Hurt Locker producer: criticizing our lawsuits makes you a moron and a thief

Discuss

293 Responses to “Hurt Locker producer: criticizing our lawsuits makes you a moron and a thief”

  1. wqoq says:

    If Chartier is so hard up for furniture, I’ve got an old chesterfield lying around he can have for free. It’s a little beat up, but it’s better than sitting on a cold floor.

  2. Anonymous says:

    imho, any time someone decides to share their ideas creatively (meaning artists), they give up ownership of those ideas. they belong to me now. the distinction comes when a medium is manufactured to share those ideas. you can own a dvd, or a book, or a canvas and if i take it, i have stolen it. but, there is a separation between the media and the medium. the artist and the industry. and when you download “copies” of a movie, you aren’t hurting the artist, you’re hurting the production company that uses outdated methods of distributing media. we have built an entire creative Industry, a very very large one. and the idea that creativity is going to die outside of that industry is ridiculous. “artists should be able to monetize their work”. yes, and they should start being more creative when it comes to making a living from their work outside of the industry.

  3. Anonymous says:

    What a jackass…I will be sure to not spend any money on their crap movies.

  4. deSelby says:

    emmmmm… What was the question again?

  5. bookninja says:

    Scratching this one off the old “to-rent” list.

  6. Anonymous says:

    well, i wasn’t going to pirate hurt locker. but i guess now i’ll be seeding it indefinitely. good luck getting to me in africa, nicholas chartier.

  7. Ted8305 says:

    Wow, I definitely won’t buy or rent that movie now. He was such a douche about it, though, I might just download it on general principles.

  8. Enormo says:

    Last!

    Seriously though… if I go pay to see one of the movies made by this jackass and I don’t think it was worth the money I paid will he give me my money back? Will he do this for every person who thought his movie wasn’t worth the money they paid to see it with?

    If he doesn’t reimburse every single person who saw his movie can he be sued for fraud because the marketing oversold the quality of the product?

    Can I sue because he hasn’t created an accessible channel by which I can reclaim what he defrauded me of?

    Can I also sue him for my time wasted? I can’t get that time back. He stole that from me just like he stole my $12 to see his movie that I didn’t like.

    • Anonymous says:

      No, because you assumed the risk of not liking the movie.

      This is a civil matter for a reason.

      Why do people need analogies anyway? It’s not like stealing. It’s like you are making a copy of something for which you have not paid a copyright licensing fee, nor has anyone (like a radio station) paid such a fee on your behalf.

      Everyone knows there are times when we don’t have to pay for things and it’s ok, like when someone pays for your meal or your movie ticket. And then are times when you do have to pay.

      It’s just soo easy now to make the copy. It doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

  9. Anonymous says:

    How much of his massive take did he pay to Master Sergeant Jeffrey Sarver?

    That’s exactly how much he deserves for making this ridiculous piece of garbage. That and the plot make me pissed I paid a dollar to rent it.

  10. Mahoot says:

    Did eighteen years working with cocksores like this.

    I have chosen homelessness and unemployment.

    Better crowd.

  11. watchout5 says:

    It’s been long since proven that whining about people copying your intellectual property isn’t going to do jack. Maybe 50 years ago, before the internet, it was possible to scare people, but with VPN’s and the sheer volume it’s way better to beg that people support you, rather than act as if the sky has fallen to destroy your property. I kinda like the “if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it” method for IP. No one has or ever will force these film makers to produce DVD’s or Blue ray DVD’s, if piracy is the number 1 issue for you and you release your film on cracked technology, don’t come whining to me when someone copies it.

    Back to the car analogy (because it seemed that no one got it right as the internet is not a truck), imagine if the dealership didn’t lock it’s door, produced easily reproducible cars that could be cloned simply by double clicking with a mouse and then whined about how horrible their business is doing because people keep copying what was once theirs. Obviously in the real world dealerships lock their doors, they don’t produce a product that can be easily reproduced with a computer mouse and don’t whine about their business because they’re sleeping on a pile of money. If film producers are worried about piracy they need to stop using distribution channels that can be cracked. Of course, the next complaint is about DRM, and how no one wants it, but remember it’s 100% their choice to add DRM or not, and if they choose not to DRM their media (which would in many cases make the media unplayable to paying customers) I feel like the complaints about pirates are futile. It’s like fighting fire with gasoline, “don’t copy this easily reproducible 700MB file that takes 10 minutes to copy…or else”. Or else what? You’re going to sue 1/100000th of the people who committed the crime? And maybe 1 person associated with getting it there in the first place? I’m shaking in my mom’s basement.

  12. qu1j0t3 says:

    Not sure that we should expect very much from this quarter. War propaganda like Hurt Locker does not exactly advance civilisation; it is hardly surprising its officers cannot rouse themselves to be civil.

  13. insert says:

    Ferrari doesn’t sell “copies” of Ferraris. It sells Ferraris, which are made out of metal and plastic and stuff, all of which are limited resources.

    Copies of movies are made out of ones and zeros. These ones and zeros are completely unlimited. (I mean, damn near unlimited, technically)

    Seems like a pretty big difference to me.

    Why do we, as a society, have property in the first place? Because we can’t both use that car or the house at the same time, and we’ve got to find a way to allocate those *scarce* resources. So, individuals have property over houses and cars. But, we can all, say, breathe at the same time, so we don’t have property over the air. Same with oceans: we can all fish at the same time, so we don’t have property over fish (but this is problematic when we all overfish, or when someone spills a bajillion barrels of oil). And, same with information, since it is not scarce: We can all have a copy of the movie and it doesn’t disturb anyone else’s quiet enjoyment of that movie.

    • pauldavis says:

      Ferrari doesn’t sell “copies” of Ferraris. It sells Ferraris, which are made out of metal and plastic and stuff, all of which are limited resources.

      Copies of movies are made out of ones and zeros. These ones and zeros are completely unlimited. (I mean, damn near unlimited, technically)

      Unfortunately, this isn’t true. Movies are not made out of ones and zeroes. Movies are made by creating a representation of a visual experience (*). Then someone makes copies of the representation. The work of making a movie is not the task of making copies of the representation. The problem is that you can’t see the movie unless (a) you go to the physical location where the original representation exists or (b) a copy is made.

      Given that (a) doesn’t scale, is infeasible and profoundly useless as a revenue generator, we can assume that people watching movies implies copies of movies are being made. So the question is not about the difference between making a Ferrari and making a movie: they are both rather expensive processes. The question is about control over the act of making a copy of the final result. In the case of the Ferrari, the nature of the final result makes copies essentially impossible to create. In the case of the movie, copies are fundamentally trivial to produce. Should this alter the legal framework that governs control over the copying process?

      (*) the representation might be on film or a series of ones and zeroes or some other as-yet-unimagined form. The visual experience might have been created with actors, animation, a landscape, hand-drawing, CGI and so forth. None of this changes the fact that its generally a relatively large amount of work to create the representation of the visual experience, or that doing that part (“movie production”) is entirely separate, conceptually and actually, from the process of making copies of the final result.

