Hurt Locker Makers To Sue Thousands of BitTorrent Users

I guess I'm missing the part in alllllll of that where a subpoena or warrant was issued. I would have a serious problem if Coca Cola was able to force my phone company to give them my calling history.

Here's my solution: Every 25 years, the MPAA and RIAA get to send a single letter to each of the 6+ billion inhabitants of the planet accusing them of copyright infringement. They can then collect whatever monies they can get out of the guilty-conscienced and innocent-but-scared. The rest of us can give them the finger.

The subpoena comes when the movie company asks for the names/addresses for the IPs they have.
 
I don't know what happened to the justice system of today, but it used to be that if you told someone "Give me a bunch of money or I'll tell the authorities about you", they could be charged with extortion or racketeering. I guess now it's not a criminal offense as long as you have "Corporation" or "Inc" somewhere in your name.
 
I don't know what happened to the justice system of today, but it used to be that if you told someone "Give me a bunch of money or I'll tell the authorities about you", they could be charged with extortion or racketeering. I guess now it's not a criminal offense as long as you have "Corporation" or "Inc" somewhere in your name.

Because that's not what they are doing. They are suing for the statutory amount and then offering a settlement. Big difference.
 
If I built an Atomicopy3000™ and put my cousins Toyota Camry in the source side and bunch of bags of trash in the materia side and out popped an exact cloned copy of the Camry and I then returned my cousins Camry to him, could Toyota sue me for $150,000 for copyright violation? Would this device be seen as horribly illegal and a grave injustice to the world?

If so, I think I know why we are not as advanced technologically as we could be.
 
They still account for the VAST minority, and there is little or nothing the movie company can do to prevent them when they are suing thousands of people.
There are so many issues with their methods that I can't believe the courts accept it at all, to be honest with you.

I don't really care about the number of cases or what percentage are wrongful. Each case stands on its own and should be evaluated as such. What they're saying is 'this person did this' when they file the suit, and when that is found to be totally untrue, there should be a penalty for that. I don't think you should be able to lodge a suit in court with such weak and unreliable evidence and get away with it.

They have not slacked off, they have not taken the easy route or neglected an avenue of narrowing down the data. They have done all they can do to correctly determine who the infringing party is. Remember, the money they pay an attorney to file the lawsuit and get that information is no small amount, and they would not pay it if they did not think they would get the right person.

They have IPs
The ISPs tell them who that is. Sometimes that information is incorrect.
No, that doesn't tell them who it is. It tells them which account was using the IP at the time (maybe). There are so many problems with this direct correlation that I don't even know where to start.

My point is that if they can't get their facts straight, they shouldn't be suing, even if there's no way for them to get better information. Their data and collection methods have proven to be unreliable at best, and the cost of protecting yourself from their claims is way too high.
 
First, a 12 year old is just a liable for breaking the law as a 40 year old. It's just that her parents pay for it, and rightly so.

Not in most states when it comes to criminal law. Under a certain age in almost every state they can't be charged at all with a crime. Unless they are tried as an adult (which usually has a minimum age also) they are tried as minors, the idea of which wouldn't exist if a 12 year old is considered equal to a 40 year old.

If as many of you claim this is because of some kind of license agreement, EULA, or other contract I don't know of anywhere in America where a 12 year old can enter into a legally enforceable contract.

This has almost nothing to do with laws though, since the record and movie industries know that in almost every case they wouldn't stand a chance in a criminal court. Their evidence gathering probably wouldn't stand up to the standards of a criminal trial and they can't just walk into your house and perform a citizens arrest for having something that costs a couple dollars on Itunes. They are also very scared of ever completing a criminal trial and losing and then setting a precedence. If Walmart does an inventory and find out a 2 dollar pen has been missing for a year and they pick out some license plate that they think might be it, and find the listed address of the listed owner of the vehicle you think Walmart should be allowed to walk into their house and demand a couple thousand dollars let alone arrest you for a crime?

