Hurt Locker Still Shared Widely Online; Wonder Why Producers Aren't Issuing Takedowns?

from the why-interfere-with-the-business-model? dept

By now we all know about how the producers of the movie Hurt Locker, Voltage Pictures, are suing thousands of people for file sharing their movie. And, you're probably also aware of the claims from Nicolas Chartier, who runs Voltage, that anyone who thinks these lawsuits are a bad strategy is a moron and a thief. You might also be aware that Chartier's "morality" on such subjects does not extend to paying the soldier whose story the movie is based on, but we'll leave that for another day.

However, it is interesting that despite all of this publicity and all of this attention about lawsuits, that file sharing for the movie has not dropped at all. It appears to still be quite popular on file sharing sites. More interesting is that Voltage, and the lawyers they've hired to file these thousands of lawsuits, US Copyright Group (or, more accurately, Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver) apparently have not issued a single DMCA takedown notice to get the file removed from various file sharing networks.

That's pretty telling, of course. It certainly suggests that this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with stopping file sharing or any sort of moral position. The law gives Voltage and US Copyright Group the tools, via a DMCA takedown to mitigate damages. But they're not using them. Instead, they're suing as many people as they can and threatening to take them to court if they don't pay up. That feels a lot more like a typical shakedown. If USCG and Voltage were really interested in stopping file sharing, why wouldn't they use the tools within the law to improve the situation for themselves? It does make you wonder, should any of these lawsuits actually reach a court, if those who are sued will point to Voltage's own failure to mitigate the infringement through the tools provided by the law....


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:34am

    Actually I think the DMCA is a threat to their business model.

    If they take it down how they will get people in the trap?

    Aside from that, good luck for them.

    They will get the low hanging fruit and people will quickly move on to something else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    ofb2632 (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:42am

    I hope that someone that is being extorted will take the case all the way to court and counter sue them!!! I am not a lawyer, but if i were on the jury.. well, lets just say that companies would be able to use the case as a reason not to sue others for sending bits of numbers over the internet.

    Question... if someone does not share the entire film, how are they responsible? that portion that they shared is nothing at all. just garbled info. Nothing watchable

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Moo^2, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:50am

    I just noticed that the movie is available in my local library but hasn't been checked out since god knows when. This movie seems to be destined to be aired on public TV at ungodly hours and end up in lists like: "this movie won an Oscar, can you remember it?".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:51am

    Re:

    Question... if someone does not share the entire film, how are they responsible? that portion that they shared is nothing at all. just garbled info. Nothing watchable

    it doesn't matter (to USCG.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:51am

    I wonder how torrentfreak ascertained that USCG hasn't sent out a single DMCA takedown notice for "Hurt Locker." That just seems like a guess. You do bring up an interesting point about mitigation of damages. Of course, that would only come into play if one these cases actually ever makes it to the damages phase. I'm not sure that the plaintiff's lack of sending out DMCA takedown notices would subtract from the statutory damages they were entitled to. Interesting argument though...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:55am

    Re:

    "Question... if someone does not share the entire film, how are they responsible? that portion that they shared is nothing at all. just garbled info. Nothing watchable"

    It doesn't matter if you've downloaded/uploaded 0.1, 1, 10 or 100 copies--you'd be liable for one act of infringement. Whether or not it's "watchable" doesn't matter. It's the fact that you've downloaded/uploaded something without the right to do so that matters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:08am

    Re: Re:

    What? So if I begin to download The Hurt Locker and then have a change of heart and stop at 0.00005% then I could still be sued for $150,000?

    Copyright laws are perfect! They don't need reforming at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:13am

    Re: Re:

    I'll pose the same question I posed in other threads without a reasonable response from the copyright maximalists: what the the torrent contains legal and illegal files, but only the legal files were downloaded? For example, many torrents contain the movie (illegal), a 30-60 second sample of the (possibly fair use), a poster image (again, potentially fair use) and various text files or other files that are 100%, unquestionably legal.

    A person who only downloaded the legal or potential fair use sections but did not select the movie file itself may have a good case, IMHO. They certainly would not have been involved in losing any revenue for the full movie, which is what these suits are meant to be all about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:13am

    Re:

    This movie seems to be destined to be aired on public TV at ungodly hours and end up in lists like: "this movie won an Oscar, can you remember it?".

    it was ok. greenzone was better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re:

    Considering the "right" is something society voluntarily withholds, choosing to cease withholding violates nothing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "What? So if I begin to download The Hurt Locker and then have a change of heart and stop at 0.00005% then I could still be sued for $150,000?

    Copyright laws are perfect! They don't need reforming at all."

    You could be sued for the maximum statutory damages in that case. It doesn't mean they would get it.

    This cuts both ways. If you downloaded the movie twice, you wouldn't be facing to twice the damages.

    I'm just answering your question... I'm not saying I agree with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:22am

    Clearly

    They suffered so much financial damage that they couldn't afford to send DMCA takedowns...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I'll pose the same question I posed in other threads without a reasonable response from the copyright maximalists: what the the torrent contains legal and illegal files, but only the legal files were downloaded? For example, many torrents contain the movie (illegal), a 30-60 second sample of the (possibly fair use), a poster image (again, potentially fair use) and various text files or other files that are 100%, unquestionably legal."

    I'm not a "copyright maximalist" but I'll take a stab at your question. The movie and the sample are really the same work, so I'd view that as one infringement. You could raise the affirmative defense of fair use of the sample, but I don't think that would matter since it'd be one infringement either way. I'm not sure about the cover art. If it's copyrighted separately, it'd be another infringement. If it's part of the movie, then it's part of the same infringement as the movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:31am

    Re: Re:

    I managed to see it last week (without paying for it, as I refuse to, I borrowed a friend's copy). It's not bad, but not great.

    I think that the Oscar hype came from Bigelow being in line to be the first female Best Director Oscar winner as well as being a non-political examination of the Iraq occupation - so Academy voters could feel good about it while not being accused of partisan politics or liberal propaganda. That, and the fact that Bigelow is James Cameron's ex-wife put the boot in while avoiding another "king of the world " embarrassment.

    That said, it's a solid movie, though not one that was ever going to light up the box office.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:33am

    It seems in the past you have had to remind folks that you only have to defend a trademark. I think because you dont have to defend copyright it would be an additional unnecessary expense. It seems if your endgame is extortion through shell organizations than that would be less fruitful than......."give it away and prey"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "That said, it's a solid movie, though not one that was ever going to light up the box office."

    I thought it was a kick-ass movie. I really enjoyed it. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Okay, just so long as I can download it a billion times and not get sued, well, a billion times. It's a good thing I don't live in the States.

    Off to download The Hurt Locker a billion times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I apologise about the maximalist comment, it's just that those are the people we tend to have to argue with around here.

    "If it's part of the movie, then it's part of the same infringement as the movie."

    I would disagree with this, in the sense that it's a separate file and that small samples for certain purposes are fair use. Criticism being one of them, and since trailers rarely reflect the actual content of the movie I would think this is OK.

    I agree with the fact that such a person would be sued, but I'd hope that a court would find the fact that *only* the sample was download would not constitute infringement as someone intending to download the whole movie would.

    I would also consider such a lawsuit to be stupid and counter-productive, as not only would it not regain any "lost" revenue (which would not have been lost in the first place as the person in question was not downloading something commercially available) but would not encourage the target to purchase movies in the future and may invoke a boycott from them and their friends and family.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Okay, just so long as I can download it a billion times and not get sued, well, a billion times. It's a good thing I don't live in the States.

    Off to download The Hurt Locker a billion times."

    LOL! :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    The Muffin Man, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:43am

    Frankly... The Hurt Locker Sucked!

    I got to see this movie free of charge... Did I DL it? No... Did I get Free Passes to see it in theater? No... I saw it thanks to the wonderful resource called the Library. I have to say... This movie SUCKED! I cannot believe it won best picture... it was horrible... boring... just a waist of time. I feel sorry for the folk getting sued for this horrible POS. Take my word for it... Avoid this film, It's 2 hours of my life I'll never get back... Hell I should sue them for theft of my life...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:49am

    Re:

    perhaps the laywers realizes that issuing a dmca today for a file that will reappear tomorrow is a meaningless gesture, as much of the dmca system is for content producers. it wont stop the file sharing the way screwing 5000 peoples lives up will.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Joel (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:50am

    They are hungry...