      • insert says:

        Well, as a fact, the movies are made out of ones and zeros? When they get put on your hard drive, that’s all they are.

        But yes, there are other costs to make the movie. And those costs have to be borne somehow. But why should the government be in charge of controlling your distribution channels? There are many choices on how to deal with those costs: limited distribution in places where you can control who comes in and who doesn’t (theaters); passing a hat (like “In Rainbows” or “Humble Indie Bundle”); funding from a patron (like how most fine art used to be made); and of course, getting the government to pass a law allowing you to forcibly take money from people to cover your costs. Why should our government give some people the right to take other people’s money to cover their costs? The movie producers have not lost anything whatsoever.

    • hello whirled says:

      It sells Ferraris, which are made out of metal and plastic and stuff, all of which are limited resources.

      Oh … where do I begin?

      Your argument fails. Ferraris aren’t priced based on their metal content, are they? If they were, Ferraris would cost the same as Tauruses. Ferrari buyers pay more because they value the idea that the car represents to them — the speed, prestige, whatever it is about Ferraris that turns them on.

      Similarly, movies aren’t made of “ones and zeros,” as you say. Movies, too, are made of ideas. A movie’s value, as a saleable product, is in its ability to entertain people with those ideas. And that’s what is being sold.

      Bottom line: Both things — the Ferrari, and the movie — are on some very significant level an intellectual product. And my point stands.

      • Anonymous says:

        Wrong. Ferraris are priced on the cost of their metal, the cost of the engineering involved in developing the worlds best automobile, and the cost of hand-manufacturing each and every one. This is an ongoing process over time.

        The cost of the movie is the cost of the film, the equipment (which is usually rented, and not bought for every individual movie), and the overhead of the employees making the film. The distributors estimate the number of people who are going to see the film in the theaters, the number of DVDs they might sell and price ‘rights’ to show the movie to the theater owners. Once those movie is out and the costs are recovered at the theaters, it’s pure profit for additional showings and DVD sales.

        It’s already been proven that people that pirate music buy more (I can honestly say I buy more CDs that I’m able to sample first) and I say it probably holds true for movies.

        The difference between the two cases is that when you pirate a copy of the car, you’re taking money directly out of the pocket of the manufacturer. When you pirate the movie, you’re not taking money out of anyone’s pocket. As was mentioned earlier, the copy uses no resources of the company. By the time it’s on BT or where-ever, it’s likely made it’s costs (unless it was a bomb).

        That doesn’t make it right, but it also negates it from being the same sort of crime as stealing a car, a bicycle or even a candy bar.

        • hello whirled says:

          When you pirate the movie, you’re not taking money out of anyone’s pocket.

          Needless to say, I disagree with that; see previous comments.

      • insert says:

        I’m glad to know that you think my argument fails. ;-)

        Anyways, fine, it’s not just the metal cost. It’s the cost of the labor too. If I’m not mistaken, Ferraris are handmade in Italy. Those skilled laborers who make *your individual Ferrari* cost money. The ship that takes your individual Ferrari to America [or wherever] costs money.

        Labor and transportation likewise aren’t [significant] costs for *my individual copy of The Hurt Locker*.

        I’ll accept, fpoa, that movies are made of ideas. Even so, ideas aren’t scarce. You don’t pay Newton each time you use gravity or take a physics class. In fact, the mere notion of owning an idea should strike you as absurd.

        • hello whirled says:

          Even so, ideas aren’t scarce. You don’t pay Newton each time you use gravity or take a physics class. In fact, the mere notion of owning an idea should strike you as absurd.

          I agree, ideas aren’t scarce. There are a yone ideas, good and bad, and everything in-between. And I’m not arguing that an should pay royalties on the “idea” of something like … gravity — far from it! That is, indeed, absurd.

          I’m arguing that creative people — writers, movie makers, car designers, chefs, painters, whatever their trade — can and should be respected for their creative work. After all, we don’t call it *work” for nothing. It is work.

          And if you appreciate and want to enjoy that work — whether the work takes the form of a Lamborghini, or a good date movie — you should be prepared to pay the people who created it, if that’s what the person who created it is asking.

          Anything less, and you are expressing your disdain for the human drive to be creative. And that’s a rather poor reflection on you.

          • insert says:

            I’d certainly agree that it’s nice and friendly to “respect” creators by giving them money. That’s why I go to concerts and donate money to creators (cf. In Rainbows, Humble Indie Bundle). But, just because someone put work into something doesn’t make it inherently valuable (unless you’re a Marxist confused about “socially-necessary labor”) or worth a certain amount of money.

            I might even concede that, in some cases, piracy is morally blameworthy.

            However, the idea that the government should be legislating this is crazy to me. It’s like banning cars to protect buggy whip manufacturers. In either case, it’s a case of protecting outdated business models instead of allowing new technologies to take us into the future.

          • planaplagiarism says:

            so creative works are weighted differently than other types of work? artists are to be continually paid out after the work is done? this movie is filmed. it’s over. whereas normal hardworking people are forced to slave, day in, day out, for barely more than minimum wage. and this is solely based on the fact that artists should be able to make money ‘forever’ for whatever ideas they’ve shared?

            the argument that art is ‘worth it’, or that if people are ‘willing’ to pay for it then it’s a good thing, is ridiculous. because apparently people aren’t ‘willing’ (torrents). artistic talent is bullshit. we all know dozens of people that could make great movies, if given the chance. the responsibility lies on the production company, and it’s greed in believing that they deserve more money. the production company should have faith in artists, and they should pay them accordingly for their work, and they should pay the crew equally well for their work. but that’s all. the idea that it’s okay to justify paying these people millions of dollars for their talent because the costs are recoverable, is dumb. production companies need to own up to bad business practice. pay fairly for the work, and charge fairly for the product.

          • hello whirled says:

            artistic talent is bullshit. we all know dozens of people that could make great movies, if given the chance.

            Wow. That’s a pretty wacko-o thing to say.

            I’ll tell you what: Go out and make a great movie. I don’t care if you give away that movie for free, or charge money for it — that’s your choice.

            But don’t talk to me about artist talent being bullshit until *after* you can show me that movie. I’m waiting!

  14. AdamUndefined says:

    Reading this comment thread reminded me of the Verizon $0.02 debacle.

    intellectual property =/= property
    copyright infringement =/= theft

    Just because copyright infringement and theft are both against the law doesn’t make them the same thing.

  15. zio_donnie says:

    “And please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies, I actually like smart and more important HONEST people to watch my films.”

    You should have said that before i watched that overrated piece of crap because i am dumb. You should have put a disclaimer or something. Also I’m glad you’re a moron who believes that torrenting is stealing. And i am extremely glad that thepiratebay makes sweet love to you with retractable batons. You deserve it.

    BTW i want my money back.

    K thanks bye.

