Hurt Locker producer sues 5,000 BitTorrent users

[Barefootsies]

Hurt Locker producer Voltage Pictures has filed a widely-anticipated lawsuit against illegal file sharers.

The suit, filed in the Columbia District Court, accuses 5,000 BitTorrent
users of copyright violation. It's one of the biggest ever lawsuits against individuals.

Even Voltage doesn't know the names of the defendants, who have been identified only by their IP addresses. It plans to subpoena ISPs this week to get the users' names.

Once it's identified these people, they'll be sent letters inviting them to cough up $1,500 to settle - and warning them that it'll be ten times as much if they don't pay up and the case goes all the way to court.

Hurt Locker was leaked on the internet via BitTorrent about six months before its official US release. Although it was a critical success, winning six Academy Awards, it proved a disappointment in terms of box office takings. The fim grossed less than $17 million - and Voltage sees a connection.

"A Defendant's distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people," reads the suit.

"The Plaintiff now seeks redress for this rampant infringement of their exclusive rights."

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-...torerent-users

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-...torerent-users

How do they know what people have downloaded? Maybe they just started download, maybe they downloaded fake movie? How do they will hold this?

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

How do they know what people have downloaded? Maybe they just started download, maybe they downloaded fake movie? How do they will hold this?

I think they go with the idea that if someone downloaded their film (or tried to) they will have most likely downloaded a load of other stuff and a quick pay-off to be left alone is what people are going to choose just because they are scared of having their computer seized and getting more problems.

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

I think they go with the idea that if someone downloaded their film (or tried to) they will have most likely downloaded a load of other stuff and a quick pay-off to be left alone is what people are going to choose just because they are scared of having their computer seized and getting more problems.

For example you have Wireless connection, somebody jacked into your connection, got the movie. So you will have to pay for that? just one example...
I think it's on long stick, why there was no previous big lawsuits, they don't want people money, strange...

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

I think they go with the idea that if someone downloaded their film (or tried to) they will have most likely downloaded a load of other stuff and a quick pay-off to be left alone is what people are going to choose just because they are scared of having their computer seized and getting more problems.

Yes, similar to the technique Davenport Lyons used here in the UK. Get some IP addresses of people that may or may not have downloaded something that claims to be a copyrighted file. Send them blackmail letters. Some pay up.

No need for something as silly as PROOF that the person paying for the IP actually committed any crime is there? No need for evidence. No need to understand unencrypted connections, IP spoofing or even grandchildren visiting. Just send them a letter demanding 10 grand and some will pay.

Brilliant money maker.

[RadicalSights]

This is a bad joke

[Caligari]

There was a thread a while back when they said they were going to do this and it looks like its going thru.
If they have high profile success with these lawsuits in the States it will do two things-
1)Scare a % of people into NOT downloading copyrighted material off of torrents.
2)Pave the way for more movie companies to follow.

When momentum builds and perhaps a 100k people have been served similar notices then you will get that "Yes a friend of mine got fucking sued by X Film Company for illegally downloading their movie."

When it starts hitting home people do get scared enough to stop.

The problem is right now there needs to be a set of international coordinated laws which will be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.

Even so, Torrents as they are known now (illegal) will be gone within 5 years

[sortie]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

For example you have Wireless connection, somebody jacked into your connection, got the movie. So you will have to pay for that? just one example...
I think it's on long stick, why there was no previous big lawsuits, they don't want people money, strange...

The answer to that question is yes, if you get framed for something then
you get the fall out. The internet is just another place for it to happen.

[Naechy]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

How do they know what people have downloaded? Maybe they just started download, maybe they downloaded fake movie? How do they will hold this?

good question , i have no idea

[sortie]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Yes, similar to the technique Davenport Lyons used here in the UK. Get some IP addresses of people that may or may not have downloaded something that claims to be a copyrighted file. Send them blackmail letters. Some pay up.

No need for something as silly as PROOF that the person paying for the IP actually committed any crime is there? No need for evidence. No need to understand unencrypted connections, IP spoofing or even grandchildren visiting. Just send them a letter demanding 10 grand and some will pay.

Brilliant money maker.

Are we being naive to think they can't prove the cases though?

I mean, every server request goes through multiple relays carrying headers that
can have any kind of data in it for tracking.


Hypothetical Scenario :

I make a popular browser and when ever my browser is installed on a computer
the computer configuration is scanned and my browser produces a snapshot(fingerprint) of
this configuration. Given the fact that everybody sets up different combinations on
the computer and install programs in different orders and, have different hardware
etc...this can be a unique identifier of that computer that is put into a request header
and sent by the browser. So forget IP, you can change but the "fingerprint" is
the same.
Now search the backed up data(if it existed) on the relay servers for the fingerprint
and find everywhere the surfer ever went. Including his bank where he is easily identified.
Now match the times of the access with the times that person is able to use the
computer. So the person is home at this time, no one else is there and no other computer
fingerprint is there except his. The open connection excuse would be busted.