When even the Federal Supreme Court justices don't understand the difference between email, text messaging, voice mail, and a phone call its not difficult for people with this much money to get all kinds of "expert" witnesses to confuses things even further.

Again, there is a balancing act here. One one hand you have the movie company's basic rights in their property, their right to enforce them and collect on violations. On the other hand, you have the rights of the people who inadvertently get dragged into it because of the inherent nature of IPs and ISPs.

I'm pretty sure any straight thinking person would think that the court system should lean towards giving the person put on trial the benefit of the doubt. Once again this is why you almost never hear about these things coming up in criminal court, its because the movie and record companies know they can't win when the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

As for creating even more burden on ISP's I don't see why you want to hurt a somewhat legitimate business so that they can become the enforcers of the recording and movie industries. I don't see why you would want them held responsible, its not like they came to the the MPAA and said hey look at these customers we are certain that they are guilty you should sue them.

What if Comcast purchases a TV network and is the only ISP in your city? You are comfortable with every ISP watching every little move you make on the internet? So if you are watching some clip on Youtube or someones Myspace and the person cuts in a 45 second clip from the Office and Comcast decides its infringment, you are ready to pay up the couple thousand dollars to settle everytime?

What other rights do you want to give media companies? How about everytime someone says that Fox News or CNN is biased the website and ISP have to give up the IP and Username and the own of the account has to pay 4,000 dollars or face a defemation or face going through a long libel case and please respond to these 2,000 documents and hand over all of your computers, TV's (can't have you watching more news in the meantime), and video devices while the trial is ongoing. Want to reinstall Windows or empty your recycling bin sometime in the next decade, thats too bad thats tampering with evidence.
 
There are so many issues with their methods that I can't believe the courts accept it at all, to be honest with you.

I don't really care about the number of cases or what percentage are wrongful. Each case stands on its own and should be evaluated as such.

What they're saying is 'this person did this' when they file the suit, and when that is found to be totally untrue, there should be a penalty for that. I don't think you should be able to lodge a suit in court with such weak and unreliable evidence and get away with it.
Then what's the point of the court system? When you sue someone, there is a chance that the person you are suing is not liable for the activity you believe them to be guilty of.
Say someone hits you in the face as you walk through a crowd of people. You don't see who it is, but everyone gives you the same name. You sue this person in civil court for battery, but it turns out he was nowhere near the scene. You want to be penalized for your suit? Or do you want it to simply be dismissed and you charged for court costs?

The data correlation that the plaintiffs provide in these cases are more than enough to fall under modern pleading standards, even the more strict standards of the recent Twombly/Iqbal and Gonzalez cases.

Again, what would you have the movie company do? Give me something real here.
They have the IP of someone who downloaded their property. They went to the ISP who gave them a name. What other data do they need to collect? What else should they subpoena? Seriously, what do they need to do to make you happy?
Just realize that even then, some cases will be laid against those who are not liable...

My point is that if they can't get their facts straight, they shouldn't be suing, even if there's no way for them to get better information. Their data and collection methods have proven to be unreliable at best, and the cost of protecting yourself from their claims is way too high.
But 99% of the time their data is good!
You expect them to be perfect? That's impossible when you are suing tens of thousands of people. And no law anywhere requires them to be perfect, or even RIGHT.And if the accused is innocent in those few cases, it will come out in court, and if the movie company brought a frivolous suit the court will nail them. Simple as that.
 