  16. camerara says:

    Is it just me or does all this conflict and drama that this story is generating make you think that it would make a really great movie?

  17. Anonymous says:

    good luck, i’m behind 7 proxies!
    http://thepiratebay.org/search/hurt%20locker/0/99/0

  18. Jaan says:

    You know something…I give away my work ALL THE TIME. I don’t nickle and dime people. I don’t expect to get paid for every single little thing I do, like contributing my knowledge to internet forums. Hell, I can’t begin to count how many hours of volunteer work I’ve done, from homeless shelters to community television.

    I guess that’s why I’m not a millionaire like this guy.

  19. Antinous / Moderator says:

    This guy is a film sales agent and producer. That means that he’s basically a banker/stockbroker. His job is to skim money off of films. He’s a parasite living in the intestines of Hollywood. He’s not an artist or creative or valuable to anyone except himself.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I didn’t download the movie, haven’t seen it, don’t plan to.

    But for those who want to avoid the company, here’s some new pictures from Voltage Pictures followed by some older ones.

    New Titles

    20 Funerals (Drama)
    Abandoned (Thriller)
    Born to Raise Hell (Action)
    Company You Keep, The (Thriller)
    Faces in The Crowd (Thriller)
    Game of Death (Action )
    Good Doctor, The (Thriller)
    Hybrid (Action)
    Leverage (Action)
    Mr. Nobody (Thriller)
    Once Fallen (Crime/Action Drama )
    Sacrifice (Thriller/Action)
    Transylmania (Comedy)
    Tucker & Dale vs Evil (Comedy)
    Whistleblower, The (Thriller)

    Completed Titles

    100 Feet (Supernatural Thriller)
    A Christmas Wedding (Comedy)
    Abominable (Sci-Fi)
    About a Girl (Coming of Age Comedy)
    Across the Hall (Thriller)
    After… (Thriller)
    Alienated (Dark Comedy)
    Ape, The (Comedy)
    Blank Slate (Thriller)
    Call of the Wild 3D (Family/Adventure)
    Canone Inverso (Drama)
    Dangerous Man (Action)
    Dead & Breakfast (Comedy/Horror)
    Dead Heist (Action/Horror)
    Deceit (Thriller)
    Devil’s Tomb, The (Action / Super-Natural Thriller)
    Emile (Drama)
    Fire and Ice: The Dragon Chronicles (Sci-Fi/Adventure)
    Flyboys (Action / Adventure)
    George A. Romero’s Survival of The Dead (Horror)
    George A. Romero’s: Diary of the Dead (Horror)
    Greta (Teen drama)
    Heavens Fall (Drama)
    Homecoming (Thriller)
    Hurt Locker, The (Action / Adventure)
    Keeper, The (Action)
    Legend of Lucy Keyes, The (Supernatural Thriller)
    Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice, The (Action / Adventure)
    Librarian: Return to King Solomon’s Mines, The (Action / Adventure)
    Love N’ Dancing (Music / Romance)
    Malibu Shark (Sci-Fi)
    Mammoth (Sci-Fi)
    Mutant Chronicles, The (Sci-Fi)
    My West (Comedy/Western)
    Odysseus & the Isle of the Mists (Action / Adventure)
    Open Graves (Supernatural Thriller)
    Payback, The (Thriller)
    Penny Dreadful (Horror)
    Personal Effects (Love Story / Drama)
    Phoebe in Wonderland (Drama)
    Quiet, The (Drama)
    Riddles of the Sphinx (Action/Adventure)
    Ruslan (Action)
    Seventh Moon (Thriller)
    Severed (Horror)
    Sisters (Thriller)
    Sky Kids (Family)
    Spread (Comedy)
    Thaw, The (Thriller)
    Tortured (Thriller)
    Triangle, The (Sci-Fi)
    Tribe, The (Adventure / Horror)
    Tripper, The (Horror/Comedy)
    Undead (Comedy/Horror)
    Vampires Anonymous (Comedy)
    Warbirds (Sci-Fi)
    While She Was Out (Thriller)
    Who Killed the Electric Car? (Documentary)

    • seanpatgallagher says:
      .
      .
      .
      Mutant Chronicles, The (Sci-Fi)
      My West (Comedy/Western)
      Odysseus & the Isle of the Mists (Action / Adventure)
      Open Graves (Supernatural Thriller)
      Payback, The (Thriller)
      Penny Dreadful (Horror)
      Personal Effects (Love Story / Drama)
      .
      .
      .
      

      Interesting… I don’t think I recognize a single title from Voltage’s list of films, other than The Hurt Locker.

      Does their entire catalog consist of direct-to-video releases?

      -S

    • Trotsky says:

      >> But for those who want to avoid the company, here’s some new pictures from Voltage Pictures followed by some older ones.

      There is literally not one film on that list that I have seen, nor have any interest in seeing.

      I can’t even claim that I will download any torrents just to spite this guy because I wouldn’t stain my hard drive with that drivel.

      Hurt Locker? Don’t give a fuck. To me its Oscar only underscores that it is not worth my time.

  21. Alessandro Cima says:

    Perhaps I am slow-witted. But what exactly is the argument here? Should movie producers NOT sue people who download pirate copies? If they should not sue, then what should they do?

    Should the downloading of pirate copies be made legal? How would that work out in the end? Should producers only be able to sue for $34.99?

    Should the producers simply regard all pirate downloads as free advertising? Really?

    Because I am willing to make things that I allow people to watch for free doesn’t necessarily mean that I would expect everyone to make things free.

    Why are people not allowed to get mad about people watching their films for free?

    Anger wants to be free.

    • andreinla says:

      >> Should producers only be able to sue for $34.99?

      Yes, or for the cheapest price a DVD may be purchased for. That sounds fair.

      Maybe they can also sue for unrealized profits the defendant has been unable to make with ideas or products or labor nobody was interested in paying for but would take for free. These unrealized profits would, of course, be only numbers on paper without corresponding real money. Very much like the imaginary money lost from unsold copies of the movie.

  22. Nevermore says:

    Mr. Polite is sooooo right, stealing is a bad thing to do (as is copying your neighbour’s furniture, wife and donkey): http://www.opposingviews.com/i/man-files-lawsuit-claiming-the-hurt-locker-was-based-on-his-life

    NOTE: Captcha read “untitled of”…

  23. wylkyn says:

    High production value movies are made only because the companies are able to profit from theater tickets and DVD sales. I am baffled why so many people believe that illegally procuring something for free that they would otherwise have to pay for is somehow okay. If enough people did this instead of buying legitimate copies, then the production companies would no longer be able to make a profit and would no longer be able to fund the production of movies.

    You can make all the analogies you want, play logic games, and quibble about the semantics of “stealing” and so on. But it seems like so much morality-gymnastics to me. When you have to come up with such convoluted arguments, that really should make you question your stance. Unless you just don’t want to.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Whether Mr. Chartier is right or wrong, the dude needs to grow up and act like a professional.

