Pirate Ordered To Pay Studio $10.5M In Damages

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It just doesn't pay to be a pirate. Seriously, unless you like handing all your money over to a movie studio for the rest of your life, you should probably find a different hobby.

A lawsuit against a man who ran websites which linked to episodes of The Simpsons and Family Guy has ended in the most expensive way possible. The judgment, which awards Fox $10.5 million in statutory and punitive damages, is the highest amount ever awarded by the Federal Court in Toronto, Canada.
 
I don't get where these supposed damages are calculated. Dumbass juries? Judges? Lawyers?
 
I don't understand how any jury would be in favor of anything like this so I'd assume it's Judges.
 
I have mixed sympathies in a case like this ... the websites in question were facilitating the illegal activity (even if they weren't hosting the illegal files themselves) ... to me this isn't any different from a website doing the same with something that is less ambivalently illegal (Child Porn) ... the facilitation of a crime or civil offense can still be punishable

I am a little more sympathetic for individual users who download a couple of files and get hit with hundreds of thousands in damages ... businesses (like the one in question) are not so sympathetic in my book ;)
 
I am a little more sympathetic for individual users who download a couple of files and get hit with hundreds of thousands in damages ... businesses (like the one in question) are not so sympathetic in my book ;)

This. The vast majority of these lawsuits that make it to court are filed against people who see a large quantity of torrents.

The loner who downloads the weekly Breaking Bad episode can breathe easy :p
 
Shows that you can watch over the air and record?
The fuck.

If individual users want to watch or record a show in the privacy of their own home there would never be an issue (unless you piss off the NSA or something :p ) ... if you set up a website for millions of users to watch someone else's recording then get prepared for "issues" ;)
 
At this rate, it would be more profitable for the studio to leak their movies to P2P and then sue all the pirates for $1 million each, than it would be to actually run the movie in theaters.
 
At this rate, it would be more profitable for the studio to leak their movies to P2P and then sue all the pirates for $1 million each, than it would be to actually run the movie in theaters.

....brilliant!
 
At this rate, it would be more profitable for the studio to leak their movies to P2P and then sue all the pirates for $1 million each, than it would be to actually run the movie in theaters.

7368668334_7f43fd0a8e.jpg
 
they are going to sue the wrong person some day, and when that person snaps and starts offing the lawyers, the CEOs, and the judges who make this sort of crap possible... maybe then we will finally get some reform of our HIGHLY broken legal system.
 
So once his bankruptcy is complete, does he still have to pay? I would think the debt would be wiped (since he has no chance of ever paying it), but am unfamiliar with Canada's bankruptcy laws.

Never did understand the point of these high penalties. Sue my ass for $10 or 100 million then hold your breath waiting for the payment - We'll see who drops first.

I am not condoning piracy, or redistribution of other peoples works, but come on......10.5 million?
 
So once his bankruptcy is complete, does he still have to pay? I would think the debt would be wiped (since he has no chance of ever paying it), but am unfamiliar with Canada's bankruptcy laws.

Never did understand the point of these high penalties. Sue my ass for $10 or 100 million then hold your breath waiting for the payment - We'll see who drops first.

I am not condoning piracy, or redistribution of other peoples works, but come on......10.5 million?

He wasn't an individual person in this suit though ... he ran a business that others used to violate the copyrights ... you get hit with one million counts of violations you are apt to get bigger fines ... not defending the studios actions necessarily but they will almost always act much more aggressively against businesses that facilitate copyright infringement (Pirate Bay, these sites, etc) to make it a bad business to be in ;)
 
Lesson here is follow the law.

Unless the law is designed to protect large multi billion dollar corporations in bed with Government bureaucrats.

Unfortunately most times the only way to change laws or the status quo for society to advance and technology to continue forward is to break laws.

No one is guilt free.
 
well one....it's CAD$10 million for statutory damages, CAD$500k for punitive plus CAD$78573.25 here and another CAD$107,665.55 for a grand total of "good-luck-with-that".
 
I have mixed sympathies in a case like this ... the websites in question were facilitating the illegal activity (even if they weren't hosting the illegal files themselves) ... to me this isn't any different from a website doing the same with something that is less ambivalently illegal (Child Porn) ... the facilitation of a crime or civil offense can still be punishable

It depends. I liken it to telling someone that there is a crack house on the corner of 3rd and Cooper St, then being found guilty of distributing crack. IMO, telling someone where to get something isn't the same thing as actually providing it to them. This site wasn't hosting the data, so technically they didn't actually commit any infringement.
 
bk will solve the problem. or move to the caribbean or central america, where you can live like a king with all that piracy money he got from ad views.
 
It depends. I liken it to telling someone that there is a crack house on the corner of 3rd and Cooper St, then being found guilty of distributing crack. IMO, telling someone where to get something isn't the same thing as actually providing it to them. This site wasn't hosting the data, so technically they didn't actually commit any infringement.

