• 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Sweep (8845 posts) -

"The makers of the Oscar-winning movie Hurt Locker have joined a very lucrative ‘pay up or else’ scheme that will target tens of thousands of U.S. BitTorrent users. The massive lawsuit is expected to be filed in the coming days and if ISPs cooperate, suspected downloaders will receive a settlement letter in the weeks to come."


At the moment this seems very hypothetical: "On condition that ISPs hand over the details of the pirates ". It's still a very legitimate threat, as hundreds of people have already received torrent-based lawsuits from the U.S. Copyright Group. You know, the USCG? The guys who spam your daytime TV with "No win - no fee!" personal injury lawsuits. Yeah. Those scumbags.
 

Important points stolen from other websites:

 
  •  Although U.S. Copyright Group say it is their intent to sue individuals who do not pay, in reality that eventuality is impossible to maintain on any scale. Their aim will be to scare as many people as possible into paying, perhaps backed up with legal action against a tiny minority to prove a point.
  •  The ‘pay up or else’ scheme is not only lucrative for the rights holders, who get only 30 percent of the settlement money. The remaining 70 percent goes to the U.S Copyright Group and its anti-piracy partners.
  •  In March the U.S. Copyright Group sued 20,000 alleged pirates for downloading Torrents of indy movies. A user called  'BustedPirate' claims that he was named in one of U.S. Copyright Group's lawsuits and eventually settled for $2,500. 
  •  In the UK these schemes have been highly criticized by the public, consumer organizations and politicians because of the intimidating tactics and lack of solid evidence. In the UK House of Lords they have been labeled a scam, and the lawyers operating them accused of “harassment, bullying and intrusion” and “legal blackmail.” As such, all lawsuits are apparently only being issued in the US (??)
 
Thoughts?
 
How long before videogame pirates suffer a similar fate? This seems like a much more effective way of stopping piracy than the ridiculous DRM currently being used by Ubisoft.
Moderator
#2 Posted by odintal (1095 posts) -

inb4 pirating apologists.  
 
it's a hard case to win but i wish them all the luck in the world to pull it off.

#3 Posted by emkeighcameron (1876 posts) -

Whoa, heavy. I'm pretty sure it won't affect the average pirate but still this is the camel's-nose-in-the-tent kind of thing. It's just going to keep getting more and more strict. I think videogame pirates will almost certainly start suffering similar fates in a couple of years, tops. Pirating represents a LOT of lost income for those big ultra companies, and once they figure out how to crack down on it hard, they will.

#4 Posted by Binman88 (3686 posts) -

ISPs that hand over customer details will be risking a huge loss to their current and potential customer base.

#5 Edited by KarlPilkington (2718 posts) -

I once received a letter from some firm wanting £700 for something I downloaded, which I did not. 
 
I returned a letter saying "Fuck off I didn't do it" 
 
I haven't heard from them ever since. 
 
Never give them money because your scared, they can't win.

#6 Edited by Scooper (7882 posts) -

What if someone else was downloading the torrent through your tapped connection? Unless they come to your house and check your hard drive I doubt they could prove it was you who downloaded the content. I'm fairly sure that's why this kind of practice is not really done in the UK. If you live in a fairly packed housing estate or somewhere you could have dozens of people being potential tappers of your connection. That's ofcourse only if you're not protecting your connection. I do obviously but it's not hard to just flip open a laptop and see 1 or 2 unguarded connections floating about. Download a movie using their connection and bam they get sued for it.
 
Or maybe that's not at all how it works. I'm bound to get someone telling me I'm wrong. I always do with these things.

#7 Edited by fwylo (3556 posts) -

Woa, I totally downloaded that...  But then I bought it, so that takes me out of the equation?
 
Plus I live in Canada.
 
This is definitely a better way to stop piracy that DRMs though.  If it is a legitimate strategy at doing so I guess.  Is there any way to prove the person actually has it?  Sure they may attempt at downloading it or click the link and start but then change their mind.  But what if they never finished their download? Or just downloaded it then deleted it.  Or bought it, then downloaded it for the purpose of having a digital copy?
 
I feel like there are too many variables to sue that many people for having a certain torrent active.

#8 Edited by NathHaw (2760 posts) -

I know somebody who got a warning from his ISP for pirating God of War 2.  He agreed to delete it, and he was never contacted again.

