Biggest Downloading Case in History Targets 23k Defendants

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you downloaded a bootleg copy of the Expendables, you might be one of the 23,000 people getting a subpoena soon.

A federal judge in the case has agreed to allow the U.S. Copyright Group to subpoena internet service providers to find out the identity of everybody who had illegally downloaded (.pdf) the 2010 Sylvester Stallone flick — meaning the number of defendants is likely to dramatically increase as new purloiners are discovered.
Click to expand...
 
If they really want to stop this crap, they should just sell a personal life-license for media. If you have a license (they would be rich beyond belief if people paid $5 a month in a tax), any person licensed could obtain any media from any source any way they wish and use it in any personal manner they choose.

Problem solved. They get incredibly rich, this whole lawyer-feeding nightmare goes away, and all the pissing and moaning on both sides ends.
 
lol 23k people up their asses, are they really sure they want to handle that many with such a stupid case "again" regarding P2P.
 
Question....

If someone owns a movie, then proceeds to download it for backup purposes, is this a crime legally and/or morally?
 
I got it from Netflix and it was meh. The people who shared it wasted Internets bits.

The problem with file sharing isn't just that people "downloaded" it. They are simultaneously redistributing it, which runs afoul of copyright as each sharer violates the owner's exclusive right to control it. Sorry, I has no pity for them.
 
jadams said:
Question....

If someone owns a movie, then proceeds to download it for backup purposes, is this a crime legally and/or morally?
Click to expand...

that is the crux of the argument. That and does an IP identify a person? If I was ever named on one of these suits, I'd fight tooth and nail and have them prove it wasn't someone leeching off my wireless internet. Reasonable doubt is a bitch.
 
Downloading the expendibles sounds like a waste of bandwidth. They should countersue for losses towards data caps.


jadams said:
Question....

If someone owns a movie, then proceeds to download it for backup purposes, is this a crime legally and/or morally?
Click to expand...

Not sure. I know you are allowed to make and store digital copies of your own media, but I am guesssing that they would judge that you were storing copies of someone elses media, even though it was exactly the same. I know common sense would say no, but these people lack both common sense and decency.
 
TechLarry said:
If they really want to stop this crap, they should just sell a personal life-license for media. If you have a license (they would be rich beyond belief if people paid $5 a month in a tax), any person licensed could obtain any media from any source any way they wish and use it in any personal manner they choose.

Problem solved. They get incredibly rich, this whole lawyer-feeding nightmare goes away, and all the pissing and moaning on both sides ends.
Click to expand...
I would pay a good portion of money for that a month. But only if it was from a central source and properly operated. iTunes, Amazon and so on.
 
TechLarry said:
If they really want to stop this crap, they should just sell a personal life-license for media. If you have a license (they would be rich beyond belief if people paid $5 a month in a tax), any person licensed could obtain any media from any source any way they wish and use it in any personal manner they choose.

Problem solved. They get incredibly rich, this whole lawyer-feeding nightmare goes away, and all the pissing and moaning on both sides ends.
Click to expand...

But that would remove the encouragement for them to make quality content. If they were givena flat $5 a month to make content, do you think they would make epic films or jersey shore the movie 3d?
 
DeathPrincess said:
Downloading the expendibles sounds like a waste of bandwidth. They should countersue for losses towards data caps.




Not sure. I know you are allowed to make and store digital copies of your own media, but I am guesssing that they would judge that you were storing copies of someone elses media, even though it was exactly the same. I know common sense would say no, but these people lack both common sense and decency.
Click to expand...

I ask because if that were the case I'd run out to target and pay cash for a legal copy, throw the dvd case in the dryer to simulate some wear over time and claim i bought it months ago.

They'd probably want you to present proof of purchase with a receipt, but who keeps receipts to movies especially when you cant return it if it sucks?
 
jadams said:
I ask because if that were the case I'd run out to target and pay cash for a legal copy, throw the dvd case in the dryer to simulate some wear over time and claim i bought it months ago.

They'd probably want you to present proof of purchase with a receipt, but who keeps receipts to movies especially when you cant return it if it sucks?
Click to expand...