    (Have I seen the movie? No. Will I see it? No. I read about it on Wikipedia, and it seems that veterans and bomb disposal experts say it is unrealistic – thus, I have no desire to watch it. I am, after all, an intelligent viewer and I don’t watch bullshit.)

  25. Anonymous says:

    Yeah. Stealing is only okay if you make an Oscar-winning movie based on somebody else’s story.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Oh oh! Stealing aside, I LOVE this response! 4 Logical fallacies in one email! Using EMOTIVE LANGUAGE to create a RED HERRING (He turned a tactical argument about how to deal with stealing into a stealing is wrong argument which Xeni already agreed with) and using a NON SEQUITUR premise that giving away your personal property to is the same as to allow your intellectual property to be downloaded on a torrent. This is another RED HERRING since he was never asked to give away his movie for free. Apparently because Xeni has issue with Nicholas means he expects slave labor(REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!) – Look Nikky, I get you don’t like the fact people are watching something you invested money into to make a profit for free. If you want to make a case, don’t leave yourself so wide open.

  27. Lilah says:

    I’m not trying to be facetious with this: can someone please explain to me how “if you download a movie the creators still have their movie” is a good argument? I honestly don’t see how that makes any difference. It’s still something that you should pay for.

    I don’t know anything about intellectual property law or anything like that, so maybe there is something I don’t understand.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I’m not trying to be facetious with this: can someone please explain to me how “if you download a movie the creators still have their movie” is a good argument?

      I’ll explain it as soon as you explain why you’re not a thief when you listen to a song on the radio.

      • drtwist says:

        because radio is a licensed use

      • Lilah says:

        I actually never thought of it like that. I’ll have to ponder it a little more. Thanks!

      • TooGoodToCheck says:

        You’re not a thief when you listen to a song on the radio because the rights holder for that music has given permission for it to be played on the radio. And if they hadn’t then it would actually be the radio station that was breaking the law.

        Anyway, what’s being described is more like when people tape off the radio, but it’s not even that, because taping off the radio is a pain in the ass, and it loses some quality, whereas a downloaded movie can be equal to or superior to a DVD for quality and convenience.

        The major reason why the music industry is okay with radio is because they’ve figured out how to make money off it. They make a little money directly. And hearing a song on the radio isn’t the same as having it in your possession to listen to at your convenience, so they can see why a person who hears a song on the radio might still want to purchase it. And music artists can make money off of live performances, whereas movies make most of their theater money up front before the DVD comes out. If the studios can figure out how they benefit from free downloads, then they will support free downloads, but for a large release, at least, they see it as money lost, and I suspect that they are correct.

      • medectaphile says:

        Antinous: When you hear a song on the radio, the radio station has paid a blanket license to publicly perform the song, to an organization like ASCAP or BMI. The artist gets paid a royalty. So while you didn’t directly pay for it yourself, the performance has been paid for. You’re not stealing, but you’re not paying. Can you see the difference? I just wanted to clarify.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          When you hear a song on the radio, the radio station has paid a blanket license to publicly perform the song, to an organization like ASCAP or BMI.

          In other words, they developed a working business model instead of suing people for listening to their songs. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

          • Kaden says:

            Geez, stop playing with your food, wouldja?

          • george57l says:

            Are you being deliberately perverse? Yes the recorded sounds industry made a workable business model out of radio. Same way the moving picture industry made a working model out of TV (which also may be considered “promotional” – license a film for TV showing and DVD sles may go up – who knows). But you may have noticed the recorded sounds industry also suing and complaining about piracy. Your particular objection to this comparison is looking thinner and thinner.

            Your point about both industries needing to develop a new working business model from digital, had you made it as such, would be valid, but your introduction/defence of the radio listening analogy was not valid. Stop digging.

          • medectaphile says:

            Antinous: Yeah!

  28. Anonymous says:

    Shit!

    I originally watched the movie as a download on xbox live but now I’ve just remembered elements of the plot, dialogue and storyline.

    I’ve just deprived Mr. Chartier of another legal download fee!

    Curse my pirating memory!

  29. drtwist says:

    It still baffles me that people continue to argue that downloading movies isn’t stealing.

    • zio_donnie says:

      And it still baffles me that people can be lawfully made to pay 600.000$ for 24 songs. It still baffles me that people see justice and not a complete rape of the legal system in this. But such is life. Baffling.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t there an unwritten internet rule stating something to the effect of: “threads should be closed once someone mentions Hitler.”

    There, I said it. It is done.

  31. Ichabod says:

    What an assmonkey.

    Maybe just maybe we don’t want to pay for a half hour of advertisements with out DVDs. Maybe if you sold just the DVD movie sales would improve.

  32. Anonymous says:

    I agree, borrow movies from the library. I don’t pay for media anymore, and I won’t, until the thieving scumbag middlemen like Chartier are begging for nickels on the corner or turning tricks like “honest” whores. BTW, “The Hurt Locker” was a pretty good film.

  33. 5ynic says:

    I, for one, will be doing my utmost to keep all seeds of all (current and future) voltage pictures alive for as long as possible, and I hope others do likewise. This is exactly the old media sense of entitlement that must go the way of the dinosaur, so we can live in a world were creatives earn their keep by adding value, instead of sitting on their residuals churning out repetitive formulaic crap and spending their days trying to cheat at award ceremonies.

  34. PATENTly_Absurd says:

    First, let me say I have NO connection whatsoever to any content providers or their trade groups. I’m a paralegal and “prior art” researcher for a patent and trademark attorney. We are not usually involved in copyright law. But when we are, it is only incidental to our primary area of practice.

    I’m seeing many comments here that I find quite disturbing, that show a complete lack of understanding of how the law in-general, and those governing copyrights in-particular, work. Many seem to think the law, as applied, should operate on the concept of “fairness”. When we talk about fairness and the law, the only thing that is supposed to be fair is how the courts apply the law “as written”.

    In the USA we have courts of *law*, not courts of *equity* (fairness). This may seem to be a nuanced point. But it’s an important one. Unfortunately, in a relatively short post, it’s not possible to give you the long history of why this is so.

    Bottom line, if you violate the law as written, you may be found guilty (criminal) and/or liable (civil), as the case may be. The idea of “no harm – no foul” doesn’t apply. Many suggest that punitive damages are unfair and unreasonable. But most IP (Intellectual Property) law, as written, has specific provision for treble (i.e., three times) damages for “knowingly” violating the law. This is separate and apart from any punitive damages. (Punitive = punish). The idea is to send a message that if you break the law, it’s going to cost you dearly.

    If you don’t like the law as written, then write your representatives and complain. If you won’t complain to them, then why should anyone else listen to you whine. And don’t bother with the “deep pockets lobbyists” excuse for not writing. If enough registered voters in a representative’s district writes them, they *will* pay attention, no matter how much money a lobbyist funnels to their coffers.