I said HYPOTHETICAL!
In no way am I suggesting that this is happening.

[Kick Ass Chat]

Intersesting saga for sure.

[bronco67]

I wish digital content would finally get thrown into the mix with the rest of economy where people actually pay for goods and services, but I don't know if threatening or suing end users is the answer -- and ISP's are walking a fine line with their customers by ratting them out. Aren't they losing a customer and scaring away others?

[sortie]

Originally Posted by bronco67

I wish digital content would finally get thrown into the mix with the rest of economy where people actually pay for goods and services, but I don't know if threatening or suing end users is the answer -- and ISP's are walking a fine line with their customers by ratting them out. Aren't they losing a customer and scaring away others?

Ever read a cellphone contract?

Ever get a call from a "credit department" for your outstanding $50 balance?

Ever see a shoplifter get pounded?

Ever see a bank robber get shot.

Nobody stopped buying.
Nobody quit doing business.

This is because of a very simple concept :

People who paid for what they wanted don't give a shit about what happens
to people who didn't pay.

[Paul Markham]

If anyone has a better idea on how to stop illegal downloaders this is the place to say it.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

If anyone has a better idea on how to stop illegal downloaders this is the place to say it.

Yes. I have a solution. Give Markham a pair of boots and a cape....

[Caligari]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

If anyone has a better idea on how to stop illegal downloaders this is the place to say it.

well Paul I think this is one of MANY ways to inhibit illegal downloading and it will work to some degree. If you take into account the amount of legal action being taken right now against illegal tubes and torrents I see this kind of thing increasing as momentum builds and new laws are passed, precedents set etc. The problem is getting international agreement.

The mentality of "i don't need to pay for entertainment" needs to be quashed and even tho this method is pretty extreme i don't blame the filmmakers for wanting to get their due.

[kane]

When this story first popped up a few weeks ago they said that the people filing the lawsuits got a lot of support from various ISPs who gave the information over to the company. I am assuming that your ISP could see anything you do and any site you visit unless you know how spoof and do a lot of fancy things to hide your tracks (which most people don't).

I'm guessing they based their suits off of those records and took the ones that gave them the most solid info. When the story first hit they said the number of suits could reach as high a 50,000 and they ended up with only 10% of that so I would guess they have pretty solid evidence against these people.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by Caligari

The mentality of "i don't need to pay for entertainment" needs to be quashed and even tho this method is pretty extreme i don't blame the filmmakers for wanting to get their due.

there's another forum I frequent that's full of entitled 20somethings who try to make rational arguments for their new paradigm they've created because they think musical/filmed entertainment is too expensive. The new paradigm I'm talking about is bypassing the system set in place to get money to the producers/artists. They think somehow money will magically end up in their pockets, or maybe they don't care. Anyone that's ever created anything and wanted to sell it has to understand why it's wrong.

It all boils down to how easy the crime is to get away with. If someone downloads a movie for free, and the same consequence happened as if they had walked into Best BUy and stole a DVD), then they just wouldn't do it.

[kane]

Originally Posted by bronco67

there's another forum I frequent that's full of entitled 20somethings who try to make rational arguments for their new paradigm they've created because they think musical/filmed entertainment is too expensive. The new paradigm I'm talking about is bypassing the system set in place to get money to the producers/artists. They think somehow money will magically end up in their pockets, or maybe they don't care. Anyone that's ever created anything and wanted to sell it has to understand why it's wrong.

It all boils down to how easy the crime is to get away with. If someone downloads a movie for free, and the same consequence happened as if they had walked into Best BUy and stole a DVD), then they just wouldn't do it.

One of my all time favorite rationals for downloading was a guy who said he would download a movie or music (or whatever) and watch/listen/use it then he would decide if it was worth paying for. When I pointed out that society doesn't work that way, you don't get to take things then later decide if you want to pay for them he went off on a tangent about greed and how rich millionaire actors and musicians didn't need so much money and that they weren't worth what they were being paid.

He also tried to convince me that this really was how things worked in the real world. I invited him to go to a restaurant and order a meal then eat the entire thing. After eating it tell them that it wasn't worth paying for and that you were going to leave. Or tell them it was only worth half of what they charged for it and see how well that worked out for him. I also told him to go to his local movie theater and tell them at the box office he was going to go in and watch a movie then afterward he would decide it if was worth paying for. He didn't seem to get the concept.

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by kane

When I pointed out that society doesn't work that way, you don't get to take things then later decide if you want to pay for them

Tell that to fucking CB Ok they pay, but later they decide will they really pay

[kane]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

Tell that to fucking CB Ok they pay, but later they decide will they really pay

True, but that doesn't happen all that often. A lot of these downloaders want it to be the norm. They want to receive the service or good then decide if they want to pay for it. People who CB are sometimes just dicks trying to get out of paying, but sometimes they have actually been wronged.

[Domain Diva]

Originally Posted by kane

When this story first popped up a few weeks ago they said that the people filing the lawsuits got a lot of support from various ISPs who gave the information over to the company. I am assuming that your ISP could see anything you do and any site you visit unless you know how spoof and do a lot of fancy things to hide your tracks (which most people don't).

