The Hurt Locker Producer Sues 5,000 BitTorrenters

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I've checked some numbers... Hurt Locker had a budget of $15M. DVD sales in US alone are about $28.5M. I think, it's not a bad profit. Why should they bother suing people?
 
So what happens when a demand letter arrives asking for a settlement and you just shit can the letter and just never pay. I wonder what then?

No way in hell I would pay $1,500 if I get a letter. What about people who bought a DVD of the movie but also downloaded a copy for portability?
 
[citation][nom]Heraisu[/nom]Ignoring possibilities of someone else using wireless, or the fact we just randomly grabbed IPs from anywhere[/citation]


Right, wireless network makes it possible for someone else (not the one named) to download the content... definitive proof of who downloaded the movie would be needed and that is something an IP address cannot provide.

Just wondering how long that would last in court. Could you counter for lost money and time? What about a lawyer that was looking for national attention file a class action for the 5000 named? I'm no legal expert, but I bet I could find a hungry one looking for the press. Then a ruling by the court giving precedence for the future companies that try and sue based on IP address alone... Or by distributing parts of a file to others.

I am a software engineer, I dont pirate (hypocricy is something I try to avoid), but randomly accusing people without proper proof is something that I will always argue. I do feel bad for the comapnies that invest money to make movies or innovative software get shafted by pirates. I dont care how rich a company is, it's their money, their product. It's in nobodys right to take that from them.

 
This is so simple... Obtaining copies of movies, songs, or software in any way, shape, or form without paying for them is stealing, 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. Stealing is stealing, regardless of how you do it.

There is no difference in downloading a movie, and walking into a store and walking out with a copy 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?
 
[citation][nom]cmcghee358[/nom]Hey I didn't buy this movie, I didn't see it in the theater. My friend loaned me his bluray for me and the wife to watch it. Am I in trouble too?[/citation]

If the industry had its way, you would be looking at a life sentence.
 
[citation][nom]mgilbert[/nom]This is so simple... Obtaining copies of movies, songs, or software in any way, shape, or form without paying for them is stealing, 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. Stealing is stealing, regardless of how you do it.There is no difference in downloading a movie, and walking into a store and walking out with a copy 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?[/citation]


"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."

They "adapted" the story from active service members, some contributing more than others (and one in particular contributing so much he is suing the studio since the likeness is undeniable). How ironic is it that the studio found a way to "obtain" a very compelling story from soldiers without compensating them at all, and now they are basically blackmailing infringers who used bittorrent to obtain their movie without compensating the studio?

I haven't pirated this movie, but after this truckload of disgusting press I probably won't even bother watching it legitimately any more. If someone is masterminding a distribution ring, by all means sue them into oblivion. However, they are basically dragnetting for $7,500,000 with no evidence but a list of IPs of people who might at one point participated in a tracker for the movie (but may have not downloaded so much as one byte of it).

People are outraged because this is basically e-racial-profiling, and conviction without a fair trial. Imagine if you were a black or hispanic person in the US, in a department store, where something was stolen (by a person of unknown color) and you ended up being arrested because you were there and capable of stealing it even though they had no proof.

Would you feel violated enough to understand?
 
cmcghee358 06/01/2010 11:23 AM Hide-0+ .Hey I didn't buy this movie, I didn't see it in the theater. My friend loaned me his bluray for me and the wife to watch it. Am I in trouble too?

No your friend is in trouble for "sharing" it to you.
 
[citation][nom]Arthur Leung[/nom]I am sorry that I didn't spend too much time to read all of the comments. However, those "filthy" rich media company have a payroll to feed many families. Some of these families are your neighbors, friends, or even some of them could be your children. Think, if some of these people are unemployed, because those companies lost money on their productions that your friends and families had work so hard just to make ends meet. Then how should we feel about piracy on movie IPs. And I want to also remind some of you, that besides movies that these media companies produces. They also support other industries with their production process. A lot of mouths are also being fed in this process. I will rest my case, and be glad that someone can afford my paycheck with real money. Thank you![/citation]
Except that probably 95% of the ones who downloaded this and many other movies had no intentions of buying them in the first place. If they had not downloaded it they probably would have waited for it to show up on TV or not watched it at all, these companies are not losing a thing since there was never a sale to be made. The fact that you can download it and pay nothing is the reason it was downloaded, that is not a lost sale.
 
We take all that digital stuff for granted because it's been so easy for us to get it while the internet was a luxury more than a need, but things have changed and we have to realize that piracy is theft, pure and simple. Whether or not we feel a software, movie or album deserves to be paid for, it's not for us to decide. We can either buy it, or find an alternative.

Bash me if you will, but I'm actually thinking suing the people who are responsible for uploading pirated stuff is a good move. I'm not better than the next guy, for I have my share of pirated stuff on my computer. But, if would ever get caught sharing it, that would teach me a hell of a lesson.