#9 Posted by Sweep (8845 posts) -
@fwylo said:
" Woa, I totally downloaded that...  But then I bought it, so that takes me out of the equation?  Plus I live in Canada.  This is definitely a better way to stop piracy that DRMs though.  If it is a legitimate strategy at doing so I guess.  Is there any way to prove the person actually has it?  Sure they may attempt at downloading it or click the link and start but then change their mind.  But what if they never finished their download? Or just downloaded it then deleted it.  Or bought it, then downloaded it for the purpose of having a digital copy? "
I was under the impression that each DVD is not to be copied, backed up, or in any way duplicated or any shit like that. If you want two copies you need to buy two copies. Owning a Digital copy that you didn't buy from iTunes or something is still technically illegal. Even if you own the disk.
 
 Don't quote me though. Can someone who knows about this please clarify?
Moderator
#10 Posted by odintal (1095 posts) -
@Binman88 said:
" ISPs that hand over customer details will be risking a huge loss to their current and potential customer base. "
In quite a few areas your choices are the one you have or nothing at all.  
#11 Posted by Binman88 (3686 posts) -
@odintal: In that case, those people should be fairly worried about their details being released to these guys. In major cities, ISPs would be a little more concerned about doing right by their customer.
#12 Posted by fwylo (3556 posts) -

I thought I read about this somewhere.  Something along the lines of you are allowed to make copies of your movies as long as they aren't being distributed in any form. 
 
Therefore seeding or selling or even giving away your copied movies is illegal but if it is just for you then it is fine.

#13 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Binman88 said:
ISPs that hand over customer details will be risking a huge loss to their current and potential customer base.
Not in a world where in many locations there are only 1 or 2 decent providers.  There's really only 1 or 2 known 'criminal' ISPs that don't hand over people's info already.
 
There's a lot of potential problems with suing people based on IP connections, but the law doesn't recognize those flaws usually.  Insecure wifi, compromised computers being used as a proxy, and maybe just IP / MAC logging problems at ISPs.  All could lead to false accusations.
 
Piracy is bad, and it'll be the dumbest, most casual pirates that are caught this way.
#14 Posted by Cube (4366 posts) -

Yay for living in Canada.

#15 Posted by nanikore (2740 posts) -

Real men use Usenet.

#16 Posted by Organicalistic_ (2954 posts) -
@fwylo: hehehe, canadians, they could kill a guy and get the key to the city, even if the guy was the mayor, lol
#17 Posted by goodwood (600 posts) -
@Sweep: I believe its legal to own a back up copy as long as you do not distribute it in any form. This is a question for Will at Tested and I believe he has said before the DMCA is a confusing law with many loop holes. Such as ripping netflix DVDs may not be completely illegal.
#18 Posted by EpicSteve (6483 posts) -

The soldiers in that movie didn't have American Flags on their uniform. 
 
RANDOM ERROR NOTED.
 
But if someone stole something, that's illegal. Sooooooo.

#19 Posted by The_A_Drain (3910 posts) -

I wish I had pirated this film. Wasted £13 on this piece of shit I thought it was fucking awful. But then i'm in the minority.

#20 Posted by nanikore (2740 posts) -
@EpicSteve: Only, it's not stealing. Arguably.
#21 Posted by hunterzolomin (6 posts) -

like others here i downloaded then bought it on blue ray the next day

#22 Posted by threeve (199 posts) -
@fwylo said:
" Woa, I totally downloaded that...  But then I bought it, so that takes me out of the equation?  Plus I live in Canada.  This is definitely a better way to stop piracy that DRMs though.  If it is a legitimate strategy at doing so I guess.  Is there any way to prove the person actually has it?  Sure they may attempt at downloading it or click the link and start but then change their mind.  But what if they never finished their download? Or just downloaded it then deleted it.  Or bought it, then downloaded it for the purpose of having a digital copy?  I feel like there are too many variables to sue that many people for having a certain torrent active. "
This is a REALLY expensive ways for the companies to stop piracy though, and that's why the DRM is the first choice.
#23 Posted by The_A_Drain (3910 posts) -
@Sweep said:
" @fwylo said:
" Woa, I totally downloaded that...  But then I bought it, so that takes me out of the equation?  Plus I live in Canada.  This is definitely a better way to stop piracy that DRMs though.  If it is a legitimate strategy at doing so I guess.  Is there any way to prove the person actually has it?  Sure they may attempt at downloading it or click the link and start but then change their mind.  But what if they never finished their download? Or just downloaded it then deleted it.  Or bought it, then downloaded it for the purpose of having a digital copy? "
I was under the impression that each DVD is not to be copied, backed up, or in any way duplicated or any shit like that. If you want two copies you need to buy two copies. Owning a Digital copy that you didn't buy from iTunes or something is still technically illegal. Even if you own the disk.    Don't quote me though. Can someone who knows about this please clarify? "
It's weird, and, i'm definitely NOT a lawyer so, this is just how I understand it. (UK laws only) 
 