I'm guessing they based their suits off of those records and took the ones that gave them the most solid info. When the story first hit they said the number of suits could reach as high a 50,000 and they ended up with only 10% of that so I would guess they have pretty solid evidence against these people.

Yes ..here is the press release I put up last week.....it did start as 50,000...so you can be sure they must have something on this 5,000 that makes them confident.

http://www.gfy.com/fucking-around-and-business-discussion/970334-50-000-sued-piracy-lawsuit.html

Would be interesting to know how many paid up before it got to this hardcore 5,000.

[ProG]

I'm surprised they go after torrent sites who technically don't profit (maybe from ads?) versus newsgroup sites who charge a membership fee and provide everything under the sun on their own servers.

[kane]

Originally Posted by ProG

I'm surprised they go after torrent sites who technically don't profit (maybe from ads?) versus newsgroup sites who charge a membership fee and provide everything under the sun on their own servers.

In this case they are going after the people that actually downloaded the movie, not the site they downloaded it from.

Fighting the sites is a much bigger endeavor because of DMCA and other rules/laws. There are many groups targeting the sites themselves, but these guys go after the individual downloaders which are probably a lot easier to get settlements out of.

[ProG]

Originally Posted by kane

In this case they are going after the people that actually downloaded the movie, not the site they downloaded it from.

Fighting the sites is a much bigger endeavor because of DMCA and other rules/laws. There are many groups targeting the sites themselves, but these guys go after the individual downloaders which are probably a lot easier to get settlements out of.

oh I see.... like the first RIAA suits. Do you think it's just scare tactics or are they testing the waters and intend to go after the full 50,000?

[JustDaveXxx]

Originally Posted by ProG

oh I see.... like the first RIAA suits. Do you think it's just scare tactics or are they testing the waters and intend to go after the full 50,000?

I think its both. Go after all of them and scare the shit out of the people that are thinking about stealing.



I pay and have no issue paying for movies, music and programs. I dont pay for porn and i dont steal it, because i see it all day at work.

[kane]

Originally Posted by ProG

oh I see.... like the first RIAA suits. Do you think it's just scare tactics or are they testing the waters and intend to go after the full 50,000?

I would guess this first 5,000 are the people they have the strongest evidence against. If this round goes well they might expand it out. I would think they might also just send threatening letters to the other people telling them how lucky they got this time and not to do it again.

However, if this tactic works and they get a decent number of settlements I would think something like this would become more and more common.

As for a scare tactic, I think it works to a degree. There might be people out there that download on occasion that hear about this and decide to give it up, but the hardcore downloaders will probably not be scared off.

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by ProG

oh I see.... like the first RIAA suits. Do you think it's just scare tactics or are they testing the waters and intend to go after the full 50,000?

50,000 to get a good headline.

5,000 people while they get a follow-on story

Now to drop a line in the water and see if they can hook some.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by kane

In this case they are going after the people that actually downloaded the movie, not the site they downloaded it from.

Fighting the sites is a much bigger endeavor because of DMCA and other rules/laws. There are many groups targeting the sites themselves, but these guys go after the individual downloaders which are probably a lot easier to get settlements out of.

maybe because that the point of the law the users who don't have a fair use right are the ones who are actually guilty of doing something wrong

the service providers are simple providing an infrastructure that CAN be abused to infringe.

[GrouchyAdmin]

This is brilliant.

I never heard a fucking thing about this movie, and now I can't get away from it.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by kane

One of my all time favorite rationals for downloading was a guy who said he would download a movie or music (or whatever) and watch/listen/use it then he would decide if it was worth paying for. When I pointed out that society doesn't work that way, you don't get to take things then later decide if you want to pay for them he went off on a tangent about greed and how rich millionaire actors and musicians didn't need so much money and that they weren't worth what they were being paid.

He also tried to convince me that this really was how things worked in the real world. I invited him to go to a restaurant and order a meal then eat the entire thing. After eating it tell them that it wasn't worth paying for and that you were going to leave. Or tell them it was only worth half of what they charged for it and see how well that worked out for him. I also told him to go to his local movie theater and tell them at the box office he was going to go in and watch a movie then afterward he would decide it if was worth paying for. He didn't seem to get the concept.

If only he could download the meal into his belly, then he could eat for free and all of those greedy restaurant owners can stop getting rich with their gigantic profit margins.


....and how many of those people who say they'll decide if they want to pay would actually do that if something met their standards? Anyone with that mindset to begin with, will not be paying for shit.

[iSpyCams]

I downloaded it, it was a good movie. Let's see if I get a letter. I'm not in the US though and I use 256bit encrypted download connections.

[charlie g]

I want to sue the producers of Hurt Locker for wasting 2 hours of my life. The movie sucked and maybe that is the real reason it bombed at the BO.

[fatfoo]

Copyright infringement on videos sucks.