Not in most states when it comes to criminal law. Under a certain age in almost every state they can't be charged at all with a crime. Unless they are tried as an adult (which usually has a minimum age also) they are tried as minors, the idea of which wouldn't exist if a 12 year old is considered equal to a 40 year old.
These are civil suits. Doesn't matter.
This has almost nothing to do with laws though, since the record and movie industries know that in almost every case they wouldn't stand a chance in a criminal court. Their evidence gathering probably wouldn't stand up to the standards of a criminal trial and they can't just walk into your house and perform a citizens arrest for having something that costs a couple dollars on Itunes. They are also very scared of ever completing a criminal trial and losing and then setting a precedence. If Walmart does an inventory and find out a 2 dollar pen has been missing for a year and they pick out some license plate that they think might be it, and find the listed address of the listed owner of the vehicle you think Walmart should be allowed to walk into their house and demand a couple thousand dollars let alone arrest you for a crime?
Again, not criminal courts. So none of this matters.
When even the Federal Supreme Court justices don't understand the difference between email, text messaging, voice mail, and a phone call its not difficult for people with this much money to get all kinds of "expert" witnesses to confuses things even further.
THIS is a serious problem, and I completely agree.

As for creating even more burden on ISP's I don't see why you want to hurt a somewhat legitimate business so that they can become the enforcers of the recording and movie industries. I don't see why you would want them held responsible, its not like they came to the the MPAA and said hey look at these customers we are certain that they are guilty you should sue them.
I don't necessarily. The person I was responding to wanted to penalize someone for the data being bad, so it was an option I threw out. It was ignored.
What if Comcast purchases a TV network and is the only ISP in your city? You are comfortable with every ISP watching every little move you make on the internet? So if you are watching some clip on Youtube or someones Myspace and the person cuts in a 45 second clip from the Office and Comcast decides its infringment, you are ready to pay up the couple thousand dollars to settle everytime?
That would be infringement via fraud, so inapplicable.

What other rights do you want to give media companies? How about everytime someone says that Fox News or CNN is biased the website and ISP have to give up the IP and Username and the own of the account has to pay 4,000 dollars or face a defemation or face going through a long libel case and please respond to these 2,000 documents and hand over all of your computers, TV's (can't have you watching more news in the meantime), and video devices while the trial is ongoing. Want to reinstall Windows or empty your recycling bin sometime in the next decade, thats too bad thats tampering with evidence.
Completely unrelated to the conversation, and not cost effective for the company suing, so it would never happen. Furthermore, that would be an illegal search and seizure as this is a civil suit issue, and such information would be provided in the course of discovery.
 
Again, what would you have the movie company do? Give me something real here.
To be honest, I'd have them fuck off. Their data collection method is basically entrapment. They distribute a copy of their work to the user who downloads it. They're obviously licensed for that distribution, being the copyright holder. What is the downloader guilty of in that scenario, exactly? Attempted copyright infringement? Since when is that a crime, and do you really think it should be?

How do you account for residences with multiple Internet users? How do you account for insecure access points? How do you account for ISP mistakes?

Seriously, what do they need to do to make you happy?
They have sued people that don't exist. They've sued people that don't have computers. They've sued people that exist, have computers, and are completely innocent. They've sued people about works they don't even own the copyright to. If they were doing even the most rudimentary follow-up investigation, that wouldn't be happening.

What they're doing is taking the list of names the ISP gives them, running it through a mail merge, and firing off a few thousand lawsuits. They need to do better. If that means they can't continue this extortion campaign, so be it.

I don't think fines against frivolous suits like these are really a viable solution. but something needs to be done about what these companies are costing individuals and the court system itself.

I agree it's a balancing act. And things are way out of balance. Random citizens shouldn't be having to face the decision of proving their innocence or paying a several thousand dollar 'settlement'. Meanwhile this industry has successfully pushed for ridiculous out-of-balance rights in copyright and other areas. It's becoming rather ridiculous, and something needs to be done to stop these losers. Their relevance is fading, let's make their death as quick and painless as possible and stop this bullshit.
 