    That's why they haven't issued a takedown, they are hungry for your monies! We would the USCG ever issue a takedown when they can keep getting free lunched from the people downloading?? Come on people this is common sense, now I hope someone defending the people getting sued offer this as evidence to prove that the USCG is not trying to help the issue but just grab money from people, while not protecting their "clients". I know it shouldn't make a difference in a case but it should open people's eyes and show them what is going on, at which point a jury should declare innocence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Joel (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:54am

    Re: They are hungry...

    *Why would
    *free lunches

    so mad I had several typos...lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    darryl, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:55am

    More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    All these people trying to find loopholes around the law, this is nothing more than a simple sting operation.

    Its obvious, its also true that law enforcement can take many forms, its up to the people trying to enforce the law how they go about doing it. As long as their actions are in turn within the law.

    Just because they have the ability to takedown sites, does not mean they have to take that option.

    And if they want to catch the people who are breaking the law, you let them break it and catch them in the act.

    Sure, you could stop bank robbery by closing all the banks, or you could go out and catch the bank robbers.

    But if you close the bank first, you never will catch any robbers, because they are not able to rob, so you deny honest people from using a bank to stop the dishonest ones.

    May be they will eventually use take downs but I assume first they would need proof of violations, and I also assume they are gathering that information right now.

    So if you are silly enough to download this movie, when you know they are taking names, and you get in trouble. Its no one elses fault but your own.

    Its even worse because its been made public that is what they are doing, so how silly would you be to download that file knowing that they are taking your details ?

    Common sense says you would be crazy to do that..

    And just because they have not issued a takedown does not give you the right to assume its free for the taking, being available is not permission to take it.

    As you should well know..

    Its your responsibility to abide by the law, if you go into a bank and there is no one there and the vault is open you do not have the right to take a pile of money. By law and by basic morals.

    Same if you find someone wallet, do you take the cash and throw it away, or do you find the rightfull owner and give the money and cards back?

    I know what I would do and have done.

    I know what is write and what is wrong, and I can use that knowledge to understand what to do if confronted with a situation where I have to make a moral decision.

    So, just because something is accessible to me, does not give me the right to access it, that is just on a moral basis.

    "Finders, Keepers" is not a valid defense.

    And your moral compass should be able to tell you if what you are doing is right, lawfull and morally correct or not..

    And if you cant decide, im sure you are entitled to go to court and defend your claim.. that is also the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I would disagree with this, in the sense that it's a separate file and that small samples for certain purposes are fair use. Criticism being one of them, and since trailers rarely reflect the actual content of the movie I would think this is OK."

    Oh, sorry. I see what you were saying now. The torrent has separate parts, and you choose to download the sample and the poster art parts, not the main movie part. I didn't know you could pick and choose within a torrent like that.

    I'd still say downloading the sample of the movie is one infringement, and the poster art potentially a second infringement. You could certainly argue that both were fair use, but that would be a defense. Keep in mind that fair use is a defense, not a right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    res2 (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 7:58am

    Re:

    fruedian slip? or did you mean 'give it away and pray'?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:09am

    no i meant exactly what i typed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:14am

    Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    STRAWMANIA!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:15am

    Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    sigh...

    "Just because they have the ability to takedown sites, does not mean they have to take that option."

    They don't have that ability. They do, however, have the ability to request the take down the infringing content.

    "And if they want to catch the people who are breaking the law, you let them break it and catch them in the act.
    "

    This could be considered incitement to commit a crime...which itself is a crime, especially if you put the incriminating content online yourself. Watch your step.

    "Sure, you could stop bank robbery by closing all the banks, or you could go out and catch the bank robbers.
    "

    Nobody is telling you to close banks. Only to inform the authorities when a robbery occurs.

    "Its your responsibility to abide by the law, if you go into a bank and there is no one there and the vault is open you do not have the right to take a pile of money. By law and by basic morals."

    Yes, but a bank has a limited amount of money. If I take it, they won't have any. I would be stealing. File sharing is different. Every time I take one file, there is one more, not one less.

    "Same if you find someone wallet, do you take the cash and throw it away, or do you find the rightfull owner and give the money and cards back?"

    Again, if I take it, it's gone, unlike file sharing.

    "I know what is write and what is wrong, and I can use that knowledge to understand what to do if confronted with a situation where I have to make a moral decision."

    People know what's right and what's wrong. So far, the majority of people don't seem to be much bothered by "piracy". Basically the only people you see complaining are the big media.

    "So, just because something is accessible to me, does not give me the right to access it, that is just on a moral basis. "

    You should stay off the Internet then. And libraries. And schools. All this free information is going to make your moral compass go haywire.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:20am

    This article in my view fairly exemplifies the "double speak" that so regularly appears here in matters pertaining to copyright law.

    On the one hand there is the regular refrain that rights holders should stop pursuing "platform" owners and start pursuing those who actually committed the alleged infringing acts. Why punish "platform" owners? They merely provide "dumb pipes", and imposing liability upon them ignores the true malfeasors.

    But what happens when a rights holder pursues those who committed the allegedly infringing acts? In this case the rights holder is criticized for not using the DMCA against the "platform" owners.

    The rule here seems to be that using the DMCA against "platform" owners is wrong, and that not using the DMCA against "platform" owners is shortsighted.

    Of course, all of this is really a shorthand way of saying that copyright law should go the way of the "buggy whip".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:20am

    Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    What if that information could potentially save your life? You still shouldn't access it because it would be immoral?

    Yeah, that's dumb.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:23am

    Re:

    Or maybe copyright laws should be reformed because the 21st century is showing how broken they are?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:24am

    Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    "You should stay off the Internet then. And libraries. And schools. All this free information is going to make your moral compass go haywire." - and when you come to understand that most of those sources are actually "paid" information of one sort of another, your pea brain will explode. at least you typed a longer answer, mike will keep on you the payroll after all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:31am

    Re: Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    The internet is essentially a giant library. It's not the libraries fault when content holders are too scared of the giant library.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:35am

    Re: Re: Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    Many of the works found in libraries are no longer under copyright.

    Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry and Physics cannot be copyrighted. Most of the literature I studied in school is no longer under copyright.

    They are all technically free (except if you buy them on a book...the book costs money).

    Can't your "pea" brain handle that much free information?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re:

    Is it really that the law is "broken", or would it be more accurate to say that a new generation has come upon the scene with some who hew to the view that " getting something for free" is better than "paying for that something", and the creator of that "something" should stop whining?

    I am proud that my daughter uses iTunes when she wants to add music to her collection, music that she has heard over the radio, seen performed on television, or is by an artist whose music she truly appreciates. If she is short of cash she simply either saves money so she can buy it or else moves on to other music that is within her budget.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Keep in mind that fair use is a defense, not a right."

    No, it's a right. Copyright is a right that society grants to a copyright owner, and a specifically stated exception to that is fair use. I find your attitude disturbing, especially being a blog writer myself who regularly uses the criticism aspect of copyright law to illustrate my reviews.

    But, the wider point is that the person downloading a sample or a poster would almost certainly not have *paid* for it - even if it was available. Therefore, there's no losses to be recouped by such a lawsuit and it can lose the copyright owner money quite easily.

    ...and yes, most torrent programs on their default settings will ask you which file(s) you want to download. So, you can be happily seeding a torrent without breaking any law and still be sue for it.

    Not an exaggeration, either - I was once involved in a torrent with Roger Corman titles from the 50s to the 70s. I was only seeding those based 100% in the public domain, but by the logic of these discussions since there were copyrighted works on the same torrent, I deserved to be sued. Most disturbing, especially since some of those movies were not available anywhere else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 8:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "some who hew to the view that " getting something for free" is better than "paying for that something""

    That's an extremely simplistic view that sticks to the RIAA argument that the only reason why people download is the "get something for free". This is extremely untrue on many different levels.

    "I am proud that my daughter uses iTunes when she wants to add music to her collection"

    Why?

    Maybe you're referring to the "legal" aspect of it, but then why aren't you encouraging her to seek out new music through AmieStreet or Jamendo that's no only innovate and free, but LEGALLY free. If you stick to iTunes, all you're encouraging is the "corporations know best" attitude, not anything moral or forward-looking.

    "If she is short of cash she simply either saves money so she can buy it or else moves on to other music that is within her budget."

    ...which then raises the question of whether the pricing of music in the digital age is actually justifiable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 9:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "No, it's a right. Copyright is a right that society grants to a copyright owner, and a specifically stated exception to that is fair use. I find your attitude disturbing, especially being a blog writer myself who regularly uses the criticism aspect of copyright law to illustrate my reviews."

    No need to question my "attitude." I'm only expressing my belief of what the law is. I'm not taking sides. I meant that in a copyright infringement suit, fair use is an affirmative defense. That's a fact. The fair use doctrine states that fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. In a trial, the burden would be on the person claiming fair use to prove that it was so. If it was a right, the presumption would work the other way.

    I am aware of the debate surrounding whether fair use is a right or a defense: I think it operates as both, depending on the context.

    "But, the wider point is that the person downloading a sample or a poster would almost certainly not have *paid* for it - even if it was available. Therefore, there's no losses to be recouped by such a lawsuit and it can lose the copyright owner money quite easily."

    If the copyright owner is seeking statutory damages then their actual loss wouldn't matter as much.

    "...and yes, most torrent programs on their default settings will ask you which file(s) you want to download. So, you can be happily seeding a torrent without breaking any law and still be sue for it."

    It depends on whether or not simply offering a file for download is infringement. I think the courts are divided on that issue at the moment.

    "Not an exaggeration, either - I was once involved in a torrent with Roger Corman titles from the 50s to the 70s. I was only seeding those based 100% in the public domain, but by the logic of these discussions since there were copyrighted works on the same torrent, I deserved to be sued. Most disturbing, especially since some of those movies were not available anywhere else."

    That sucks. :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 9:39am

    Re:

    Forget the damages phase, if your works were being shared and you did not use the tools provided by the law to stop the infringements, then the sharing was authorized. No infringement. Case dismissed.
    I hate to use a physical good analogy here, but if someone steals my car and I don't report it to the police as stolen, then my insurance company will NOT reimburse me for the car because since I didn't report it stolen, it's not technically stolen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Paddy (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 9:39am

    Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    You seem to confuse rights and morals (two subjective ideals) with laws. Morally, I see no problem with downloading The Hurt Locker. Legally, I am not allowed to. My rights, and the rights of the film makers don’t really enter into this case.

    Ignoring the tools provided to you to minimise the damage from infringement and subsequently suing infringers smacks of a money grab. While it may be legal, it’s difficult to sympathise with the film makers in this case.

    If they were really concerned about the ongoing infringement they would be taking every measure to stop it, not watching it go on in the background while they sue thosands of people for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Equally, if they were as confident as they pretend to be that each of the suspected infringers was guilty, they would never opt for a settlement of a few thousand bucks when there’s a potential $150,000 per infringement waiting in the courtroom.

    The whole operation is a scam by the short-sighted and bitter makers of a poorly marketed film. Hopefully enough people boycott their future productions as to cost them more than they could ever make from the settlements. I paid for The Hurt Locker on DVD, but I know they’ll never get another penny of my money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 9:48am

    Re:

    Are you really that dense? There is a difference between *suing* the platform owners for copyright infringement (the practice that is heavily criticized here) and sending them DMCA notices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re:

    "Forget the damages phase, if your works were being shared and you did not use the tools provided by the law to stop the infringements, then the sharing was authorized. No infringement. Case dismissed."

    That is absolutely NOT how copyright infringement suits work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I used iTunes as an example of a pay-site. She also likes indie stuff, but is well aware of when payment is expected and when it is not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "That's an extremely simplistic view that sticks to the RIAA argument that the only reason why people download is the "get something for free". This is extremely untrue on many different levels."

    It is not just the RIAA (or the MPAA or the BSA or the (fill in the blank)) argument. It is a matter that is raised by many within the content-producing industries.

    As for your comment about why people download, I deliberately inserted the word "some".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re:

    Both are heavily and regularly criticized here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Feel free to cite an example of Mike criticizing a company for sending legitimate (read: not bogus) DMCA takedowns.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 10:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "In a trial, the burden would be on the person claiming fair use to prove that it was so. If it was a right, the presumption would work the other way."

    Understood, but we are essentially talking about the presumption of innocence vs. the presumption of guilt. I find the latter highly disturbing.

    "If the copyright owner is seeking statutory damages then their actual loss wouldn't matter as much."

    I'm intrigued by this - why? If their actual loss is $0, why should they be allowed to claim a statuary damages payment?

    "That sucks. :("

    Indeed it does, but it's only a semantic argument between what I just stated and my first post you disagreed with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re:

    you so fail troll.

    dmca notification and your willful infringement are two very different things. there is no legal relationship. sorry, you just fail. mike is going to cut your paycheck if you keep it up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 12:11pm

    Re:

    This article in my view fairly exemplifies the "double speak" that so regularly appears here in matters pertaining to copyright law.

    This comment in my view fairly exemplifies the "double speak" that so regularly appears in comments from certain anonymous cowards in matters pertaining to copyright law.

    On the one hand there is the regular refrain that rights holders should stop pursuing "platform" owners and start pursuing those who actually committed the alleged infringing acts. Why punish "platform" owners? They merely provide "dumb pipes", and imposing liability upon them ignores the true malfeasors.

    Slight misstatement of the position. It's not about "why punish the platform owners," it's about proper application of liability.

    But what happens when a rights holder pursues those who committed the allegedly infringing acts? In this case the rights holder is criticized for not using the DMCA against the "platform" owners.

    And here's where the doublespeak shines brightest. Using a DMCA to take down content is not doing something "against the platform owner." And you know it.

    The rule here seems to be that using the DMCA against "platform" owners is wrong, and that not using the DMCA against "platform" owners is shortsighted.

    Again, the DMCA takedown is not against the platform owner at all. It's against the uploader. Our complaints about the use of DMCA takedowns are when those takedowns themselves are either bogus or serve no purpose.

    In this case -- which I thought was clear from the text -- was that these parties claim they're trying to stop file sharing, but are not using the tools that are readily available to them.

    It is not doublespeak at all to point out that their actions do no match with their words, even if we feel that their choices in actions are mistaken.

    Of course, all of this is really a shorthand way of saying that copyright law should go the way of the "buggy whip".


    Misstating our position so blatantly does nothing to make us think that you are here to engage in serious debate, as you often insist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Such a moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm trying to give Disney some money for Song of the South but they don't want my money because I'm on their website and I'm trying to buy Song of the South but I can't find it.

    Maybe it's in the Disney vault? Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah . . . .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Understood, but we are essentially talking about the presumption of innocence vs. the presumption of guilt. I find the latter highly disturbing."

    The plaintiff has to make a prima facie case against you first, so you aren't really presumed guilty (or liable). The burden starts with them and then shifts to you. I get what you're saying though. The more I think about it, fair use is closer to a privilege than a right, procedurally speaking.

    "I'm intrigued by this - why? If their actual loss is $0, why should they be allowed to claim a statuary damages payment?"

    I don't know why Congress allows statutory damages in copyright infringement cases. Good question.

    "Indeed it does, but it's only a semantic argument between what I just stated and my first post you disagreed with."

    Fair enough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re:

    Re your last sentence, are you implying that copyright law (and perhaps even patent law) in some form should be retained in our body of laws? This seems contradict your prior comments that "monopolies" of these sort are bad and should be eliminated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yea that's right. If you download a file that says Linux distro. and it turns out to be Hurt Locker then your busted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 1:47pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Hint: If an entire generation doesn't respect the law, then yes, the law is broken.

    Sorry if that will ruin your employment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 3:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Heh. Quite telling that you refuse to respond to everything else in that comment which showed how intellectually dishonest you are.

    Funny.

    Re your last sentence, are you implying that copyright law (and perhaps even patent law) in some form should be retained in our body of laws? This seems contradict your prior comments that "monopolies" of these sort are bad and should be eliminated.

    I've made no such claim. I have said, repeatedly, that if there were actual evidence that such monopolies promoted the progress, I would be fine with them. My problem is the total lack of evidence.

    My concern is not being pro- or anti-monopoly. It is being pro-innovation. To date, all evidence suggests monopolies are bad. So in that sense, I tend to be anti-monopoly. But if someone could show evidence that a monopoly leads to a better result, despite all of the economic evidence to the contrary, I am open to it.

    I have said this many times before. Directly to you, in fact. Odd that you purposely ignore it. But telling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 4:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thank God for distrowatch.com LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 4:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yea that's right. If you download a file that says Linux distro. and it turns out to be Hurt Locker then your busted.

    That's the beauty of the system! Not only does it extort money from those merely accused of infringing, but it stamps out competing free stuff as well! And the general public blindly goes along with it because big media and and entertainers tell them to!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 6th, 2010 @ 5:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm of an older generation and I don't respect copyright law. I respect the public domain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I don't know why Congress allows statutory damages in copyright infringement cases.

    If they didn't, everyone would realize that copyright infringement doesn't do much harm, damages would be minimal, and nobody would follow the rules.

    In other words: "Screw everyone else, copyright holders need to get paid."

    The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights tells all:

    The need for this special remedy arises from the acknowledged inadequacy of actual damages and profits:

    - The value of a copyright is, by its nature, difficult to establish, and the loss caused by an infringement is equally hard to determine. As a result, actual damages are often conjectural, and may be impossible or prohibitively expensive to prove.

    - In many cases, especially those involving public performances, the only direct loss that could be proven is the amount of a license fee. An award of such an amount would be an invitation to infringe with no risk of loss to the infringer.

    - The actual damages capable of proof are often less than the cost to the copyright owner of detecting and investigating infringements.

    - An award of the infringer's profits would often be equally inadequate. There may have been little or no profit, or it may be impossible to compute the amount of profits attributable to the infringement. Frequently, the infringer's profits will not be an adequate measure of the injury caused to the copyright owner.

    In sum, statutory damages are intended (1) to assure adequate compensation to the copyright owner for his injury and (2) to deter infringement.


    That report was part of the basis for the total re-working of copyright law in 1976.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Jul 6th, 2010 @ 6:41pm

    Re: More than one way to skin a cat, or perform a sting operation

    Sure, you could stop bank robbery by closing all the banks, or you could go out and catch the bank robbers.

    More like: You come home to find some guy having sex with your child. You could call the police, or you could take pictures and blackmail him later.

    ...Hey, you're already comparing infringement with armed robbery. We might as well compare it with child rape, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Stephen Paulger, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 2:30am

    The film is in the bargain bins now anyway. I saw it for £4 recently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), Jul 7th, 2010 @ 5:16am

    Re: Re:

    I think 'give it away and prey' is about right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    darryl, Jul 7th, 2010 @ 1:15pm

    Catching rats

    Imagine, if you will, you have a plague of rats.

    You are a farmer, and you grown grain, you grain is mixed along with many other farmers grain in silo's that you do not own or have control of.

    So you have a plague of rats, if you take down the silo where the rats presently are, they will go to the next silo and eat that grain (which is also yours, and others).

    Mike, has often said you cant stop file sharing sites, new one will start with others close.

    So like the silo's it does not solve the problem of the rat plague.

    You can take down as many silo's as you like, but more will be available for the rats.

    All you can do is kill the rats, and it is clear that is not possible by takeing away individual silo's.
    (or DCMA site takedowns).

    So you leave the silo's there, and you put nice tasty poison and rat traps all around.

    You let the rats come and eat their fill, they then go away and die.

    Problem solved, you are fixing the cause and not responding to the effect.

    So if you are a rat and you are silly enough to go to the silo and feed on the nice tasting food there, and you can probably work out the next part.

    As for this being "inciting theft" the producers of the content are not the ones providing the files online for free.
    So the are not inciting crime, they are using what they consider (and I agree) would be the most effective method of dealing with the root issue.

    Mike has said many times here, you will never be able to kill all the file sharing sites on the internet.

    The copyright people have listened to Mike, and they agree, you cant, so why try.

    Instead, fix the root cause of the problem, the people actually downloading and uploading illegal content.

    What I find odd, is the justification for taking these files, fair use, or whatever. the bottom line is you want it for free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 12:30am

    Re: Catching rats

    >You are a farmer, and you grown grain, you grain is mixed along with many other farmers grain in silo's that you do not own or have control of.

    This is the first time I've heard of farmers -- MANY farmers -- mixing their produce in a common location. I know finding working analogies is hard when you're being knee-jerk reactive, but at least show some effort; farmers are putting grain in silos for legitimate purposes. Going by your usual tirades on sharing sites/applications, it's hard to see how you thought comparing undeniably legitimate with what you consider illegitimate was a good idea for an analogy.

    Look, I'll even help you out here -- if a dam springs a leak, it's a far better decision to divert the flow of the river, or otherwise fuck it up instead of repairing the leak. It actually more closely describes the situation, and makes you look just as ridiculous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This