Hurt Locker Producers Now Understand The Copyright Troll Shakedown Better: Sue 2,514 More Defendants

from the follow-the-bounding-ball dept

Voltage Pictures, the maker of The Hurt Locker, was one of the first companies to bring ridiculous copyright trolling practices to the US, where they sue thousands of people based solely on a questionably-sourced IP address. In fact, last year, the company sued nearly 25,000 people in one shot for supposedly file sharing the movie. Of course, the goal is not to actually go to court on any of these cases. Instead, it's just about getting people to pay up -- and so these "companies" are adapting.. And, as TorrentFreak noes, it appears that Voltage Pictures, (with an assist from Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver -- the tiny DC law firm that started "US Copyright Group" to do these kinds of cases, but which has gone nowhere) hasn't learned not to do this any more. It's just suing another 2,514 people for sharing, pretty much guaranteeing that no kids ever want to work for them in the future. However, it's also learned a few other things -- including how to get around the fact that many ISPs are pushing back on these kinds of things. For example, while plenty of ISPs have fought back against these lawsuits, in this lawsuit, Voltage Pictures only sued users who were subscribers of Charter Communications. Charter has shown a willingness to hand over such data when asked. So one way to avoid having ISPs challenge you in court is to focus on the ISP least likely to challenge your notices. Also, the new lawsuit is filed in Florida, which seems to have become the breeding ground for these kinds of troll fights lately -- so apparently Voltage and Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver think that perhaps this case might last long enough for them to get enough names and get enough people to pay to make it worthwhile. It would be nice if the court were to kill off the subpoena and note that it appears to be an abuse of power again.

Filed Under: hurt locker, isp, shakedown
Companies: us copyright group

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2014 @ 3:57pm


    Personally I'm highly against this on many different grounds and not just moral ones. In reality -since the time of movie streaming - companies have actually been same or better off thanks to open share information statistically speaking. Why is this? Simple because of open information sharing their movies have reached a wider audience than they could have ever hoped and at virtually no cost - it may seem like they are loosing money because people way their films online rather than going to a theater but in reality thanks to the free publicity of online streaming and downloading those same movie companies are getting their revenue through different means. Not just in obvious things such as advertisement as sites will pay companies to allow them to post information and pictures about the movie but through merchandize who h tends to cost quite a real more than 10$ movie ticket. The people purchasing merchandize is statistically greater than that of 10 years ago not just because of the "free publicity" they pay through by the loss of that 10$ movie ticket but because of sites like eBay people who are not from the country the film originated in are able to purchase merchandize they would have otherwise been unable to get or would have elected not to get for perhaps finical reasons. Let's do a simple calculation to prove my theory. If 100 people went and saw the movie at 10$ a pop the film company would make 1000$ and the viewers would pry share news of the film with a fee people but not to many as they'd pry guess everyone already knows about it thanks to social media and the like but for the sake of this experiment we'll say they each tell 3 friends so 100 viewers becomes a potential of 300 which of course could bring more profit. Now let's take the same 100 people but have them watch the movie online stream or downloaded since they watch it online they pay 0$ in immediate fees and the company makes 0$ immediately however let's say 20% of them buy a piece of merchandize at 25$ each than the company makes 500$ off of just 20ppl instead of 50ppl. Now let say 50% of the 100 share their view of this movie on social media and reach at least 10 new people each so 50 becomes 500 instead of 100 becoming 300. While less people may talk about it immediately it reaches a greater audience thanks to social media sites. This of course brings in greater potential profits that's starts a chain reactions. And while some companies may suffer form this others may prosper but let's face it the ones are doing terribly are probably not worth watching anyways. Just saying.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.