To be honest, I'd have them fuck off. Their data collection method is basically entrapment. They distribute a copy of their work to the user who downloads it. They're obviously licensed for that distribution, being the copyright holder. What is the downloader guilty of in that scenario, exactly? Attempted copyright infringement? Since when is that a crime, and do you really think it should be?
Yea, that I don't particularly understand. If that's how they get the IPs.
Though, I suppose they could subpoena the tracker for all the IPs that downloaded the torrent file?
How do you account for residences with multiple Internet users? How do you account for insecure access points? How do you account for ISP mistakes?
You don't. That's the jury's job.
They have sued people that don't exist. They've sued people that don't have computers. They've sued people that exist, have computers, and are completely innocent. They've sued people about works they don't even own the copyright to. If they were doing even the most rudimentary follow-up investigation, that wouldn't be happening.

What they're doing is taking the list of names the ISP gives them, running it through a mail merge, and firing off a few thousand lawsuits. They need to do better. If that means they can't continue this extortion campaign, so be it.

I don't think fines against frivolous suits like these are really a viable solution. but something needs to be done about what these companies are costing individuals and the court system itself.
But there is no way for a company to levy 10k lawsuits and be 100% perfect. There's no way. BUT you STILL have to allow for the movie company's rights. Those rights are just as valuable as each individual's rights, even those who are wrongly sued.

Their relevance is fading, let's make their death as quick and painless as possible and stop this bullshit.
Their relevance is in no way fading!
Look at the box-office numbers. They are doing FANTASTIC. Look at Avatar blue-ray sales. Same thing.
 
Yea, that I don't particularly understand. If that's how they get the IPs.
Though, I suppose they could subpoena the tracker for all the IPs that downloaded the torrent file?
Oh god, that would be even more ridiculous. Now downloading a torrent file entails copyright infringement? Yikes.

Do we even know their collection methods? Something tells me nobody does. I suppose you might find out if you chose to defend yourself, but that seems rather unreasonable to me. You can choose to settle at any point in the process, but these guys have repeatedly maintained that their 'generous settlement offer' is only valid if you don't try to defend yourself. Reeks of extortion to me. We won't tell you what we're accusing you of, or what evidence we have against you, but pay up and we'll go away. Otherwise, good luck, you're in for the long haul, and you better believe that these guys are sharks with way more money and legal prowess than most citizens can afford. They will draw any suits out as long as possible and cost the defendant as much money as possible.

I recognize that this appears to all be legal under current US law, but it is still ridiculous and obviously very anti-consumer. I know how we can make more money guys, let's sue our customers!

You don't. That's the jury's job.
Given that you think this evidence is useful and sufficient, how exactly am I supposed to show that my ISP made an error in data collection 6 months ago?

Their relevance is in no way fading!
Guess I'm more thinking about the RIAA who has traditionally been the one doing this.
Look at the box-office numbers. They are doing FANTASTIC. Look at Avatar blue-ray sales. Same thing.
Seems like a great reason to go around suing your customers.
 
i think the reason it was pirated a lot, is because the damn movie was not playing anywhere just about. I live in south florida and the movie was only playing at two places and only a couple of shows. If its not playing hardly anywhere how do they expect people to go see it for one. Only once it was on dvd did i see it at more movie theaters. I think IMDB listed the small viewing somewhere.

As for the movie itself, i enjoyed it and thought it was pretty good.

I don't think they should sue the fans, but maybe pester them until they can show proof of dvd purchase or ticket stub if its showing near them. However if it had a full release on more screens i don't think it would have been as bad, just speculation on my part, and my bad for a-s-s-uming Marcinko
 
But there is no way for a company to levy 10k lawsuits and be 100% perfect. There's no way. BUT you STILL have to allow for the movie company's rights. Those rights are just as valuable as each individual's rights, even those who are wrongly sued.