Bad analogy for this case since this person's entire business was directing people to the pirated content and not just a simple a case of "oh, it's over there."
 
they are going to sue the wrong person some day, and when that person snaps and starts offing the lawyers, the CEOs, and the judges who make this sort of crap possible... maybe then we will finally get some reform of our HIGHLY broken legal system.
Yeah, like stricter gun laws and such. If anything, someone coming along and offing lawyers and judges will push public opinion the opposite direction to what you want.
 
well one....it's CAD$10 million for statutory damages, CAD$500k for punitive plus CAD$78573.25 here and another CAD$107,665.55 for a grand total of "good-luck-with-that".
Aah, I see. It's not real money! :D
 
It depends. I liken it to telling someone that there is a crack house on the corner of 3rd and Cooper St, then being found guilty of distributing crack. IMO, telling someone where to get something isn't the same thing as actually providing it to them. This site wasn't hosting the data, so technically they didn't actually commit any infringement.

Yeah, it's a little different here. It's more akin to the crack dealer making a deal with another guy in the neighborhood to be his lookout and word on the street. That guy is directing a lot of customers to the crack dealer, so in the eyes of the law, is just as culpable. I'm sure you've heard that before.....just because you didn't commit the crime doesn't mean you didn't help facilitate it.

On the other side of the fence, it's laughable the penalty that was handed down. I was just speaking with a friend about this type of thing this morning. The justice system is so completely broken. You have small timers getting massive financial punishments and big timers getting much smaller, proportionately, punishments. Money buys freedom though, just ask O.J., or all the mortgage companies or even your local Congressman/woman
 
And to think, if he bought a tank with that money, he could have a fair fight against the Canadian armed forces. Now if he bought even one artillery shell for his tank, then it wouldn't be such a fair fight!

I kid! I kid!
 
These type of juries don't require unanimous votes. So it just means half the jury is retarded.
 
No its not, the lesson here is that the law is bullshit.

Distributing files, which is strictly stated in a TOS that it is NOT ALLOWED, and you get in trouble for it? Would it be ok if I shot a couple of people because I find the law to be BS too? I like the way you think! :rolleyes:
 
Distributing files, which is strictly stated in a TOS that it is NOT ALLOWED, and you get in trouble for it? Would it be ok if I shot a couple of people because I find the law to be BS too? I like the way you think! :rolleyes:

Um... no.
 
The loner who downloads the weekly Breaking Bad episode can breathe easy

If individual users want to watch or record a show in the privacy of their own home there would never be an issue...

Dudes, really stop being stupid. All they have to do is data base and track your usage and when they think they have you on enough that it's profitable to sue you your fucked. Right now they are doing two things, they are using easy to prove cases, what you call the "low hanging fruit" which are profitable, easy to prove, and help establish precedent. Furthermore they will help streamline exactly what they do and what they don't have to do in order to win. After that it's roll out the carpet and let's get busy because there is no Statute of Limitations in civil cases.
 
There are higher laws than that of the state.

Although there are many "State" laws that are worth rotting in a prison cell to protest (Apartheid, oppression of minorities, religious oppression, etc), I think most copyright violators have less in common with Nelson Mandela or the Mahatma Gandhi and more in common with Al Capone and Lucky Luciano ;)
 
Oh, its only CAD, that is what $0.10 US :p

Honestly, the guy was running a site distributing it and making money off the ads like most pirate sites, throw the god damn book at them. The person who is find hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading an album on torrent using the argument that are distributing is another thing and something I am against.

I hate the BS of people who happily take pirated material from other people and then are high and mighty and say pirates should get the book thrown at them...especially when you have to go clean up their PC of all kinds of worms and viruses after they watch their favorite show on some shady streaming site.
 
It depends. I liken it to telling someone that there is a crack house on the corner of 3rd and Cooper St, then being found guilty of distributing crack. IMO, telling someone where to get something isn't the same thing as actually providing it to them. This site wasn't hosting the data, so technically they didn't actually commit any infringement.

Exactly. How is this guy any different than google or bing?
 
The difference is he uploaded the content to a file hoster. That's how every one of these pirate sites do it these days.
The site doesn't host the files, but the site owner uploads the files somewhere remote.
 
dr.Kevin is right, they were just trying to separate the content from the advertised link hoping the law would insulate the guy in the open from the evidence in the dark. The jury didn't buy it.
 
At this rate, it would be more profitable for the studio to leak their movies to P2P and then sue all the pirates for $1 million each, than it would be to actually run the movie in theaters.

Ever hear of The Hurt Locker?
Pretty sure they made more off of lawsuits than whatever they made in theaters and dvd sales combined.
It wasn't piracy that hurt it, being one of the most expensive pieces of total shit ever made killed it.
 
Ever hear of The Hurt Locker?
Pretty sure they made more off of lawsuits than whatever they made in theaters and dvd sales combined.
It wasn't piracy that hurt it, being one of the most expensive pieces of total shit ever made killed it.

Erm, the Hurt Locker was a rather cheaply made movie at only $15 million and made $50 million at the box office and was quite well received.

Wikipedia:
" it was eligible for the 82nd Academy Awards, where it was nominated for nine Academy Awards. It won six Oscars, including Best Director for Bigelow, the first woman to win this award, and Best Picture. Boal won for Best Original Screenplay. The Hurt Locker earned numerous awards and honors from critics' organizations, festivals and groups, including six BAFTA Awards. However, it received criticism by some in the military for various inaccuracies."
 
Dude, no one watches the Academy Awards.
All they do is honor bad movies, call them "films" as if they had culture and pretend what they're doing is "art."
I'd rather be strapped into "Its a Small World" at Disney for 96 straight ours than watch pretentious crap like that.
 
Back
Top