You may proceed getting me down to -20.
 
"If any of the 5,000 people decided to take the matter to trial and lost, they'd be looking at considerably more money as well as attorney fees."

Yup, legalized blackmail.
 
[citation][nom]iggybeans[/nom]Having e-mailed the producer (and actually gotten a response), I have to say he has a point. It costs money to produce a motion picture. Downloaders did steal his property. He does have the right to seek compensation. It's that simple.So, plenty of you don't like it? TS.This is no different than software piracy. It's wrong.Artists deserve to be paid for their work.[/citation]
Wow now I know why I don't go to the movies, $1,500 dollars is too steep.
 
[citation][nom]Camikazi[/nom]Except that probably 95% of the ones who downloaded this and many other movies had no intentions of buying them in the first place. If they had not downloaded it they probably would have waited for it to show up on TV or not watched it at all, these companies are not losing a thing since there was never a sale to be made. The fact that you can download it and pay nothing is the reason it was downloaded, that is not a lost sale.[/citation]
It's still theft.

Try to reason your way out of it any way you want, but it's still theft.

And this is the worst justification of piracy. If you have no intentions of buying it, you should have no intentions of owning it, therefore, you should have no intentions of downloading it. Why don't you understand that?

If you can't afford to own something, you should not own it unless it was gifted to you.

I can't afford a Ferrari, so I guess if I steal one from the factory, that's ok because I was never in the market to purchase one anyway.
 
[citation][nom]iggybeans[/nom]Having e-mailed the producer (and actually gotten a response), I have to say he has a point. It costs money to produce a motion picture. Downloaders did steal his property. He does have the right to seek compensation. It's that simple.So, plenty of you don't like it? TS.This is no different than software piracy. It's wrong.Artists deserve to be paid for their work.[/citation]

It is different than software piracy. Software providers keep working on the product after it is released, you know what a patch is right? This is like pirating music. If they want money they just have to do live shows, they are quite hard to pirate. The movie industry can make money with theatrical release and they do. After that the cash cow is dead. Now good luck finding my IP through the tor network.
 
[citation][nom]vertigo_2000[/nom]It's still theft.Try to reason your way out of it any way you want, but it's still theft.And this is the worst justification of piracy. If you have no intentions of buying it, you should have no intentions of owning it, therefore, you should have no intentions of downloading it. Why don't you understand that?If you can't afford to own something, you should not own it unless it was gifted to you.I can't afford a Ferrari, so I guess if I steal one from the factory, that's ok because I was never in the market to purchase one anyway.[/citation]

Its not theft since nothing was actually stolen...
 
[citation][nom]zak_mckraken[/nom]We take all that digital stuff for granted because it's been so easy for us to get it while the internet was a luxury more than a need, but things have changed and we have to realize that piracy is theft, pure and simple. Whether or not we feel a software, movie or album deserves to be paid for, it's not for us to decide. We can either buy it, or find an alternative.Bash me if you will, but I'm actually thinking suing the people who are responsible for uploading pirated stuff is a good move. I'm not better than the next guy, for I have my share of pirated stuff on my computer. But, if would ever get caught sharing it, that would teach me a hell of a lesson.You may proceed getting me down to -20.[/citation]
For the last time, piracy is NOT theft, it's copyright infringement. There is no verifiable loss involved, as in the case of theft, but only speculative potential loss of profits, which is what copyrights protect against. Assuming that 5,000 pirates caused $1,500 worth of copyright infringement is beyond absurd.

[citation][nom]iggybeans[/nom]Having e-mailed the producer (and actually gotten a response), I have to say he has a point. It costs money to produce a motion picture. Downloaders did steal his property. He does have the right to seek compensation. It's that simple.So, plenty of you don't like it? TS.This is no different than software piracy. It's wrong.Artists deserve to be paid for their work.[/citation]
He is a producer. Producers != artists. Whatever money he gains from this lawsuit, it's to fatten his own wallet, not the directors', actors', DP's, costume designers', make-up artists', set directors', or anybody else who contributed artistically to the film. Oh, and most likely not the soldier who originally told him this story, either.
 
While I don't side on the side of piracy, I must say the pricing these days doesn't help matters.

Look at blu-ray movies, at least here in Canada if you don't buy the blu-ray movie on the release date (normally a 1 day sale) you're expected to shell out at minimum $32-40 for a single movie.

I can't imagine paying that much money for one movie, $15-20 is doable... $30-40? No thanks!
 