No, not really. In individual tort/contract law, the general principle is that an individual can sue for whatever damages are necessary to make him whole again after the wrong he suffered. These infringement suits introduce the absurdity that the plaintiff can somehow collect damages hundreds of times the amount necessary to make him whole. If the government was doing this it wouldn't stand a chance in hell of surviving an eighth amendment challenge. The right to sue for hundreds of times actual damages is illegitimate and doesn't deserve protection. There is no way that any such "right" would be enacted by the people through a democratic process...it was established by shameless rent-seeking from monied interests. Come back when you can explain why downloading a movie should have civil penalties hundreds of times higher than stealing a DVD from Wal-Mart, when stealing the DVD denies the property to the original owner and downloading only makes a copy.
 
i didnt read everyone's post has it been said yet?
the guy that inspired the movie and the director followed got jack shit and is suing them in return.

this is just crazy shit. not our fault his movie sucked. EVERYONE I KNOW THAT PAID FOR IT SAID IT WAS BORING. everyone else says it was great, heartwarming and long... "could of been shorter".

so people heard both opinions and said "oh well" i'll see it someday on dvd, or "however they get it". movie industry missed the boat called internet, netflix is the only one getting it right other than tv online.
 
i didnt read everyone's post has it been said yet?
the guy that inspired the movie and the director followed got jack shit and is suing them in return.

this is just crazy shit. not our fault his movie sucked. EVERYONE I KNOW THAT PAID FOR IT SAID IT WAS BORING. everyone else says it was great, heartwarming and long... "could of been shorter".

so people heard both opinions and said "oh well" i'll see it someday on dvd, or "however they get it". movie industry missed the boat called internet, netflix is the only one getting it right other than tv online.

Don't forget redbox.
 
These are civil suits. Doesn't matter.
Again, not criminal courts. So none of this matters.
.


I know this, that is why I specifically said criminal court and went on to say that these things never end up in criminal court because they wouldn't last there and risks creating precedence.
 
You don't. That's the jury's job.

Wait I thought that someone only had to pay 20 dollars and be off on there marry way. Now I have to sit through a trial? Just sitting through the trial for two weeks would cost me more in salary alone than most music settlements have been. The IAA's are counting on this. I would rather have someone come to my house and bust my knee caps with a pipe, at least then I could use sick time or long term disability.
 
Don't forget redbox.

Don't forget that in both places (Netflix and Redbox) people will have to wait 28 days extra just to rent a film. Those are exactly the kind of things that push piracy.They not only haven't learned, they have pushed there bad ideas further.
 
Do we even know their collection methods? Something tells me nobody does.

I would think the methods are pretty well known since they would have to come up in any courtcase and because usually its through a 3rd party, like the wonderful groups Media Defender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaDefender and Media Sentry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaSentry who had a reputation so bad that they had to change there name. Companies like them have just barely been allowed to operate after numerous court battles in most states since they almost never have a private investigators license. So these companies are basically accountable to no one and don't even go through the processes and regulations that someone who is hired to find out if someone is cheating on there wife does. We are talking about a company that performed a denial of service attack on Revision3 (host the Digg podcast and more) with the only reason believed to be because they used the torrent protocol.
 
Don't forget that in both places (Netflix and Redbox) people will have to wait 28 days extra just to rent a film. Those are exactly the kind of things that push piracy.They not only haven't learned, they have pushed there bad ideas further.

This is seriously BINGO.

MOST people, just watch a movie a couple times and are done with it. Usually.

When the DVD is released- it's automatically on a torrent site. That's a given. But when people are forced to wait a month before it's at a reasonably priced ($1/night) rental... That's when they head out to the torrents to download the movie so they can watch it.

IMO it's seriously EASIER to stop by a Redbox and rent a disk I can pop in and enjoy, than waiting for a movie to download, encode, and burn. But when you basically equate the "movie aquisition" time to a month longer, suddenly that downloading, encoding, and burning process is a heck of alot faster than 28 days.


So, like I said, you hit the nail on the head with that one. They effectively shot themselves in the foot with that.




I'm still with the crowd, and the book analogy was a great one, I bought a copy of the DVD to do with what I want. If I want to copy a book just incase the house burns down (LOL, I know... But it's for the point of it), I have that right to do that. Granted the need to do that would be rare, text really doesn't fade significantly every year. Whereas every time you play a disk you add more scratches to it. That's the #1 thing about making a copy of the DVD... In digital format, I can always re-burn a fresh disk when it gets scratched to kingdom come.

If the movie industry would offer to ship me a brand new disk every time mine got scratched- then I wouldn't have a need to do that.
 
suing the end user seems so pointless if the aim is to stop piracy. Much like the war on drugs, going after the end user instead of the distributor is a failed strategy. Unless of course the only concern is to maximize profits.. who says crime doesn't pay? big business doesn't care if a crime has been committed as long as they get their cut.
 
If the movie industry would offer to ship me a brand new disk every time mine got scratched- then I wouldn't have a need to do that.

If this were the case I would almost be able to buy into there "your only buying a license" story. If I have a license to the software then it shouldn't matter if the disk is scratched. You think that corporations that license thousands of copies of Windows have to have a disk for each computer?
 
Reading through some of these comments, the sense of entitlement of some people is extremely disconcerting.

If you think a movie sucks, or if you go and see a movie and don't like it, or if you think ticket prices are too high, or if you are only going to watch a movie only once, or if you think that movies should be released to DVD/Blu-ray .... that does not give you the right to pirate a movie.

If you believe in the above mentioned problems then vote with your wallet and don't see or purchase the movie. Simply because you personally dislike some aspect of the movie industry does not give you a right to pirate anything.
 
Eh, I doubt the point is to stop piracy. More likely it is to make money.
I think the movie people were sued by the person who the story was based on.
 
Reading through some of these comments, the sense of entitlement of some people is extremely disconcerting.

If you think a movie sucks, or if you go and see a movie and don't like it, or if you think ticket prices are too high, or if you are only going to watch a movie only once, or if you think that movies should be released to DVD/Blu-ray .... that does not give you the right to pirate a movie.

If you believe in the above mentioned problems then vote with your wallet and don't see or purchase the movie. Simply because you personally dislike some aspect of the movie industry does not give you a right to pirate anything.

THIS.
 
If you believe in the above mentioned problems then vote with your wallet and don't see or purchase the movie. Simply because you personally dislike some aspect of the movie industry does not give you a right to pirate anything.

Then still get money sued or extorted anyways because one of your neighbors cloned your cable modem or cracked you WiFi password!
 
Reading through some of these comments, the sense of entitlement of some people is extremely disconcerting.

Message from a representative from the Movie, Software, Video and Music Industry -

Since no one is going to question anything the VCR, Tape, MP3 player, Library, Projector, Smart Phone, TIVO, CD-R, DVD-R, Video Capture card, computer TV Tuner,Torrent, IRC, TV's and Monitors over 20" diagonal,and newsgroups don't exist.

By purchasing or thinking about purchasing any of these products; or by reading or thinking about these rules; you agree to all of these terms.

Don't forget to purchase the approved television, receiver, cable box, cables, disk player, operating system, video card, and monitor that we deem you worthy of being trusted with. We will be requiring you to repurchase these all every year as our copy protection is inevitably cracked. You also do not own any of these devices you only have a license to use them, yes they will still be full price.

We have also installed and require the web browser of our choosing and we have designed it so only files and websites with approved signatures may be viewed or downloaded. We understand that some files may be under something like Creative Commons, but they are the vast minority so don't worry about those. The user agreement on the only software and hardware we approve of stipulate that anything created on them become our property and you wave any rights to fair use, viewing files with these extremist copyrights, or open source software.

We will be monitoring all use of the devices and computers we have licensed for your use to make sure that you do not communicate via email, text, IM, or other form of communication so that you do not share any information on how to circumvent these measures or state anything negative about us. Remeber that you are licensing this computer you paid full price for from us so it not yours, it is our right to be able to monitor or do whatever we want on our equipment.

If you live in Sweden, Iran, China, Australia or some other place be happy with the games, music, and movies you are deemed worthy of receiving at some arbitrary later date for any cost demanded.
 
If you think a movie sucks, or if you go and see a movie and don't like it, or if you think ticket prices are too high, or if you are only going to watch a movie only once, or if you think that movies should be released to DVD/Blu-ray .... that does not give you the right to pirate a movie.
I agree...
I was simply stating the reasons why it happens. I was also stating the reasons why the movie industry is encouraging it... If they truly cared about piracy, they wouldn't do some of the crap they do.

I was also stating why I'm still going to copy any freaking disk I want to copy (given I own it). Until the day they replace any scratched disks, it's my right to make a copy of said disk that I can burn onto new disks, once the original gets scratched to crap and becomes garbage.
 
I case anyone is interested the Ars Technica article lists the company involved, as US Copyright Group, and the method they used to collect the data, sounds like they asked for the ISP to track the suspected downloaders and then use that data to say they have enough data to get a subpoena against the very ISP that just gave them the data.

They then go right for extortion. Seems like its a nice back door way for ISP's to create bandwidth caps without having to get in trouble with the government (we just happend to only be able to track users that used over 50GB a month...).

I find it ironic that the company uses the name "US Copyright Group" since its almost certain they picked that name to confuse people into believing they are some big coalition or government agency, it reminds me of all of the FREECREDITREPORT.COM type companies that came out after the government required a free annual report and the companies would use there name to confuse people into thinking they are the government organization.

"The firm uses tech from GuardaLey, which collects the IP addresses of users that are believed to be downloading the film from BitTorrent. From the IP address, it figures out which ISP is responsible and e-mails it, asking the ISP to retain all logs for the IP address identified at the time in question. Once the content of the download is verified, the lawyers take over and subpoena the ISPs for subscriber information in order to find out exactly who has been naughty. Once the users are unmasked—and according to the group, nearly all ISPs cooperate—the firm sends settlement offers. "

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/hurt-locker-torrenters-prepare-to-be-sued.ars
 
It was a good movie, but the box office sucked because their marketing sucked.
 
Reading through some of these comments, the sense of entitlement of some people is extremely disconcerting.

If you think a movie sucks, or if you go and see a movie and don't like it, or if you think ticket prices are too high, or if you are only going to watch a movie only once, or if you think that movies should be released to DVD/Blu-ray .... that does not give you the right to pirate a movie.

If you believe in the above mentioned problems then vote with your wallet and don't see or purchase the movie. Simply because you personally dislike some aspect of the movie industry does not give you a right to pirate anything.

I concur.

people and their excuses....LAWL.
 
I would not pirated anything.Hurt Locker and Avatar blew.Watched and got up and walked away,same-old-same-old,there is nothing original just a rehash.
 
They're going to lose a lot of customers this way. Blatantly suing your consumers with very little evidence just smacks of corporate entitlement abusing the court system by filing tens of thousands of cases at once.
 
Don't forget that in both places (Netflix and Redbox) people will have to wait 28 days extra just to rent a film. Those are exactly the kind of things that push piracy.They not only haven't learned, they have pushed there bad ideas further.

Yep. Kind of unrelated, but I was trying to watch this weeks episode of Lost (this is not an invitation to state your opinions on the show), the ABC site was acting like crap, buffering alot, completely stopping etc. It took two days for me to finally get from start to finish. I came so damn close to just downloading it, and I never do that at all. In short; make it easy for us to watch your shit or we may not want to watch OR pay.
 
They just need to face the fact that they just need to release these movies in Theaters and Disk at the same time. They say that would kill theater revenue because no one would go then. Is that really our fault. I have never been to a concert that I didn't already own the CD anyway. I go to see the performance. I still go to the theater to see certain movies. Maybe once a year. Maybe they need to make better movies.
 
Back
Top