best Picture" award. Even the people who liked this movie didn't think it was the best movie of the year. I can't even remember a TV promo for it...I guess that is what happens when you spend your advertising budget on bribery.
I seen a review on this movie and the reviewers said it's like watching 2 hours of filler for what is really just 30 seconds of watch able footage.
Even the director said the movie was made in this way to streach out what the bomb guys do but over in the UK the real bomb guys said the whole movie is shit as you'd be dead doing the stuff that happens in the movie.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. June 2010 @ 03:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
I figured the reason that they only made $17 million on this POS is that they had to spend $100 million on bribing the judges to win the "Best Picture" award. Even the people who liked this movie didn't think it was the best movie of the year. I can't even remember a TV promo for it...I guess that is what happens when you spend your advertising budget on bribery.
I seen a review on this movie and the reviewers said it's like watching 2 hours of filler for what is really just 30 seconds of watch able footage.
Even the director said the movie was made in this way to streach out what the bomb guys do but over in the UK the real bomb guys said the whole movie is shit as you'd be dead doing the stuff that happens in the movie.
Wow...in an age when almost every review is extremely positive, a negative review is incredibly bad.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. June 2010 @ 08:42 |
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.
That is a pretty moronic thing to say! I wouldn't mind 7.5 million. I guess you are sooooo rich you would just walk over it and wouldn't pick it up. RIGHT! At that amount, most will just pay up. That adjusted to inflation was what the RIAA was getting with no trouble. It is when they went greedy that people started getting lawyers.
Thanks xtago, I hadn't heard that one. That sounds like a good plan. It doesn't really matter if they win or lose the fear factor is well worth it.
rick930, they do not have to prove anything. It is not trial they are sueing for damages. They can still loose but it is worth a shot. It will be interesting to see if the ISPs will produce the names. Most say that is too much hardship unless they come up with some real money. Again, if you are a pirate you might be thinking this is a good time to get out.
|
|
Daniel_1
Suspended permanently
|
1. June 2010 @ 08:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by forkndave:
Originally posted by Daniel_1:
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!
Actually, if you downloaded this movie via bit torrent you probably have also uploaded it. If you don't that is called "hit and run" and can get you banned at some torrent sites for having a poor ratio. Usually you are uploading at the same time you are downloading. I've never downloaded this movie however. My ISP has shut down my service a couple of times for uploading copyrighted material that I was downloading. They don't personally care, but they received complaints from some group. I don't recall who they were, but it wasn't the RIAA or MPAA. Since I've started using "Hide My Ass" service I haven't been bothered. That costs me about $80.00 a year, but it seems to be worth it so far anyhow. This is not a plug for them since I believe there are other people that will do the same thing for you.
Not what I ment forkndave,I was asking rick930 where exactly he heard what he claimed Clinton said and where in federal law this is allowed. By rick930's silence in this I can safely say that his statement about Clinton is vaporwording as I did a nexus search as well as a google search and no where did I find that Clinton made this claim in any of his speeches before-during-or after he was President. The reason for the question of the validity of the statement is that this would be a boonfall in a court of law as what Judge or Jury is going to refuse a legal claim like this from a President of the US? Not very many to be sure.
|
|
JoeA
Newbie
|
1. June 2010 @ 10:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you want to be absolutely safe, just take your computer to your local library or other free wi-fi- hotspot and download whatever from that location. Let them try to find you then!
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. June 2010 @ 12:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Those that are mindlessly using PG2, haven't you noticed that there have not been any updates in 6 months? If you are using Blocklist manager you are covered but the rest of you are clueless.
I think if you get the letter, then you can't ignore it, you deny it. They are not allowed to hack into your computer without a warrant so they can't prove it was you. You can't deny it after you have been ignoring it. When you deny you had better be 'clean'. 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.
|
|
olgoat
Newbie
|
1. June 2010 @ 12:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
A friend of mine bought the movie and loaned it to me. I watch the movie for about an hour and turned it off. I'm glad I didn't waste my money to see the movie in the theater, the movie sucked. That's why it only grossed $17 million. And they're blaming pirates for the low income. Other movies have been leaked and still brought in lots of money. I'm not justifying piracy, just is the movie sucked.
|
Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 15:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
I was thinking about buying Hurt Locker, I liked it. Not anymore though.
|
Senior Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 16:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xtago:
Some people will end up paying out, your best to simply never answer back to the letters and act real stupid in fact if you did get send an email probably best to move your computer hard drives etc to somewhere else and use a clean HD with only paid for software etc.
You can also set up a wireless node of your own at home and claim that you were ignorant about securing it. A cracker/hacker can get around home wireless security anyway.
Unless you live in Outer Woop-woop :D
PS: Yes,I know of others who have stolen peoples wireless bandwidth.
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 1. June 2010 @ 17:01
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. June 2010 @ 19:01 |
Link to this message
|
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.
|
Senior Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 19:59 |
Link to this message
|
First rule of Usenet???
I gave up on torrents back when TPB was having all of its problems. I haven't missed them.
|
|
John_Donn
Member
|
1. June 2010 @ 21:46 |
Link to this message
|
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
|
|
DPhenom
Newbie
|
1. June 2010 @ 23:45 |
Link to this message
|
It will interesting if they actually get the names of the isp. The RIAA did this and it got held up saying the ISP didnt have to reveal the indentity so we will see.
But lets face it will this stop piracy ? No What it will do is make proxy servers that much more popular.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. June 2010 @ 23:45
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
bandoogie
Junior Member
|
2. June 2010 @ 03:19 |
Link to this message
|
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.
To be honest, I hadn't noticed that PG2's list hasn't been updated for that long, as I haven't been using torrents to download movies for a few months now.
|
