I think people are complaining that this mediocre film is using a legal department as a form of revenue, rather than complaining that they're miffed about people pirating their film.
Hurt Locker Producers Suing "Tens of Thousands" of Downloaders
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Or the Judge will issue a bench warrant for contempt. Not a fun situation.Eukaryote said:
Actually, failure to appear could result in a summary judgment against you, making things even worse. You passed up your day in court by choice and then got arrested for it.
The impression i got from that post was that rather than making it illegal, piracy could actually be harnessed for overwhelming good.fix-the-spade said:
Think about it, if you want to profit from something you need to draw peoples attention to it, then once their attention is achieved you can then make money through related avenues. The best people to get people interested in something? Don't charge them to give it a look - think about how rich Google is and they don't charge anything for a lot of their content. Free distribution is rather paradoxically a very powerful market tool if used correctly. I would argue that when i go to the cinema it is not the content i am paying for, rather the experience in itself. Similarly with music gigs. I wouldn't be interested in the experience if i hadn't first been exposed to the content and i'm far more likely to be exposed if it is free.
I had a big smile on my face while reading this. It really is time that companies embrace file sharing. If they do they'll increase product exposure and related marketing potential - which because of the free initial content, people will be far more willing to buy into. Mozilla, Google etc etc etc are hugely profitable companies and they distribute content for free, why is it that others can't see the goldmine in this business strategy?Playbahnosh said:You people have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know what "torrent" is? Or what Peer to Peer is? You see, with the torrent protocol, data transmission is happening directly between two user computers and not between a user and a server. Those so called "torrent sites" are nothing more than search engines, they do NOT host downloads. In this sense, you could scream at Google and demand it to be shut down because you can find all sorts of illegal stuff with it.
With decentralized tracking, it became impossible to find who pirated what. Unlike certain hub-based file sharing networks like DC or eDonkey, torrent connections do not go through central servers, there is no record of the transfer whatsoever, anywhere. Progress in P2P development even made ".torrent" files and trackers unnecessary, with magnet URIs and "cloud surfing" and stuff like that made tracking down pirates virtually impossible.
In that sense, torrent exists outside of everything, an invisible network or user computers without any central organization or monitoring. Torrent sites only tap into that "cloud" and bring you search results, nothing more. You can shut them down, but that won't even make a dent in the torrent network. As things stand now, the torrent network is indestructible, because to totally destroy the network, you'll have to manually track down and turn off every single user and home computer seeding a torrent. Good luck with that
No, they have to fork over cash because they didn't think they needed to pay for it.Kenjitsuka said:
I got the DVD. I wish I hadn't, it really wasn't worth it. District 9 should've got those Oscars.
The interesting thing about a case such is this is that you need not rely on your ability to prove the target actually did anything. As the article points out, 40% of those targeted in lawsuits settle out of court. The case would be admittedly hard to build of course and would inevitably rely heavily on circumstancial evidence. Presuming the accused was unaware of an impending lawsuit (as is often the case), while explicit evidence of a transfer might be hard to build, one could readily build a workable case based upon what they find on said users systems.Playbahnosh said:You people have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know what "torrent" is? Or what Peer to Peer is? You see, with the torrent protocol, data transmission is happening directly between two user computers and not between a user and a server. Those so called "torrent sites" are nothing more than search engines, they do NOT host downloads. In this sense, you could scream at Google and demand it to be shut down because you can find all sorts of illegal stuff with it.
With decentralized tracking, it became impossible to find who pirated what. Unlike certain hub-based file sharing networks like DC or eDonkey, torrent connections do not go through central servers, there is no record of the transfer whatsoever, anywhere. Progress in P2P development even made ".torrent" files and trackers unnecessary, with magnet URIs and "cloud surfing" and stuff like that made tracking down pirates virtually impossible.
In that sense, torrent exists outside of everything, an invisible network or user computers without any central organization or monitoring. Torrent sites only tap into that "cloud" and bring you search results, nothing more. You can shut them down, but that won't even make a dent in the torrent network. As things stand now, the torrent network is indestructible, because to totally destroy the network, you'll have to manually track down and turn off every single user and home computer seeding a torrent. Good luck with that
For example - establishing they have torrent software demonstrates opportunity, and if they download logs have not been purged you demonstrate activity. Presence of the files themselves is hardly damning but would provide another nail in the coffin so to speak. None of these things are a smoking gun but all you have to do is prove to a jury that the totality of evidence leads to one logical conclusion. The defendant would be forced to come up with plausible, legal explanations for everything. Why use does torrent software have beyond piracy for example. Or, why do they possess a digital copy of a product for which they do not presently have media. With as hard as it is to prove the use did something wrong, it's even harder for the user to explain away.
I wonder, of the "tens of thousands" being sued, how many will turn out to be elederly people who live alone and dont have a computer or internet connection?
Let's see. A low budget, independent film that critics loved, but didn't make much money. Sounds typical to me. Did the producer really think that this film was going to make tons of money? Movies like this did squat long before there was even an internet.
It was a shitty movie anyway. If I got sued for downloading it I'd be spewing.
Agree 100%zala-taichou said:
