‘Pirate’ Sites Ordered To Pay $450K For Movie Leak

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I still can't figure out why people take risks like this over a stupid movie. Then again, other than bankrupting the people running these sites, I don't know why studios even bother suing.


A federal court in California has ordered the operators of three file-sharing sites to pay $150,000 each for copyright infringement offenses. The men are being held responsible for their role in distributing leaked copies of The Expendables 3 and must now compensate movie studio LionsGate for the damages it has suffered.
 
Isn't Lionsgate one of the big litigators? They seem to use it as a source of income.
 
well, I enjoyed it (my expectations were high to begin with)

that said, come on...you can't get blood from a turnip.
 
As I recall, it was leaked before the movie hit theaters, but either way, it's not like the site owners couldn't have just taken down the torrents and thus not been liable at all. Sure it'll piss off your users, but this isn't the same as suing someone for downloading an mp3 (not that I condone that either).
 
it's a shitty movie, they should pay them for getting people to watch it.
 
Lionsgate most likely won't get a penny since the defendants live outside of the US.
 
This is a much more reasonable fine, but....

The gun manufacturing company didn't make you shoot someone.
The cigarette company doesn't make you smoke.
The car company doesn't make you speed.

I can't be held liable for someone else's actions.
Also, with the defendants living out of country, the plaintiffs won by default. No legal precedent set here.
 
bloodhawke83 said:
it's a shitty movie, they should pay them for getting people to watch it.
Click to expand...

Seriously. The trailers looked so bad I thought the studios leaked it on purpose, just so they could write off the losses if it didnt make any money in the box office.
 
alxlwson said:
This is a much more reasonable fine, but....

The gun manufacturing company didn't make you shoot someone.
The cigarette company doesn't make you smoke.
The car company doesn't make you speed.

I can't be held liable for someone else's actions.
Also, with the defendants living out of country, the plaintiffs won by default. No legal precedent set here.
Click to expand...
Cigarette company is not the same at all. While I'd argue you should have known it was dangerous if you started any time after the early 70s, the reality is that tobacco companies continued to say it was not dangerous. What's more, they added things to make it more addictive, never mind the ads that were aimed at kids. And note they still do a lot of these things in countries outside the U.S.

I agree on the other 2.
 
nilepez said:
Cigarette company is not the same at all. While I'd argue you should have known it was dangerous if you started any time after the early 70s, the reality is that tobacco companies continued to say it was not dangerous. What's more, they added things to make it more addictive, never mind the ads that were aimed at kids. And note they still do a lot of these things in countries outside the U.S.
Click to expand...

And yet, in spite of all the warnings on the packages, in spite of all the ads warning how dangerous cigarettes are, people STILL start smoking or continue to smoke.
 
nutzo said:
And yet, in spite of all the warnings on the packages, in spite of all the ads warning how dangerous cigarettes are, people STILL start smoking or continue to smoke.
Click to expand...

Usually people start as kids or teenagers and get addicted. They're pressured into it by peers that smoke or they see family members smoking and think it's the right thing to do.
 
nilepez said:
Cigarette company is not the same at all. While I'd argue you should have known it was dangerous if you started any time after the early 70s, the reality is that tobacco companies continued to say it was not dangerous. .
Click to expand...
C'mon. The first time anyone takes a real long drag and coughs their head off, they know it's not a good idea, their lungs are telling them not to inhale that shit. They know it's bad for them. They do it anyway because they think it makes them look cool. We had these pics in school health classes in the late 50's; it's self explanatory.
tumblr_ltyu7r6Y081qcc9bho1_500.jpg
 
Steve said:
I still can't figure out why people take risks like this over a stupid movie. Then again, other than bankrupting the people running these sites, I don't know why studios even bother suing.


A federal court in California has ordered the operators of three file-sharing sites to pay $150,000 each for copyright infringement offenses. The men are being held responsible for their role in distributing leaked copies of The Expendables 3 and must now compensate movie studio LionsGate for the damages it has suffered.
Click to expand...


They take risks because they make tons of money by doing so.
 
nightfly said:
C'mon. The first time anyone takes a real long drag and coughs their head off, they know it's not a good idea, their lungs are telling them not to inhale that shit. They know it's bad for them. They do it anyway because they think it makes them look cool. We had these pics in school health classes in the late 50's; it's self explanatory.
My mom smokes her entire life and her lungs were fine right up until the end. My dad on the other hand had emphysema...just like his dad.

Not everyone who smokes gets fricking coal miner lung. That being said people who lead health lives and don't smoke are getting lung cancer all the time. Basically the Lung cancer rate has not gone down as people have quit smoking.

People shouldn't smoke, but what the hell is this thread about again? Oh yeah, movie pirate blah blah blah.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
nutzo said:
And yet, in spite of all the warnings on the packages, in spite of all the ads warning how dangerous cigarettes are, people STILL start smoking or continue to smoke.
Click to expand...

Far less than they did 10 or 20 years ago. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6444.pdf#page=1

nightfly said:
C'mon. The first time anyone takes a real long drag and coughs their head off, they know it's not a good idea, their lungs are telling them not to inhale that shit. They know it's bad for them. They do it anyway because they think it makes them look cool. We had these pics in school health classes in the late 50's; it's self explanatory.
tumblr_ltyu7r6Y081qcc9bho1_500.jpg
Click to expand...

Interesting, because I grew up 20+ years later and we didn't. And I'm also pretty sure that in the 50s they still had ads saying cigarettes were good for you. I know in the early 80s (and perhaps beyond) you could still buy cigarettes at 16. With that and ads targeting kids, it was easier to add new customers. Yes, there's still the cool factor, but there's far less media that makes it look cool than there was in the past.
 
nilepez said:
Interesting, because I grew up 20+ years later and we didn't. And I'm also pretty sure that in the 50s they still had ads saying cigarettes were good for you. I know in the early 80s (and perhaps beyond) you could still buy cigarettes at 16.
Click to expand...
Back then, what was hung on the walls of classrooms depended upon the teacher. One would have the black lung pic, the next room over the teacher would be smoking a cigar. If you grew up near a tobacco industry, it would be a sure thing that no pic like that ever showed up in a school. The idea that cigarettes were good for you started to die out in the fifties; of course, that didn't stop the advertising, that went on for a long time after we knew about the links to breathing problems. But the tobacco lobby was and still is very strong. I never smoked, though I tried pretty much everything. My dad would often send me to the local deli at the end of the block to pick up his cigs by the carton, and I would purchase him cigars for his birthday, christmas and fathers day holidays: I was 8. Everybody sold me tobacco.
 
nutzo said:
And yet, in spite of all the warnings on the packages, in spite of all the ads warning how dangerous cigarettes are, people STILL start smoking or continue to smoke.
Click to expand...
Cigarette adverts were banned at least 10 years ago, and now I see more kids smoke than before. I don't see how banning adverts and putting stupid sings on the boxes does anything.
Either ban smoking outright, or stop pretending that you care. The only effect ad bans have is that more money remains in the tobacco companies pockets since they don't spend on ads anymore, and they can't sponsor sports. Fucking brilliant.
 
Why do people always focus on cigarettes and not alcohol and fast food (and more recently, hookah/shisha)? All horrible things for your body, yet like nudity vs violence, only one half gets the social nuts uproarious
 
I dont get this fining thing.
Let me explain...

The point of a fine is to act as a deterrent.
Pirate sites are not going to be deterred and they arent going to pay if they can possibly avoid it.
If you have the power to enforce the fine on a site, then surely you have the power to close it down.
So why not close pirate sites down instead?
 
Xinmosni said:
Why do people always focus on cigarettes and not alcohol and fast food (and more recently, hookah/shisha)? All horrible things for your body, yet like nudity vs violence, only one half gets the social nuts uproarious
Click to expand...
Why stop at fast food? We should also ban food that has too much butter or cream. Maybe ban salt. I'm sure there's plenty of other stuff we can ban.
 
Because butter is nice, useful and is healthy in moderation.
Because salt is useful and healthy in moderation.
 
M76 said:
Cigarette adverts were banned at least 10 years ago, and now I see more kids smoke than before. I don't see how banning adverts and putting stupid sings on the boxes does anything.
Either ban smoking outright, or stop pretending that you care. The only effect ad bans have is that more money remains in the tobacco companies pockets since they don't spend on ads anymore, and they can't sponsor sports. Fucking brilliant.
Click to expand...
This is demonstrably false.
yrbs_release_smoking_final-copy.jpg
 
Nenu said:
Thats missing healthy.
He asked why dont we exclude butter and salt too, I explained.
Click to expand...
I understand, but I can apply that same standard to fast food too. In moderation it's fine and not unhealthy. Besides, it's not like going out to regular restaurants (even expensive ones) are typically healthy if you eat it daily. It's heavy on salt, butter, cream, starches, fat and probably sugar too. People don't typically pay for food they don't like and most people like sweet, salty and fatty foods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top