I know a while back that there was a "legalize your music collection" site. Where people would join and make the CDs owned by the members, shared community property. So then you could store a copy of your music on your harddrive. I don't think that was technically legal, or it might have been, can't remmeber the name.

But it depends on if the buying of a DVD enables you to veiw the content of the film, or the content of the disk, legally. I'm not sure if there have been any cases based around this?

You could just move to spain where piracy of any media is legalized :D (I think it's spain)
 
DeathPrincess said:
But that would remove the encouragement for them to make quality content. If they were givena flat $5 a month to make content, do you think they would make epic films or jersey shore the movie 3d?
Click to expand...

Epic winning posts like this is why I totally follow posts you make :D +1
 
they don't make epic movies anyways, 90 percent of the movies coming out suck, there is no reason to think they would change that ratio. It's not something they can help, they probably think every movie is great until it flops.
 
It's Hollywood's new way of recovering lost profits. Release sub-par movies with a horrible acting. Then, recover your losses from the people unfortunate enough to waste their bandwidth downloading it.

I rented this movie from Redbox and couldn't even make it through the entire movie to justify my $1.00 rental fee...
 
conscript said:
that is the crux of the argument. That and does an IP identify a person? If I was ever named on one of these suits, I'd fight tooth and nail and have them prove it wasn't someone leeching off my wireless internet. Reasonable doubt is a bitch.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a case last week where a precedent was set on this when a judge determined that an IP does NOT identify a "Person" ?
 
Shambler said:
I would pay a good portion of money for that a month. But only if it was from a central source and properly operated. iTunes, Amazon and so on.
Click to expand...

I agree, but for others they could roll their own.
 
I see a lack of Time Warner Cable IPs on that list. What's up with that? :)
 
I think they should all be shot... for contributing to spreading this piece of crap film around the world. :p
 
DeathPrincess said:
But that would remove the encouragement for them to make quality content. If they were givena flat $5 a month to make content, do you think they would make epic films or jersey shore the movie 3d?
Click to expand...

If everyone was taxed $5 a month, they would rake in more money than in the history of the industry, and all the legal bullshit would subside.

If they just took all the money and never developed anything new, then they would really show themselves as the greedy bastaads they are, and they would pretty much die out. If they wanna get paid, they gotta play.

There could be a formula to determine who gets what based on content development.
 
My guess is the download count for The Green Hornet is about 12. My god did that movie suck :(
 
conscript said:
that is the crux of the argument. That and does an IP identify a person? If I was ever named on one of these suits, I'd fight tooth and nail and have them prove it wasn't someone leeching off my wireless internet. Reasonable doubt is a bitch.
Click to expand...

That is my biggest problem with this crap. A while back while on Qwest in a small apartment I had something similar happen. Normally I used a linux box with a wireless card as a AP, but in this tiny apartment I decided to just go use the wireless that was built into the cheesy DSL modem that qwest gave me. While it did have WPA and what not, it provided little in the way of configuration options and I could not flash it to DD-WRT or anything. I had met my neighboors and figured they werent the type to be leaching off my wireless so I just let it be.

Well it turns out somebody with a laptop for 30-40 minutes a day (probably while sitting at the bus stop about 20 feet outside my back patio) had hacked my wireless key and was downloading porn through bittorrent (something from ZTOD in case youre wondering). And while ive downloaded my share of porn, I never do it on with BitTorrent! lol

Anyhow Qwest, being the douche bags they are never bothered to notify me that they had gotten DMCA notices for my account, over 10 of them, before deactivating my account! I called them to complain, thinking it was a technical support issue and was informed then about the "infringements." They said that they didnt send the notices because they didnt have my email, which is a crock because I used it to set up the account. The only thing on the ingringement notice that in any way identified anything was the external IP address of the router, and the name on my account as per Qwest. So now I have been incrimnated in over 10 infringement "scans" for something I didnt even download because Qwests crappy hardware was hacked, and quest never notified me so I could do something about it.