You are allowed to make one backup copy of any piece of media you legally own a legitimate copy of, for your own use only. This does NOT include ripping it to a computer. Which is why the whole thing is so weird and fucked up, by ripping it to a computer and then burning another copy, you've already broken the law by doing that. There has to be more to it, like I say I don't have a firm grasp of the law surrounding the issue. But it seems to me that while it's legal to own a backup copy, the majority of ways of producing a backup copy are illegal to perform.
#24 Posted by Sweep (8845 posts) -
@hunterzolomin said:
" like others here i downloaded then bought it on blue ray the next day "
No doubt a lot of people did exactly the same thing. They won't care though, they aren't going to not fine you $2,500 just because you bought it the next day. These guys are desperate for excuses to sue people.
Moderator
#25 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

Somebody is suing people?  OMG THIS IS CRAAAAAAZY!!!
 
Anyways, the opening explosion in that movie was total shit.  There is no way it would have killed that guy. 
 

#26 Edited by Jeust (10552 posts) -

 The ‘pay up or else’ scheme is not only lucrative for the rights holders, who get only 30 percent of the settlement money. The remaining 70 percent goes to the U.S Copyright Group and its anti-piracy partners.    

This is what i call a sweet deal for the lobbies created to fight piracy. 
#27 Posted by Subject2Change (2966 posts) -

I totally downloaded it as well, but I'm on a private tracker mother fuckers. Eat a dick.

#28 Edited by Ghostiet (5250 posts) -

Yeah, because that's going to work.

By the way, I wonder how people were supposed to see legally if it had a limited release in the US and it's not even anywhere in Europe.

#29 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -

This is why I only use private trackers or Usenet.

#30 Posted by BulletStorm (487 posts) -

I've never pirated a movie, i've pirated more roms than I could probably guess and some music here and there. 
 
In any case, the whole "I pirated X then bought X" always sounded like the biggest "covering my ass" type of thing anyone could possibly say - that being said I feel like, whatever measures anti-piracy people take, pirates - real pirates, not your casual elementary school kid with limewire - will find ways to get around them

#31 Posted by odintal (1095 posts) -
@Ghostiet: they don't have dvd, bluray or video on demand services across the pond?
#32 Posted by Earthborn (386 posts) -

I can't see myself pirating that movie to watch it again.

#33 Posted by Scullinator (512 posts) -

Say I know a guy that downloaded this movie a while back from isohunt.  if he gets a letter about a lawsuit he should just ignore it right?

#34 Posted by StaticFalconar (4849 posts) -
@hunterzolomin said:
" like others here i downloaded then bought it on blue ray the next day "
thats like running a red light then stopping at a green to make up for it. 
#35 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -
@Scullinator said:
" Say I know a guy that downloaded this movie a while back from isohunt.  if he gets a letter about a lawsuit he should just ignore it right? "
You should destroy the letter and never mention it again.
#36 Posted by buzz_killington (3532 posts) -

ISPs will never give the user IPs to anyone. You know what a bad image that gives your company? If Verizon does it first, Time Warner's motto from that point on will be "We respect your privacy". 
 
This will never happen.

#37 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -

As was mentioned, I don't understand how they can charge anyone without solid evidence. Even if they get the IPs, how can they prove that any individual person committed the act? They could always blame it on neighbor, family, friend, virus etc, which are all actually fairly plausible (e.g. on a WiFi network). 

#38 Edited by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@buzz_killington said:

ISPs will never give the user IPs to anyone.

Dude, they do it ALL TIME TIME, already...  They give more than IPs, they'll give tons of information with significant legal pressure.
 