    With that out of the way, it’s clear many of you also don’t understand how most projects are funded. The producer is usually just the public face of those who are actually paying the bills. Most production companies are LLCs (Limited Liability Corporations) or LLPs (Limited Liability Partnerships). In many cases the investors are institutional, like Mutual Funds and such.

    I’m reasonably sure at-least some of you have Mutual Fund shares as part of your retirement portfolio. If those shares started to tank, and it could be shown that the parties involved didn’t exercise all legal means to maximize a return (or minimize loses), you would probably be threatening to sue.

    When investors put up money, they have a reasonable expectation of a return on their investment. The investment entity, corporate or otherwise, has a legal “fiduciary” responsibility to maximize the return for investors. If the corporate officer(s) responsible (in this case, likely the film’s producer) doesn’t fully avail himself of all available means provided for in law to do so, then they may be held personally responsible for any losses incurred. (At trial, it doesn’t matter whether the losses are real or “fuzzy math” losses. Only what a jury thinks is reasonable will matter).

    So even though Mr. Chartier was less than eloquent in his written response, he has little leeway in how he responds to any real or potential/contributory misappropriation of IP to which his company holds title.

    Sincerely,

    PATENTly_Absurd

  35. Anonymous says:

    “The VCR is the equivalent of the Boston Strangler.”

  36. Marja says:

    After seeing this letter/rant, I’m beginning to understand why media companies are suing their fans: people like Mr. Chartier lash out at anyone who criticizes the lawsuits, and that suggests that they fire any advisors who criticize their strategies.

  37. greengestalt says:

    He can call me names too. I’m boycotting his film products. Just in case he makes something (unlikely) I ‘Have’ to watch, well I won’t “Steal” it from him. I’ll wait till it’s in the “Used” and “Pawn Shop” market. Therefore, I can buy it with no money going to him.

    I’m going to “Vote with My dollars” to vote out this type of tyrannical “Multi Story Outhouse” type of corporate film/media baron.

  38. Anonymous says:

    wow, what an asshat. ill never support Voltage in any way ever again.

    when i first heard about the hurt locker it was just out on dvd and netflix didnt have it in stock yet so i downloaded it “illegally”.
    i loved it and recommended it to several friends and family mnembers, who all rented it themselves, as did i eventually, from netflix, as i wanted to see a high quality copy and was not disspointed.

    i figure my “illegal” download resulted in at least 5 legal rentals/sales and actual revenue where there was none before.

    now the asshole who owns the company has the balls to not just misunderstand what a modern business model has to take into account (free low quality copies of everything are available everywhere, so you have to offer high quality and flexible content or support), but lash out at the individuals supporting him?

    well, ill never watch rent or buy anything from voltage again. I’m sorry i ever voiced support for the company and i feel bad for the director whose underground hit movie and success story is now being overshadowed by corporate greed and jealousy by a tiny small potatoes movie exec who suddenly has found a limelight to take his pants off and play the fool in.

  39. Anonymous says:

    it’s funny that people are arguing the toss about analogies that illustrate the issue, rather than the actual issue.

    don’t look at the finger that points at the moon, or you’ll miss all of that heavenly glory.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps the Ferrari analogy is a bit tired. The best analogy is Pharmaceuticals. Their pills are produced for pennies, yet the R&D costs is HUGE.

  41. Jack says:

    Mindy Kaling explains it best:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcOdNc_seyM

  42. Creperie says:

    I would stop short of calling Nicholas’ original email “very polite”: it calls Voltage ‘inhumane’ and it contains direct threats (‘Until Voltage Pictures publicly states …’ – if anything, it would have been politer to make the boycott unconditional.)

    Chartier’s manner of self-expression is a contrast, but in terms of substance he responded in kind.

    If you *want* to criticize Chartier for his manner, that’s up to you, but in my opinion such ad-hominem attacks do not help The Cause.

  43. CG says:

    While the studio exec might be a jerk, he has a point. He should be paid for his work. If you think he’s charging too much for it, then your option is not to buy it.

  44. W. James Au says:

    “It was in Netflix’s top 25 for January (at 13th). That took about 10 seconds to google.”

    Yes, I did that too. That’s the list of their *DVD* rentals. I’m looking at my Netflix account now, there’s *still* no option to instantly stream *Hurt Locker*. When the Oscar nominations came out, DVD requests (and the subsequent waiting line) for *Hurt* went through the roof. They missed a chance to monetize that demand. Probably a fair amount of people who went the illegal download route would have paid for the movie if they could have gotten it instantly, instead of waiting days for the damn red envelope in the mail.

  45. Anonymous says:

    There are many ways of convincing people in situations where you require their goodwill for your continued viability as a business. Threatening people is rarely effective, yet time and again it seems to be the default position for these people. Is it not obvious to them by now that it isn’t achieving the outcomes they hope for?

  46. Anonymous says:

    Infringement , NOT THEFT.

    Downloading represents free advertising more so than it does lost sales.

    Hollywood is trying hard to turn a civil case (copyright infringement) into a criminal one (theft). A victimless crime. They even tell us that copying a film is a terrorist activity.

    They aim to press-gang lawmakers into criminalising millions of people who will have to pay up for downloading Hollywood junk. That is legalized theft.

    Big Business will have to work it out with ISPs who don’t block things like BitTorrent, and get a cut, in the same way they do with radio stations.

    The only other alternative for them is to shut down the internet as we know it.

    PS Mr Chartier should probably watch the cocaine, it is an insidious substance.

    PPS I will not buy, download or watch The Hurt Locker, or any other Hollywood film about US army forces. I wish here to register my utter disgust.

  47. Anonymous says:

    The ferarri argument on both sides is flawed. You aren’t JUST buying a bunch of metal and plastic when you buy a ferarri.

    You are also buying all the development time, the marketting, the mystique, the brand name, and status. You are buying intangibles that have been built up for dozens of years.

    How does one relate ferarri’s properly to downloading? Why at the IP level naturally.

    If it’s ok to download a movie it’s also ok to disassemble a ferarri, copy all the plans and specs, distribute them however you please, and build your own exactly like theirs complete with the ferarri name plate.

    I hope the pro-download folks can read the above and see how unfair that is to the company that spends all the money developing, testing, building a brand and a name…only to have anyone be able to get their own copy with no recourse or profit to the business that worked so hard on it.

    The guy is a douche for how he worded his email. The guy is however right to sue. Punitive damages are necessary and, if anything, should be increased. When people start being scared of downloading copyrighted things then they are high enough. They aren’t yet. Double them and check back in 2 years.

  48. 54N71460 says:

    awwwwwww come on!!!! the f-ing movie sucks!!! go download something else instead. “point brake”, for example.

  49. Anonymous says:

    punishment should fit the crime. suing people for thousands and bankrupting them for downloading one film illegally is wrong. just as wrong as not paying for the film in the first place.

  50. EricT says:

    Here’s the thing; Technology completely changed the game with regard to traditional copyright. The rules need to change with the times. And business needs to change as well.

    Further, it is called Infringement not Theft

  51. ADavies says:

    Hi Mr. Chartier,

    My bicycle is missing. Well, not missing, but I think someone’s been riding it while I’m at work.

    Sure, this doesn’t affect me in any way, but they really should pay me for riding it.

    I’m sure they would not be able to get around anywhere without my paticular bicycle. And I should really have more money anyway, for my awsomeness.

    So, I’ve decided to file suit against you and thousands of other people who I think might have ridden my bicycle. This is my moral right as a bicycle owner.

    I hope you end up without a bicycle some day and no shoes either. Then I’ll laugh every time you step in dog poop.

    – Andrew

  52. diamantiferous says:

    Check out the repost of this letter on Hollywood rag deadline.com. Interesting to see the comments there – a totally different demographic from BB’s.

    COMMENTS (10)

    What a fucking loser.

    Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:01pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    You gotta love this guy. He should start a side business writing emails for people that want to tell someone off.

    Finally, someone in Hollywood who is not a sheep conforming to the kiss everyone’s butt rule.

    Comment by Nicolas Jr. — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:03pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    Nicholas Chartier is badassss!!!!!

    Comment by I LOVE THIS MAN — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:03pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    Oy vey — the frenchie strikes again … go back to selling Malibu shark, and Segal movies

    Comment by I can’t believe its not butter — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:07pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    Way to learn your lesson, Nick.

    Comment by K — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:11pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    Very well putt Nicolas! – Finally a producer who says the truth. Sick and tired of peeps stealing my money.

    Comment by private — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:11pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    I’m with Chartier 100%. OK, maybe 90%, name calling is counterproductive. The comments on the original site are enlightening. Many people evidently really don’t grasp intellectual property rights, rights which are protected by the Constitution for the betterment of our society.

    Comment by Occasional Commenter — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:13pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    So his name is Nicolas and the guy he is wrighting to is Nicholas?

    Weird… and pretty harsh. His film would have never been so popular if it weren’t for the internet and prob wouldn’t have won the Oscar as a result

    Comment by Nerd — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:22pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    His film was not popular because of the internet.In fact it wasn’t popular with the internet crowd. It did very little business at the box office. And winning the oscar has nothing to do with internet chatter, since 90% of the academy voters are older and barely know how to use a computer.

    Comment by disgruntled viewer — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:34pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    What a cocky little prick… And a stupid cocky little prick at that… He should know better than to put something like that in writing.

    Comment by getwhatscomin — Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 6:22pm EDT REPLY TO THIS POST

    http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/the-hurt-locker-producer-nicolas-chartier-still-finding-time-to-send-saucy-e-mails/#comments

  53. Anonymous says:

    If you could download houses from the internet, I’d happily give you copy of my house and and furniture

  54. ihaveseenenough says:

    I don’t know- the question I have is this:

    (And before I say this, I should note that suing downloaders is dumb, and the only way I would support it is if they were being sued for $24.95, the list price of a DVD- I’m commenting on the comments, not the lawsuit).

    My question – is there a sliding scale as to when it’s ok to give art away for free against the creator’s wishes?

    Because this isn’t a film like TRANSFORMERS 2, where it was a bloated $300 million budget paid for by the studio and a billion+ dollar worldwide gross on the back end.

    This is a situation where Voltage, a small indie company, scraped together $15,000,000 from a series of investors when no studio would finance the film due to the subject matter- so make no mistake, this is the definition of an independent film.

    The distributor that did buy the film paid only $1.2 million for the rights, with a percentage of any profits going to the production company. The film made $16 million in theaters- that’s it. I’m willing to bet after the theaters take 50% of that (leaving $8 million), the distributor recoups its initial payment of $1.2 million (leaving $5.8 million) and whatever it cost to release and market the film (probably $10 million), the production company hasn’t seen another dime from the US.

    The investors in the film aren’t going to see their money returned. Which means the next time these guys want to make a movie, the money is probably not going to be there. Which is a shame- the film is great- it’s real art, not hokey pap fed to us in marketed quadrants and focus group-addicted execs.

    So my question for BB is- at what level can we agree that free downloads aren’t acceptable without the permission of the artist? If you really don’t have $2.99 for an iTunes rental, $10 for a movie ticket, or $12 for a Netflix membership (and their “free streaming” involves license fees paid to the producers, make no mistake), why is better to download than go borrow a copy from the library (who also paid for a license)?

    To put it another way- what if it was my film, and I raised $16,000 from my family to make it with the hopes that people would buy a $3 download rental? Would you feel bad, or not, for downloading it for free? Not judging- just curious.

    • Nierd says:

      In response to the ‘if I made a movie for 16,000 would you support copying it?’ question…

      That’s a vastly oversimplified version of the argument.

      If you made such a movie – and tried to sell the DVD for $26.00 I’d tell you to lower your price for a low budget movie to sell more copies.

      If you were to ignore the fact that there is a market for downloaded movies I’d tell you – that you were a fool to not monetize that potential revenue stream.

      If you turned around and tried to sell the film as a ‘digital download’ for the same price as retail – when you:

      * don’t have a physical cost
      * don’t have any packaging
      * don’t have distribution cost to soak up
      * force the end user to provide a disk – and case – and jacket/cover

      I’d tell you – that you are a fool again – I don’t pretend to know the real profit on a dvd sale – (remember this is Hollywood where Lord of the Rings lost money and Peter Jackson had to sue to get his due money) – but it can only be a percentage of the total price (19.99 at Wall Mart) – Now I know the Wall Mart price is them taking a loss on *their* profit – your return is most likely fixed per disk.

      However you already put money into printing the disk – printing the label – etc. etc. etc. that you have to eat before you can even sell the thing.

      The online version is bits – on a server – only costs bandwidth to distribute… and there are plenty of proven examples of legit companies using bit-torrent to distribute things that cost money (Blizzard is a good example).

      Try not being greedy and offering the online version for *just* the amount you’d get back from the physical copy (say 5-6 bucks … whatever it would normally be) – suddenly many people would get it from the legit source. – all people – no – but I think you’d be surprised.

      For the record … I make a decent salary – I buy my media – I also have netflix. I pick up 2-4 movies a month typically – and I have hundreds of DVD’s – all legit.

      Just for the record – I tend to not buy movies at full price – but wait for them to hit the 9 bucks or under… 5 is even better price points. I don’t feel guilty doing this either – not when I know the price of a DVD (including production, printing, shipping etc.) is typically under 15 cents.

      :)

    • zio_donnie says:

      “To put it another way- what if it was my film, and I raised $16,000 from my family to make it with the hopes that people would buy a $3 download rental? Would you feel bad, or not, for downloading it for free? Not judging- just curious.”

      why should anyone feel bad? if the film is any good it will sell, if it sucks it will be forgotten.

      also you are making a big mistake here. it is hard to find indie stuff in the trackers. most of it is big budget crap reflecting the popularity of the product in the real world. my guess is that the torrent of your hypothetical film will go unnoticed and die in 2 days. obscurity should be your first worry.

      • ihaveseenenough says:

        “why should anyone feel bad? if the film is any good it will sell, if it sucks it will be forgotten.

        also you are making a big mistake here. it is hard to find indie stuff in the trackers. most of it is big budget crap reflecting the popularity of the product in the real world. my guess is that the torrent of your hypothetical film will go unnoticed and die in 2 days. obscurity should be your first worry.”

        Who said anything about theaters? What if I spend $16,000 in borrowed money to make a movie, and it’s good (I’m sure you’re not equating budget with quality in all cases)? But I can’t give it out for free because I have borrowed the $16,000. And not only do I want to pay the people I borrowed it from back, I want to pay my rent, eat some food, and then make another one.

        Since my hypothetical movie is pretty good, let’s say it takes off a little bit (to scale, of course).

        So what I’m asking- if Boing Boing ran an article about how awesome the film was, and linked to my site where you could buy a copy for $3, would you be more or less likely to immediately go search for a torrent of it as opposed to a big budget studio film?

        • zio_donnie says:

          Look i can give you my opinion as somebody who is into p2p since forever. There are lot of types of downloaders, you just cannot make a prediction on how it will go with an indie product being it music, film or book.

          there is the compulsive downloader that will download everything

          there is the hipster that will download everything as long as it is “exclusive” either because rare or because it is prerelease

          there is the collectionist who will download 100s of gbs of bootlegs (sharingthegroove FTW)

          there is the gamer who wants the cracked version because the original just crashes the computer

          there are kids, freetards, noobs etc etc etc

          So your hypothetical film gets featured on BB? personally i would not pay for a download i pay only for hard copies. but if i should somehow feel that your film is an absolute must see i would probably try to find a clip in you tube or maybe i would pay for a dvd copy. if nothing of the 2 happens really quick i would probably forget it and never bother again until the next used DVD bazzar. Torrent it? as i said if your movie is worth watching for whatever reason, someone will eventually put it on the trackers. But by then i bet that you will have recovered your costs and more.

  55. Astin says:

    Okay, so one guy is politely defending an illegal act, and the other is being a jerk in his defense of a legal response.

    Shows how much your tone can affect public support of you. Doesn’t change the fact that the polite guy is wrong and the asshole is (generally) right here.

  56. insatiableatheist says:

    Can anyone say;
    “Fair-use youtube mashup”?

    Anyone?

  57. Anonymous says:

    Well, what a flame and/or vent! Seems to have completely missed the point that the writer was not advocating the “stealing” (if that’s the right word) of his films, but was simply criticising the way the lawsuits were being handled. Couldn’t take it, eh? Pretty childish stuff, if you ask me. Come to think of it, a child could probably have written a more coherent letter than all this “yah-boo-sucks”, “I’ll-get-you-at-playtime-for-this” nonsense. Not done himself any favours, has he?

  58. Beelzebuddy says:

    Holy astroturfing, Batman!

  59. Anonymous says:

    I would suggest, everytime we hear a hollywood story, we remember the wise words of public enemy.

    “Burn Hollywood Burn.”

    They produce nothing I need or want, and do more damage across more people than just about anything in the last 35 years, including heroin.

  60. warrenEBB says:

    a: hey Producer-guy, I respect that you’re selling tickets to your performance, but I can see it from out here. Uh, so why should I buy tickets?

    b: hey now – I set up a fence so no one could see it from outside…

    a: well, I can see it. trust me.

    b: THEN YOU’RE A FILTHY THIEF! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!

  61. jack lecou says:

    I am saying that drugs in general are doing more harm than good, and thus should be illegal.

    I think this is exactly the kind of “logic” that the more thoughtful people here are objecting to.

    Even granting the first part of the argument*, the second just doesn’t follow. Although this kind of thinking is all too common, it’s unbelievably simplistic to assume that “bad things” should just be illegal, and that making them so will make problems go away. I won’t insult your intelligence by listing all of the “bad things” that would be ridiculous or harmful to use state power to prevent.

    Before you decide to make something illegal, you need to consider whether doing that is actually going to solve anything, whether the law will be respected, whether enforcement will be worth the cost (to both the public and to the “offenders”), whether all of the unintended consequences (unsafe low quality drugs, crime) are worth it, and consider all of that relative to the alternative approaches (e.g., treating drug addiction as a disease rather than a crime).

    We ALL want to see a multitude of creative works continue to be produced, for as many people as possible to enjoy them, and for creators to get their due. But that means we need to thoughtfully work out what the best structure for that is, not blindly prop-up the status quo with more and more draconian measures. Saying “copying is theft [and should be illegal]” is not only flatly wrong, it’s not actually helpful to figuring out how we go forward in a world where we can share things more easily than ever.

    * ONLY ad arguendo, mind. It’s not entirely clear to me that drugs per se — i.e., recreational chemical compounds — actually are doing more harm than good. Drugs themselves should not be confused with all of the nasty and predictable consequences we get by driving suppliers and users underground.

  62. hello whirled says:

    yone

    Apologies for the weird typo, “yone,” which was supposed to come out “million.”

    Blame it on midnight.

    This has been zillions of funs. Gnight.

  63. bb28 says:

    Many don’t like the Ferrari analogy, how about this one?

    I go on vacation and leave my car in the driveway. Someone steals my car, uses it as a getaway car for a bank robbery and the security guard at the bank gets the license number. The bank then contacts me and demands I pay them 60X what was stolen or they will sue me for 50,000X what was stolen.

  64. OutofTHATWorld says:

    I agree with both parties. Torrents and pirating Intellectual property is, and should be illegal. I don’t see how anyone can possibly argue that. Taking someone’s property that they both worked hard to make and paid to produce; copying it, and making it publicly available, is stealing. That’s wrong, and somebody should be held accountable. On the other hand, I agree that the people who download these torrents should not be targeted. Everybody’s human, and if you can have something for free, why would you pay for it? The problem isnt the people who are downloading the pirated material for free, its the Piraters who make it available for free. Sites like Pirate Bay and Limewire should be sued/prosecuted, because they enable and faciliate these illegal actions. Maybe all illegal downloads don’t equal sales 1/1, but if people couldn’t get it for free, than more would definitely pay. And pay they should. Nobody should cry and complain if/when that happens, because thats the way it is supposed to be.

    • jackie31337 says:

      “Torrents and pirating Intellectual property is, and should be illegal. I don’t see how anyone can possibly argue that.”

      No, torrents are not, and should not be, illegal. BitTorrent is a technology for peer-to-peer file sharing, nothing more. It has many legitimate uses, including content distribution for WoW, and for distributions of large files, such as releases of Linux operating systems.

      Back in the day, people used to share pirated software by physically exchanging floppy disks, but floppy disks were not exclusively used for piracy. Similarly, BitTorrent is just another way of moving data.

    • zio_donnie says:

      “Sites like Pirate Bay and Limewire should be sued/prosecuted, because they enable and faciliate these illegal actions.”

      oh yes because we all use the piratebay for downloading crappy hollywood movies. well we are not. and the piratebay is doing nothing wrong. unless you want to sue google too.