Now I dont know whats going to happen, if they tried to subpoena me there would be nothing to subpoena. I dont have the router anymore, nor do I even live in those apartments now. But based on the bull shit way these cases are being handled I worried it wouldnt matter. Innocent until proven guilty? Or guilty until proven innocent? And why was I not notified on the FIRST infringement notice?!?!?!
 
Maybe people wouldn't download movies so much if it didn't cost an arm and a leg for movie tickets, and your whole nutsack for some popcorn and a drink.
 
good movie I bough the blu-ray. These internet p2p, dont they know, downloading is totally legal, its sharing that is not lol. Whats to say that most of the people do with their downloading....first off, if you see it at the theatre and then download it on your pc, what would the wrong of that, do I need to keep my theatre receipt to prove it? people should have the right so long you support the movie.
 
The best solution to this entire problem would be to make copyright violations a manidtory criminal offense instead of a civil case with an option for criminal trial.
 
Haha!! Jersey Shore 3D?

Now that was funny and worthy of being posted.

DeathPrincess said:
But that would remove the encouragement for them to make quality content. If they were givena flat $5 a month to make content, do you think they would make epic films or jersey shore the movie 3d?
Click to expand...
 
TechLarry said:
If everyone was taxed $5 a month, they would rake in more money than in the history of the industry, and all the legal bullshit would subside.
Click to expand...
Is that per home with a PC/laptop/video capable phone, or per person? How does one opt in or out? Since it's a "tax", how will it be received by those anti-tax? Would it ever be seriously considered?

In 2010, box office receipts were $10.6B in the US (~90%) and Canada (~10%) combined. Sales and rentals of DVD/BluRay discs were $14 billion in the US alone. That's over $23 billion per year in receipts for the US, equal to around $21 per month per household. Since we have inflation and the desire for increasing profits, that amount would grow each year.

Hollywood accounting aside (zero profit!), the studios are claiming a good chunk of that. Movies are expensive to make, the industry employs a lot of people, etc... it's still pretty profitable. I'm not sure studios would be happy with just $5 per month for an all you can download and watch buffet.

I do feel sorry for the minority of those targeted who did not actually download movies. The rest were just trying their luck. I'd like to think it's just ignorant kids because no responsible adult would do something like that. Seriously, movie rentals are only like a buck in the US. :p
 
Who the hell pirates a movie about a bunch of sweaty man-love??
Gheyness abounds.
 
But in P2P you do not distribute an entire work of art, only parts. Does that affect anything? If I gave someone a DVD that had 2 minutes of a movie on it, would I be subject to the full penalty of copyright violation?
 
conscript said:
that is the crux of the argument. That and does an IP identify a person? If I was ever named on one of these suits, I'd fight tooth and nail and have them prove it wasn't someone leeching off my wireless internet. Reasonable doubt is a bitch.
Click to expand...

Yeah the problem with that line of thinking through, is that these are not criminal trials, so you're not afforded the protection of "innocent until proven guilty", reasonable doubt? HA! Sorry doesn't apply to civil trials. So if you ever were named in a suit like this, you better think of a few more defenses.
 
stealthy123 said:
they don't make epic movies anyways, 90 percent of the movies coming out suck, there is no reason to think they would change that ratio. It's not something they can help, they probably think every movie is great until it flops.
Click to expand...

The current crop of movies are so bad, I'm having no problem staying well below my bandwidth cap :)
 
westrock2000 said:
But in P2P you do not distribute an entire work of art, only parts. Does that affect anything? If I gave someone a DVD that had 2 minutes of a movie on it, would I be subject to the full penalty of copyright violation?
Click to expand...
In that example, are you asking if the settlement offers are fair? $150,000 maximum penalty, 2 out of 103 minutes works out to... a little under $3,000. The upload side is a little low on the estimate I would think, but it works out! :p
 
conscript said:
that is the crux of the argument. That and does an IP identify a person? If I was ever named on one of these suits, I'd fight tooth and nail and have them prove it wasn't someone leeching off my wireless internet. Reasonable doubt is a bitch.
Click to expand...

Reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases. Preponderance of evidence for civil and the requirement is much lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top