@Geno:  Remember when the RIAA were going around suing people?  Same exact methods.  I heard a story where one guy got his suit dropped because he claimed his wi-fi was open (no security) so anyone might have used his connection to do the deed.  Plenty of other people were ruined because of those lawsuits.
#39 Posted by ch3burashka (5041 posts) -
Someone's being butthurt.
 
Piracy is shitty, but this isn't the way to go about solving it. Make movies and games and music more available and easier to purchase, and piracy will drop to a minimum.
#40 Posted by odintal (1095 posts) -
@Diamond: i remember a story on digg about asingle mom who was sued for over 100k...
#41 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

Billions of people pirate content worldwide yet only a few thousand folks in the USA alone are being intimidated to pay up what they owe or be taken to court? Something tells me this is nothing more than a publicity stunt.

#42 Posted by 234r2we232 (3181 posts) -
@CH3BURASHKA said:
" Someone's being butthurt.  Piracy is shitty, but this isn't the way to go about solving it. Make movies and games and music more available and easier to purchase, and piracy will drop to a minimum. "
Ha.
 
Let me reiterate that point.
 
Ha.
 
Pirates pirate because they can. They feel these things are owed to them in some form. They can't afford, but they want it any how.
#43 Edited by Rasgueado (712 posts) -

I'm not particularly interested in engaging in a debate over what piracy is or isn't. Inevitably, this will be something for you to decide whether or not taking advantage of someone else's work without compensating them for their time is right or wrong.  
 
I do however want to state that there is *not* a direct correlation between the number of copies of something downloaded and lost sales. You cannot state, with any certainty, that someone WOULD buy product X were they not able to download it for free. There is a distinct difference in someone thinking nothing of getting a product in a couple of clicks at no charge, and someone putting money down on a product. The money is the barrier to entry, and for many people will be the primary deterrent for not making the purchase. Removing the ability to get something for free will not suddenly cause a sharp increase in sales; it will just stop people from getting it for free (were such a thing even possible).  
 
The only thing that you can really take from this data is that as you decrease the price of a product, you increase the number of people who use that product. There is current data available that goes even further to suggest this.  
 
(Again... this statement is not an advocation for or against piracy. It is just a statement that there are certain metrics these lobbying groups like to use that are--actually--not of much use at all) 
 
Edit: I forgot to include a statement regarding that there certainly *are* people who would, and can afford to purchase a product that decide to pirate them. It is the direct 1 to 1 equation that is incorrect as they do not possess any real data to suggest who would and would not have actually purchased the product.

#44 Posted by Sweep (8845 posts) -

For everyone saying that ISPs won't hand over details:

"ISPs will then be subpoenaed to hand over the names and addresses of alleged downloaders"


 
For those without a dictionary:

" A subpoena (pronounced /səbˈpiːnə/ or /səˈpiːnə/) is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. "

Moderator
#45 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Oh guys, don't worry about this. Want something to fear? Check this out.

#46 Posted by kishan6 (1914 posts) -

Good?

#47 Posted by Turtlemayor333 (510 posts) -

Just another way to keep this piece of crap film in the news.
 
In my opinion.

#48 Edited by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

A bunch of hub bub.  What makes the Hurt Locker so special?  I guess they dug a can of "pirate-be-gone" out their ass that makes them immune to piracy.  If it was so easy to sue the hundreds of thousands of people that pirate through torrents in the US, don't you think a large corporation would have done it already?.  It's not like the internet was invented two years ago and all of a sudden people are mad that films aren't making any money.  I mean really, the producers of fucking Hurt Locker?    That's like Koko the guerrilla finding the cure for cancer. 
 
Oh, and it seems they are pissed it didn't do shit in theaters.  How about you advertise the fucking film and put it out in more areas.  I didn't know what the movie was until after it won that Oscar. 
 
Edit:  There are two things to come of this.
 
1. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors because after they won an Oscar, they got pissed no one watched the stupid thing (most likely)  
2. They file, win, 10's of thousands of people pay up, and shortly after every single company that has ever made a movie, video game, music, or software  sues millions of Americans and the internet blows up. 

#49 Posted by natetodamax (19192 posts) -

How did they find them?

#50 Posted by Rowr (5539 posts) -

This is kind of the metallica getting their music pirated argument. They made plenty of money, how about they just be happy that so many people enjoyed what they created.