[citation][nom]joebob2000[/nom]"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."They "adapted" the story from active service members, some contributing more than others (and one in particular contributing so much he is suing the studio since the likeness is undeniable). How ironic is it that the studio found a way to "obtain" a very compelling story from soldiers without compensating them at all, and now they are basically blackmailing infringers who used bittorrent to obtain their movie without compensating the studio?I haven't pirated this movie, but after this truckload of disgusting press I probably won't even bother watching it legitimately any more. If someone is masterminding a distribution ring, by all means sue them into oblivion. However, they are basically dragnetting for $7,500,000 with no evidence but a list of IPs of people who might at one point participated in a tracker for the movie (but may have not downloaded so much as one byte of it). People are outraged because this is basically e-racial-profiling, and conviction without a fair trial. Imagine if you were a black or hispanic person in the US, in a department store, where something was stolen (by a person of unknown color) and you ended up being arrested because you were there and capable of stealing it even though they had no proof. Would you feel violated enough to understand?[/citation]

Once again - just because they did something illegal and/or immoral doesn't give you the right to do the same. Those who were wronged have the right to sue.

It isn't e-profiling. They are going after the people who stole from them. E-profiling would mean going after anyone who has ever used a P2P connection. They are only going after those where they have proof. Your racial profiling example is bogus. They are not suing people just because they've used a P2P program. They are going after those who's IP address sent and received digital portions of the movie.

No one has been denied the right to a trial. Anyone can accept a public defender, and fight if they want to. None of them will, because they know they are guilty.

You are responsible for your wireless network. If you have it properly encrypted, it is very unlikely anyone will ever bother trying to hack into it. Very, very few people know how to do that, and your signal is very limited as to coverage.

You are also responsible for the computers in your home. If one of your children, or a friend, uses your computer, you are responsible for what they do.

To participate in a tracker for the movie, you had to be downloading it, or have it downloaded on your computer.
 
My wife purchased this movie 2 weeks ago. It remains on the kitchen table...un-opened in protest of this law suit... I'm thinking of shooting holes in it and mailing to the greedy bastages.
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Well if they don't have proof they should have no case (the burden of proof is on them after all). If on the other hand you have a justice system that allows corporations harass innocent people in this way then it's not the corporations that are the problem, it's your whole country.And while errors are certainly possible, I don't think they had trouble collecting 5000 IP addresses that were sharing this movie. If the only problem in this situation is that prosecuting people by their IP addresses is so unreliable, how come no one is concerned about this when an internet pedophile ring is brought down using the same methods?[/citation]
Thats not true in a lawsuit like this, you are thinking about the burden of proof that exists in a criminal case, in a case like this who ever the judge believes more is the one who wins. In this case the movie studio will win, because judges dont understand how the internet works, and how the studio could possibly be wrong.

The movie studio has "undeniable proof" /sarcasm
 
[citation][nom]bison88[/nom]...because we are all shaking in our boots. Like people were going to see the movie anyways. Most people who pirated the movie last summer never heard about it but were bored shitless because nothing was on TV and decided "Hell, why not check out another crappy war knock off" and while the acting was better it is definitely another fake of military life. You war directors need to take some notes from Steven Spielberg, at least his flick was a more realistic example of it all and the emotional baggage that goes along with it.Not to mention the script was stolen from a mans actual experience in which he didn't receive a dime or even a credit about by this director. Talk about pirates, way to STEAL a mans experience Hollywood. I encourage people to Google it and compare the two stories in verbatim.[/citation]

If toms would look at there ads before unleashing them on us, there would be no need for adp. The only reason I use it, is not because of the ads, but because of the ads that feel the need to make loud noises, go to full screen and cover the stuff you are trying to read, etc.
 
they say pirates are destroying Hollywood. When in fact its Hollywood destroying itself by making cr@p.
.... didnt Avatar break multiple sales record ..... people will pay for quality !
 
[citation][nom]mgilbert[/nom]They are going after the people who stole from them. E-profiling would mean going after anyone who has ever used a P2P connection. They are only going after those where they have proof. Your racial profiling example is bogus. They are not suing people just because they've used a P2P program. They are going after those who's IP address sent and received digital portions of the movie.No one has been denied the right to a trial. Anyone can accept a public defender, and fight if they want to.[/citation]

Your post is full of complete bull****! First, they have no evidence that any part of their movie is on the suspect's PC. No, having your address show up in a tracker is NOT proof that you have even uploaded/downloaded so much as one byte of the file. Hell, I could get YOUR ip address, put it in a static tracker, and they could come along and see YOU are stealing their movies! Imagine your surprise when you get a letter saying you have to pay $1,500 or face explaining yourself at a trial.

Error #2; these are civil trials, not criminal ones. You are not entitled to a public defender, you can either defend yourself or hire a lawyer whose effectiveness is measured by how many zeroes are in his paycheck.

Please get a clue before spouting off nonsense... Now that I think about it, do you work in Hollywood? That would explain a lot about this conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom