Report: "Hurt Locker" producers will soon blast tens of thousands of BitTorrenters with lawsuit

The Hollywood Reporter recently broke news that Voltage Pictures, which produced the Academy Award-winning film The Hurt Locker, has teamed up with a law firm going by the alias "The Copyright Group" to sue tens of thousands of suspected BitTorrent downloaders.

An earlier and related story from THR is here. Other Voltage Pictures releases will be included, including Personal Effects, starring Twitter darling Ashton Kutcher.

After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent. According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75 percent of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. (Here's the stipulation by the parties.) By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.
Of the some 50,000 individuals who have been sued thus far, only three have tried to quash the subpoena. In one instance, a Georgia man tried to invoke the state's shield law protecting journalists from having to disclose their sources. The judge denied the motion. In another instance, a woman successfully got a court to throw out the subpoena because her IP address wasn't listed in the original complaint. Unfortunately for her, the complaint was then amended. After unmasking individuals who have illegally downloaded films, the U.S. Copyright Group then sends a settlement offer.

I guess ticket sales and Netflix rentals have been underwhelming, and the producers feel like suing fans is their best hope of turning a profit. No, I don't condone piracy, but this sort of massive attack on a potential audience base seems counterproductive.

The lawsuit is expected to be filed in the coming days. If the ISPs involved cooperate, accused downloaders will receive a "settlement letter" within the next few weeks.

An aside: I was a guest on a taping of "This Week in Law" earlier today, and my fellow panelist Martin Schwimmer pointed out that legal filings from The Copyright Group show the name is sort of a branding front for a D.C. based "name, name, and name" law firm (Update: Ars Technica reports the firm's name is Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver). The Copyright Group's url? http://www.savecinema.org. [Eye-roll.] Also, the website is truly clip-art-tastic.

Torrentfreak has an item here.

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE: Copyfight • Entertainment

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Anonymous

A friend of mine just got a letter from Comcast with a copy of the subpoena from Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs GmbH. It says that my friend can quash the subpoena. What is the best thing to do? Hire a lawyer or disregard the letter?
Anonymous

I thought is was a porn. Her Locker sounded so much better.
Dolnor

With all the avenues that a person can get movies, why download illegal copies? As nixiebunny states, use and support your local library. Or pay $1 to rent it…$9 to buy it.

Everyone I know use Torrents to illegally download software and movies. They liken it to driving 80mph on the freeway…”Everyone is doing it so it is legal!”

To some people, Integrity is a noble virtue.

Unfortunately, most people only see it as a word.
Anonymous

It’s probably because this film made only 12m at the box office that the producer seeS fit to sue file-sharers who downloaded copies of a disk that they no doubt released to someone themselves. where else did this early ‘pirated’ disk come from?

I can only imagine Chartier et al. believe that because of the films’ tremendous performance at the Oscars that it should have done much better at the box office. Perhaps there is some truth to this but I doubt it’s major a factor. After all, IronMan has no problems, and besides, history is full of such films that had great reviews with poor performance at the box office.

Regardless, the issue is quite simple: are the file-sharers responsible that the industry cannot issue its products in a copy-proof format because they haven’t kept up with the rapidly changing technology? Answer=NO.

When rapid changes in digital technology suited an industry (like it did in the manufacture of cd’s over LP’s) they took full advantage. Nobody complained about making too much money.

Voltage is making a big mistake, not because illegal file-sharing is not a form of stealing, it is, (called illegal copying of copyrighted material but its a gray area because it is almost always for personal use and so should fall under, ‘fair usage’ like it always did) but because having multi-million dollar film companies harassing individuals for exorbitant amounts of cash to cease hostilities against them is patently offensive. Where I come from, we call that extortion! They are suing their own customers, or poor people. Shame on them, and Not very smart. It will be interesting to see how many of these Voltage lawsuit victims have legal copies of the film as well as their shared copies?

In the end, this will likely be a relatively small window in which file-sharing of this kind is even possible. Voltage would be much wiser putting it’s energies behind devising a secure method to issue digital media and stop extorting money from their own customers for taking advantage of technology they have at their fingertips.

Chartier’s response is not only rude and arrogant, (and shows what a cockbite he is) but his analogy about ‘leave your house opens o people can come into your house and steal you stuff for personal use’ is incorrect. A better analogy would be, if you worked very hard to produce something that people would buy and someone copied it and distributed for free.

Yes, it’s unfair but you cannot blame file-sharers because the film industry has not kept up with the technology! Issue your films in a copy proof format and stop extorting money from your own customers. The rest of us find it more than just mildly offensive.
Ugly Canuck

To rent or torrent?
That is the question…

Now now –
Why not torrent a public domain movie to help you relax?

http://www.publicdomaintorrents.com/nshowcat.html?category=ALL

Well, they say it’s public domain, anyway.
Are we all to have unique machine identifiers if we wish to browse the internet?
Why?
MadRat

I haven’t seen Hurt Locker. I don’t want to see Hurt Locker. If I went to the grocery store and they were putting free Hurt Locker DVDs into everyone’s grocery bags, I’d be tempted to take it out and hand it back to the clerk. But I can imagine myself being sued and having to defend myself as an innocent person. If the RIAA can sue little old ladies for downloading hard core rap, people who don’t own computers and dead people, then obviously innocent people will also be sued by the producers of Hurt Locker.

This comes across as really arrogant to me. I keep imagining the director/producer/whatever yelling, “I’ve got talent! I won Best Picture! That hack Michael Bay has a six car garage full of Lamborghinis! Where’s my six car garage full of Lamborghinis?! I’ve got more talent than him! I won Best Picture! It’s those @#$%!! pirates! If it weren’t for them every kid in America would have a Hurt Locker poster in their bedroom and no one would have even heard of Avatar!”
Molly

“I guess ticket sales and Netflix rentals have been underwhelming, and the producers feel like suing fans is their best hope of turning a profit. ”

I’m no big fan of the unnecessary lawsuit â€” and I agree with the idea that it’s counterproductive â€”Â but nonetheless that seems like an awfully cynical leap to conclusions.
- SeppTB
  
  Its not a cynical leap, its exactly what the US Copyright Group has said they’re trying to do.
  
  â€œWeâ€™re creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel,â€ says Jeffrey Weaver, a lawyer for U.S. Copyright Group. (source: http://torrentfreak.com/rights-holders-get-30-from-mass-bittorrent-litigation-100331/)
- bobhughes
  
  I see that was your first post, welcome to boing boing.
  
  I don’t understand what’s so cynical about entertainment companies using litigation as a solid revenue stream, though it will ultimately fail. I understand that right now, Uwe Boll is using the exact same front-group of plaintiff atty’s to go after 3,000 people who torrented the total flop “Far Cry” (Really, at least 3,000 bothered with it at all… even for free… Really!)
  
  Why are you shilling/apologizing for the second time (you tried earlier tonight but some mod killed your post to avoid a flamestorm) with the industry’s shaky claims that downloading is ruining movies. They have their finger pointed every direction (neflix, redbox, pirates) but inward, and American cinema may simply be running out of steam. When’s the last time a summer blockbuster came out that wasn’t a remake, adaptation or sequel? If there is a possibility to recoup strategic losses through litigation against illegal downloaders, I expect that’s why the litigation is happening – these guys aren’t activists; they’re businessmen and opportunists.
  
  Litigious “Big Content” execs are not exactly a “far cry” from the lady who put a severed finger in her chili so she could sue Wendy’s for income. Or would you suppose that lady was just some activist, desperately attempting to raise the awareness of hastily-prepared chili?
  - Molly
    
    (Delayed reaction – didn’t expect anyone to reply!)
    
    It was my first comment, but I’ve been reading for years. Still, thanks for the welcome â€” though honestly I can’t tell if your entire reply is directed at me; I didn’t try to post anything earlier that night, let alone anything highly flammable, and am not shilling/apologizing for the industry at all. The phrasing felt cynical; that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth in it.
    
    If you are directing your entire comment to me, well, frankly, I agree with the rest of it. There’s nothing ruining movies but the people making crap films.
    - bobhughes
      
      Ah crap, my apologies; I shouldn’t have called you a shill. Your post just sounded almost exactly like another first-timer post from hours before yours, one that got deleted before anyone I or anyone else had a chance to reply to it. Both posts were carefully crafted to not sound incendiary, though the point you both made was going to draw plenty of heat. Your post was more delicate than the deleted one, and it stayed up – I probably should’ve taken that as a clue… I guess I’m too quick to jump on people when i think they might be sock-puppeting, even where it’s really not my place to do so. Let’s just chalk it up to a knee-jerk reaction.
      
      And now that I think about it more clearly, you have a point, too, about the criticism being cynical: Nobody actually posted any sales figures. So for all I really know, Hurt Locker could’ve sold just fine.. but I still have my doubts, what with the lawsuit and all.
      
      Anyway, despite all of my earlier snark, my welcome to you really was heartfelt, and still is. Thanks for not taking my idiotic attack personally, and I hope to see you post again!
      - Molly
        
        Thanks for the gracious reply. I’m not a sock puppet, just an idealist who still hopes that some people â€” though clearly not the producer whose email was posted today! â€” are making movies because they love movies. (The followup to this post, however, clearly and sadly proved that I was wrong in thinking Xeni was being cynical.) I hate to see a good film suffer because the businesspeople associated with it have made stupid decisions, though of course you could argue â€” and some certainly will â€”Â that the film itself is tarnished by association.
        
        Since you brought up sales figures, I took a peek at Box Office Mojo out of curiosity. They estimate Hurt Locker has made about $1.4 million more than its production budget (of course, these figures could be totally wrong, but for the sake of argument…). But honestly I’m not sure it matters; they could’ve made money hand over fist and they’d still think they should get more, if they’re the kind of people who think suing the audience is going to result in anything but backlash.
zgz

oh no! on the contact page of http://www.savecinema.org, they have a picture of office buildings in Admiralty, a business district in Hong Kong. They are so secret they have to hide over here?
GraemeM

Under very heading about recovering (read extorting, it would make more sense if they went for the price of the ticket) money is a picture of a grinning/insanely smiling corporate exec type (usually female which is not representative of the exec type).

It makes the upper echelons of corporate America look megalomaniac, probably true.

We don’t go to the cinema as they don’t do family tickets, there are six of us, therefore it gets expensive for us; tickets, pop corn, drinks, etc. We now have a medium sized TV, games consoles, smart phones/PDs and of course the Internet.

Why bother queuing for a grubby seat in a cinema when you have all that. And yes I know its for the experience but now there are loads of cheap DVDs with two or three old classics I just can’t be bother with formulaic new films.
Wuss Brillis

You go to IMDB and you give the movie a 1 out of 10. It would barely take 100,000 people to make the movie look bad.
nixiebunny

Geez. We checked it out from the local public library for free.
Heartfruit

Hope the Copyright Group has made sure they have rights to all that clip art.
- Anonymous
  
  Actually, even if they did pay to use the images, they are still outside the terms of the license: see http://nscadesign.ca/mleblanc/?p=568
Anonymous

Another fun fact from their website: The site is actually hosted at http://www.copyrightsettlement.info/index.html â€“ http://www.savecinema.org/index.html uses a frame to load the other site..
Pete-O

IP based… Well people will someday smarten up and use redirectors or bum other peoples’ WiFi.

Heck, I distrust the big ISPs so much that TOR even on legal stuff.

Is there a legal precedent for convicting someone if they don’t have the said file in their possession? Has someone tried the IP hijacking defense?
- querent
  
  “TOR even on legal stuff”
  
  Not a great idea, I’ve heard. TOR + BitTorrent == TOR not working properly.
  
  TOR is a super cool idea, and does what it does, but it doesn’t do everything. More dangerous to think it does and behave as if invulnerable than to not use it and know you’re watched.
- bobhughes
  
  This is one reason I leave my WiFi unsecured, and always will until they finally pass a law to force people to secure them.
  
  Yeah, I’ve never downloaded a single bit of stolen copyrighted material. But all those damn war drivers and opportunist neighbors are eatin up all my bandwidth day and night for torrents and such (I can tell it’s nobody from my house, because somehow none of the MACs in my DHCP client table match with any of those shown on the network devices we own) and I’m just a simple person who wouldn’t know a WEP key from a car key.
insert

Ugh. It seems that many of the people going to be sued will not have committed the tort; it will have been committed by adult children, visitors, passersby or not committed at all.

The fact that in this massive campaign there will be so many false positives shows that we need some sort of reform of the system. I suspect there’s no precedent for a class-action abuse-of-process suit, but there ought to be.
Random_Tangent

Litigation is no substitution for revenue.
- Anonymous
  
  Don’t buy the DVD! Blu-Ray! Recordable! Help decide extras metadata! And it turns out the litigation gets some results (ex-generals of the gold coast trying to hand out copies of _The Last King of Scotland_ I suppose) but it’s kind of a wedge saying that’s top-line (Capital) production. Maybe if they gave wine pairings for home showings….
- Berk
  
  Course, these days litigation does appear to be a revenue stream for studios.
Anonymous

It’s been sitting in my queue for months at the top, and it still says, “LONG WAIT”.

If this is the tactic they’re going with, I might just drop them altogether from my queue and go on a Netflix campaign to boycott Hurt Locker.
Anonymous

*sigh* I bought the blu ray after watching the movie when it was leaked. I would NOT have bought it if I knew my money went to these idiots.
slickhead

@ Boingy Baxter
I am almost 40 and have never heard of your cult film.Although I do know a little about The Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo.It seems to me that this film could use some of the type exposure that torrenting provides. Maybe it could bring a new generation of fans before the old fans start dying or going to retirement homes.Or maybe you could just sue you new fans and see how long they stay in your “cult”. That kind of reminds me of the goose that layed the golden egg.
Do you hear Rocky Horror fans crying that torrenting is hurting their midnight showings? No, because watching it at home isn’t the same without assembling at a theater with a group of likeminded people.(a cult of two or three isn’t much of a cult,you see)
LLLLLL

I don’t see where Voltage Pictures is acting out of turn. It’s their movie (their product) and they need to make revenue so they can continue to make other movies. How is it different from stopping someone from sneaking into a movie theater without paying?
- grimc
  
  If you’re a Hollywood production company who just won Best Picture and have to rely on DVD sales to finance your next project, you’re not doing it right.
  - Anonymous
    
    If you’re an internet commenter who thinks that Best Picture winners make most of their revenue from theatrical releases, you’re not doing it right, either. Or you’re posting from 1939.
- slickhead
  
  “How is it different from stopping someone from sneaking into a movie theater without paying?”
  1. no one is being sued for thousands of dollars when denied access to a movie
  2.there is no theater on the internet.
  3.watching movies at home and at the theater have different “rules” example:at home you can invite many friends over for the same price of admission.
  4. No Lawyers
  
  I could go on and on, but the real question is “How is it LIKE stopping someone from sneaking into a movie theater without paying?”
  Seriously. Get a grip
theawesomerobot

Aside from the stock photos the site isn’t *that* terrible. I’d give it a 5 out of 10, which is higher than the 3 out of 10 average of the internet. Yes, these guys suck though.
Kimmo

I’m almost surprised there isn’t a movement by pirates to go after the studios who pull this crap… you’d think it would be fairly easy to target certain studios for particular attention in order to minimise their profits.

Something like the Streisand effect as applies to being a little bitch about IP.
teufelsdroch

savecinema.org’s photos (for example, “our company at a glance”) are clearly stolen from copyrighted getty images.

Wouldn’t it just be soooooooo sweet if, in addition to being misleading, the pictures on that site were also stolen?
- Gag Halfrunt
  
  Or perhaps those photos were bought from Getty Images, which in case you haven’t noticed is a stock photo company.
Church

Well then, that’s one fewer movie on my ‘to see’ list.
- tuckels
  
  You wouldn’t miss much. For all the hype and awards it’s won, its a very underwhelming film.
- grimc
  
  I’m going to disagree with the naysayers. It’s a solid film. But I can understand refusing to see it. So if you don’t want to rent it, torrent it. Just, you know, use somebody else’s computer.
Anonymous

Does anyone know what to do if you’re slapped with one of these lawsuits? My friend just got a letter suing him for downloading Kick-Ass.
- bobhughes
  
  tell him to throw it away and pretend the situation doesn’t exist. If anyone asks, then his story is this: “I never opened such a letter, but I do throw away alot of junk mail without opening it”
  
  It takes very little money to bring a lawsuit, but it takes alot to see the suit through.
Anonymous

There’s got to be a creative defense strategy out there somewhere. What about if you went out and bought a legit copy of the DVD today. Then when they come knocking, tell them that you actually already owned the DVD, but had to download the torrent because the night you wanted to watch it, your DVD was broken. Can there possibly be a defense along those lines?

Although that wouldn’t help you if you then hosted the torrent for others to download
Ugly Canuck

This is a fine movie, though, and I did purchase the blu-ray.
When I can,I like to purchase the physical media. Still old-fashioned (do people still use that term?) in some ways.
Anonymous

“Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn’t you tell the world, EH?”
Boingy Baxter

I don’t feel bad for people getting sued for using Bit Torrent and I’ll tell you why. It’s stealing someones copyright for free of their work, that’s why. As an idependant distributor of the cult film “Forbidden Zone” (www.forbiddenzonethemovie.com), we are earning a few bucks from DVD sales and occasional midnight screenings around the country. (See our website for details). So Bit Torrent with thousands of free downloads of our copyrighted film deprives us of needed revenue to keep the distribution of the film going. Give independant films a break please, and buy or rent the damn DVD.
- Antinous / Moderator
  
  Dude,
  
  You just spammed us.
  - Boingy Baxter
    
    I read the rules and don’t see it as spam. I am making a point and validating my source.
    - Cynical
      
      In your own words, the movie you are representing is doing poorly through standard distribution networks; as someone in the UK, I wouldn’t be able to go the “few midnight screenings” and DVD retailers are generally loathe ship to other regions. So if I saw it doing well on a bittorrent tracker and downloaded it, how is that lost revenue? My potential purchase never really existed for you.
      
      After spending Â£15 to go see Date Night, I’m quite reluctant to spend money blind on movies that turn out to be awful, but if movies I download turn out to be good, I will buy a copy (it is, after all, far easier to lend luddite friends a dvd than to point them to a download site) and recommend it to people I know. I may even buy copies as presents. Doesn’t that represent increased revenue? How much money do indie movie makers make from rentals anyway? Surely only those who are pushing mediocre “product” have anything to fear from a “try before you buy/generate good publicity” model of distribution?
    - Antinous / Moderator
      
      You’re using us for free advertising while whining about how free views of your film are ruining your business. You want to advertise your film? Pay for an ad. And if you don’t get how you violated the Link Policy, take a remedial reading class.
Anonymous

sorry i was busy in iraq when the movie came out, and i wanted to see it without having to wait for the dvd
putty

First of all I thought the movie sucked.

Second of all, supposing I had downloaded the torrent and recieved such a letter. Anybody with an unsecured wireless router has a good chance that someone else is also using their network. In fact some of the wireless encryption protocols can be hacked without too much difficulty.

Such plausible deniability may lead to many of these cases being dismissed. It would be foolish to pay the settlement without a least giving a bit of a fight.
putty

First of all I thought the movie sucked.

Second of all, supposing I had downloaded the torrent and recieved such a letter. Anybody with an unsecured wireless router has a good chance that someone else is also using their network. In fact some of the wireless encryption protocols can be hacked without too much difficulty.

Such plausible deniability may lead to many of these cases being dismissed. It would be foolish to pay the settlement without a least giving a bit of a fight.
Anonymous

It is also worth pointing out that the producers of Hurt Locker are being sued for stealing the whole idea/plot for the movie.

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/hurt-locker-sued-over-stolen-identity-do-not-publish-14850
Anonymous

From now on I will refer to the 2010 Oscar Winner for Best Picture as “The Butt-Hurt Lawyer”.
Lucifer

Challenging a few deep pockets takes good lawyering.
Going after many shallow pockets hoping to scare enough into coughing up dough is bullying.
Sending demand letters with a law firm letterhead with the coverage of junk mail is pretty scummy.
travispulley

I only watched that very boring movie because of the awards hype. I want to be reimbursed for the time wasted watching that movie due to false pretenses.
Anonymous

I heard this was a great film. But now I will never know. I’m boycotting this movie. There’s plenty of footage of cute kittens on YouTube, and my local PBS station broadcasts three channels of continuous programming, 24 hours per day. I don’t need to watch a film made by (or financed by)jerks.
Xenu

If you’re movie sucks so bad you have to sue people into paying to watch it, you need to get out of show business. Make room for the talented people, okay?
Anonymous

If you watched it when it was leaked, and then bought the DVD, does it even out. I guess it wouldn’t because these fucks want more money.
Anonymous

It seems ironic for a film that only came to attention after receiving free publicity from the downloaders and fans when the movie was leaked back in 2007, to then turn around and attack those folks.
ulor

The name of the firm according to Ars Technica is

Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/shlockmeister-uwe-boll-sues-2000-far-cry-p2p-downloaders.ars

I think it is disgusting that they hide themselves behind the Copyright Group. If you are going to mass sue people you should be willing to take the lumps from that decision.
- Xeni Jardin
  
  Thanks, updated!
  - Anonymous
    
    Did you read the link?
    
    Time-Warner Cable are finally behaving as ISPs ultimately must — in the face of exorbitant subpoenas, they suddenly remember their legal protections.
    
    This is what I have said all along — ISPs would rather have subscriber fees than Hollywood endorsements, and will brave their equal legal armies.
    
    Especially if TWC is supposed to spend money protecting a Uwe Boll film, of all things!
    - Anonymous
      
      “Did you read the link?
      
      Time-Warner Cable are finally behaving as ISPs ultimately must — in the face of exorbitant subpoenas, they suddenly remember their legal protections.”
      
      Hi Anon, I didn’t see any mention of TWC in any of the links I checked, Could you post the relevant link?
      
      Thanks
      - Anonymous
        
        Sorry no copy/paste. It’s actually the previous article on arstechnica about the same company using the same tactics for Uwe Boll’s Far Cry that mentions the fact that TWC took umbrage at having to hand over 2000+ names for one movie.
        
        They are beginning to realise that they can put themselves out of business by ‘helping’ Hollywood. After all, if they had to turn over 2000 names for every movie released every month, with no compensation except maybe a lost customer, how can they?
johnofjack

Other Voltage Pictures releases will be included [in the lawsuit], including Personal Effects, starring Twitter darling Ashton Kutcher.

They’re going to sue people for downloading that film? Haven’t they already been punished enough?
insatiableatheist

I never go to the movies.
I can’t make a cup of tea, have a smoke nor pause it for a bathroom break, and with a lot of films these days clocking in at two hours I usually get bored by the same old-format Hollywood fare before I’m halfway in.
Add that to the fact that most movies I enjoy aren’t screening in my area, nor available to rent I do most of my viewing online.
The game is changing. Fast.
As for Boingy Baxter, at least he took the trouble to register a nick. Let’s see if he continues to comment on other topics on BB.
Otherwise, yeah, what Antinous said.
hijukal

I’ll admit it. I watched a copy I didn’t pay for. I didn’t download it but I was given a copy that originated, well, I don’t know. I hadn’t heard of the movie and from the write-ups probably would have never gone to see it at the cinema.

That said, I really (really) enjoyed the movie and talked it up to quite a number of people even before its Oscar wins and definitely know it lead a few people to go and see it.

So, if they’re trying to sue downloaders because they prevented possible revenue, where’s my kickback for the revenue I generated for them? Oh, right, nowhere, that’s where.
libraryboi

“the producers feel like suing fans”

If they’re fans, they would use a legal, revenue-generating method to see the film. What kind of fan steals from an artist?
- stuiethegod
  
  The kind of fan that can’t afford to shell out $13 for every movie that comes out. Plus can you really be a fan of something you haven’t seen?
- Yaruki Zero
  
  So, piracy is substantially damaging the movie and music businesses. I don’t trust their estimates of how much they’re losing, but it is a real problem. And yet somehow they come up with stuff like this that makes them look like the bad guys.
  - Ugly Canuck
    
    “substantially damaging”= record box office revenues?
    
    The assertion of “substantial damage” is just that – an assertion
    .What evidence do you adduce in support of this assertion?
    Hollywood is making more money than ever, i hear…so where’s the “substantial damage”?
    
    More like “speculative, remote and inconsequential damage”.
- bobhughes
  
  OK, replace “fans” with “potential fans”.
  
  Given the atrocious nature and tactics of marketing, I make g*ddamned sure to buy as few new, untried things as possible unless I get a chance to try them out first. Only after I have determined that the product has some sort of value to me, will I decide to buy and keep it.
octopod

it’s not really my cup of tea, but I’d buy the dvd to show support for more women making movies in holywood.
hbl

I read about this on the Bob Loblaw Law Blog. I bought my copy from Tesco for Â£7, so they can go spin. They got my money!

I think when they read that theirs was the lowest grossing film to win the best picture oscar, they thought, “Fuck it, there must be someone we can sue… wait, I have an idea…”
vytautasmalesh

Savecinema.org – CAPS LOCK for EXTRA AWESOME

I haven’t gone to a movie in 3 years – this kind of shit assures that I won’t go for another 3 at least.
Rider

One of the things not being mentioned here is that this movie hit bittorrent months before it hit theaters. The producers blame that for lack of box office. I don’t think that justifies there actions but it shows a lightly different mindset then we all assumed at first.
- neph13
  
  well, Avatar hit the internet before the film too, if I recall correct, and it didn’t put a dent in the film. No, the reason why this film did so poor is because they only released it to just over 500 arthouse theaters in the US. It wasn’t widespread, which sort of shot themselves in the foot. So now they are looking for anything to recoup a loss
  - Rider
    
    You comparing a torrent of Hurt Locker to a torrent of a 3D Imax film. Do I really need to point out a major flaw in your rational?
Anonymous

Holy Christ on a stick am I glad this is the one movie I didn’t pirate!

I’m tempted to say BOYCOTT but the movie itself is still awesome. Taints my perception of it, though.
ikoino

Was going to suggest a boycott on the producers, particularly Nicolas Chartier who emailed Academy Awards voters to discourage them from choosing “Avatar” over “Locker.” What a jerk.

But, then I found that Kathryn Bigelow is also one of the producers. Am seriously bummed. In the weeks before the academy awards, I rented her whole catalog. I consider Strange Days to be a classic and was looking forward to what she does next. Now I have to boycott her next one. Sad!
Anonymous

if this sort of tactic didnt work for the riaa, what makes them think it will be so different with the film industry? how much do they plan on suing for? if its in the thousands, then prepare to not get paid because im willing to bet that most of the people that downloaded it dont have that kind of cash on hand. how would you even go about suing tens of thousands of people? apparently the film was illegally downloaded ten million times. so theyre pulling random ips and sending letters.. this entire debacle is just bad pr. i know ill be avoiding anything to do with this company in the future, that includes the films of kathryn bigelow.
efergus3

Haven’t seen it, don’t plan to now. I was in service for two wars, not really interested in another.
phoomp

I don’t pirate movies, but I also don’t give money to companies that refuse to acknowledge the changing needs of their customers and choose to attack them in an effort to force them to submit to outdated business models rather than explore new business models that meet the new customer needs.
DrRufus

Anyone I know that downloads stuff would never buy or rent the content anyway. There are just too many other ways to be entertained for free. This type of lawsuit just creates bad feelings without protecting anything, imho.
Anonymous

This remind me of company selling bottled water. Consumers pay a whole lot more for the advertising, packaging and transportation of the product. The cost of water is only a small fraction. So, may be in the future, more money will be made from copyright lawsuits rather than the film itself.
Anonymous

” * PROBLEM: ILLEGAL DOWNLOADS COSTS THE MOVIE INDUSTRY $20.5 BILLION EACH YEAR*. IN THE FIRST WEEK OF A DVD RELEASE THERE ARE MORE THAN 30,000 UNLAWFUL DOWNLOADS^.

* SOLUTION: THE US COPYRIGHT GROUP WILL ASSIST WITH COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT”

-Thanks guys, I have been having difficulty infringing copyrights of late and could use some assitance.
Anonymous

From SaveCinema’s site:
“Our unique partnerships allow us to monitor filing sharing, uploads and downloading. Then, we obtain the infringers’ identities through ISP subpoenas, finally resulting in “cease & desist” letters with a demand for payment of damages being sent to the illegal downloaders on a massive scale. Research suggests that once a copyright infringer is forced to pay settlement damages far in excess of the actual cost of the stolen content, he will never steal copyrighted material again. Through these methods, the US Copyright Group has the ability to recover losses for our clients and stop film piracy on a massive scale. ”

har har.
Anonymous

When I heard about this, I thought fair enough, but only charge them the cost of the a movie ticket or DVD and not thousands of dollars.

If it is an issue of lost revenue, then the lost revenue is say $20 per “pirate” not $5000 or whatever.

Charging down-loaders that much, is only going to make them resent the system more and take away money they might have spent on other forms of media, thus driving people to download more.
Anonymous

Sorry folks, but DirecTV showed the way for all these corporations who want to mass sue. They won a ton of these suits and forced a lot of people into settlements. All of these ISPs folded like a house of cards when their lawyers showed up.
jeligula

I know a guy who knows a guy who pirated this so-called drama directly after it first came out. I viewed it at the house of a guy who knew a guy who knew the guy that pirated it, and there was no sound. So it sounds to me that the folks who get the dough have nothing to complain about. They stitched it up so tight that it appears to me that the government is using them as a test run on new encryption and surveillance techniques. Those that can actually break it are those that need to be lined up against a wall, at least in their minds. Anybody who actually saw a pirated version with sound is now targeted for disposal. I heard nothing. I swear.
Anonymous

Didn’t see it, don’t want to either. I wonder if most of the downloaders are vets? Might get a little embarrassing.
Shroomy

The film may be “solid” but it seemed like a crappy TV movie to me. Bad acting and directing. Best picture? You’ve got to be kidding me.