    • Beelzebuddy says:

      I don’t see how anyone can possibly argue that.

      I’ll start. An action should be illegal if the net harm it causes is greater than the net harm in making it illegal. A great example of society getting this wrong is drugs. Yes, drugs hurt people. But the War on Drugs has been a catastrophic failure on all levels, ranging from blatant police brutality to ruining the lives of junkies and potheads who, on the whole, aren’t much danger to anyone but themselves.

      Your big assumption here is that internet piracy is inherently harmful. Frankly, you’re wrong. Near as we can figure from independent studies, changes in piracy have little to no effect on the net sales of a work. What effects are seen are actually positive: filesharing helps unknown artists become a little less unknown. But overall, the amount of “lost sale” each download represents is damn close to $0. Maybe there’s a moral case to be made for someone seeing art for free, but no one’s going to the poor house cause the internets broke their copyrights.

      On the other hand, the harm done in the enforcement of piracy is NOT zero. From suing the families of dead people to, well, sending out 50k legal threats at a time.

      I’ll let you weigh that one yourself.

      • OutofTHATWorld says:

        “An action should be illegal if the net harm it causes is greater than the net harm in making it illegal”

        Okay, well in case you’ve forgotten, we live in a society here. It is not every man, woman, and child for themselves; every man, woman and child is here to contribute to the common good. That is why we have government, laws, taxes, etc. Sure its idealistic to think these laws and the way they are enforced is always in the best interest of individuals, but that is what they are there for.

        There is a great deal of harm in making mass consumables available for free, especially in a capitalist society. The US economy is in the toilet because people got so used to being given things (credit, mortgages, houses, cars) without paying for them.

        Drugs are a great example. Sure, for the most part each individual junkie or pothead is hurting themselves, right? Well first, when you add up each individual junkie/stoner, suddenly you have several million of them and a considerable percentage of any country’s population. And what about their families? what about the 2 or 3 children these junkie/pothead parents are having? People who live their lives high are not just hurting themselves, they are hurting the people around them, and society as a whole. The junkies or even the potheads themselves are not doing their part to contribute to the betterment of society, and worse, their having children! These children are either dying, living on the streets, or being supported by tax-payer funded institutions, i.e we pay to support their drug habits. Or they are growing up to be just like their junkie stoner parents! Think about how many people are in tax funded overpopulated prisons as a result of drugs? I could go on about this all day. The moral of the story is that in a society, each individual’s actions effect everyone in a small way, and when you add up all of the individuals, and inevitably their offspring, society becomes effected in a big way. And when expecting to get things for free becomes a big part of society, that’s not good for anybody.

        Now as I said originally, I don’t think the individuals who download movies for free should be targeted, just like I don’t think we should be going after joe who smokes weed in the comfort of his home. But the people out there who are making this available are the ones who should be targeted and shut down. Its not as if it harms anyone if these movies were NOT available for free. Just like its not hurting a junkie if he can’t hit his crack pipe. He may think its hurting him, but I think that most people would agree that individuals with drug habits would be better off without them. Without drugs and free movies being consumed by the masses, each person will be better off, and society will be much better off.

        You’ll probably argue that people being better off without drugs is different than people being better off without free, stolen movies, but lets remember who made the analogy in the first place.

        • Beelzebuddy says:

          I didn’t mention drugs as an analogy, but as a corroborating anecdote. You should really work on your reading skills if you missed that. If you want bad analogies, you should check out all the posts upthread that compare filesharing to stealing.

          Personally, I’ve always thought copyright infringement should be classified as attempted murder rather than stealing. After all, corporations are legal entities which need income to survive, and pirates are intentionally denying them said income in a premeditated fashion. It would be murder if a nurse cuts off her patient’s oxygen stream, it should be murder to cut off a corporation’s revenue stream. But that’s neither here nor there.

          I find it interesting how well your arguments mirror those for Prohibition back in the twenties. Prohibition that was later repealed in the thirties because most people were drinking anyway, the neverending need for enforcement had empowered less-desirable but power hungry groups to step in: one of the big Prohibition enforcers in the South? The KKK. Also, black market alcohol distribution was financing the biggest era of organized crime America has ever seen. As you mentioned, we live in a society, and the stability and peace of society overrode the need to enforce moral behavior on individuals.

          Actually, if you want to run with the analogical interpretation of drugs vs filesharing, let’s go ahead. Who do you think the industry most resembles, what with the mass-mailed “give us money or we’ll sue” threats? Which party do you think the copyright warriors in this thread resemble, with their unjustified assertions of moral interpretation?

          • OutofTHATWorld says:

            I don’t totally disagree with you’re arguments in general beelze, but if you want to debate semantics than you should probably reference check beforehand. An analogy is to associate the elements of one scenario to those of another. Its a comparison, demonstrating how two different things are essentially the same. An anecdote is basically a story, its a way of expressing some kind of truth of the matter. Using the example of drugs in the same context as pirating, in terms of ‘the wrong way to do things’ is a specific and direct comparison of the same essential issue playing out in two different ways. I believe that is an analogy, though it is certainly not an anecdote.

            Otherwise, I think the biggest problem here is that I am arguing more from an ideological basis (as I think you would agree that many people in this thread are), whereas you are coming from more of a practical perspective.

            I have repeatedly argued that the act of copying and distributing copyrighted material is wrong, and that those who engage in that activity should be held accountable. And, I didn’t say that the industry execs going after countless consumers were in the right. The first thing I said is that I agreed with both: mass distribution of illegally copied material is wrong, but going after relatively helpless consumers en masse is not the solution.

            For an effectively functioning society to exist, those in positions of influence need to do whats best for society. These pirates who are able to influence literally millions of people globally through the internet are doing a lot of damage, and the worst of the damage is how many people are supporting them. Whether or not there is any way to enforce these laws in practical way, either by government or private enterprise, it is up to people to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.

            I subscribe to MegaVideo. I buy music from Itunes. Hell I even donated to wikipedia when they asked for it. I think that all of these examples provide a very convenient, useful, and valuable service, one which provides me entertainment and information- services that deserve compensation. For the rest of my life I will make a living by creating, producing, or provding services of some kind, and will expect to be compensated for it.
            The more people who start accepting that they can take what isn’t there’s and give it away for free, the more prices will go up, wages will go down, an d people will eventually start getting what they paid for: nothing.

    • Marja says:

      “Taking someone’s property that they both worked hard to make and paid to produce; copying it, and making it publicly available, is stealing.”

      No it’s not. Period.

      Stealing involves taking something away, not creating something new. We can debate the ethics of copymight all day, but if you start by defining copying as stealing, you start from false premises.

      Furthermore, not all actions which take something away involve stealing. Information takes away opportunities for deception. Competition takes away monopoly power. One could argue that copying can be *unfair* competition, because someone who copies and redistributes the film doesn’t have to cover the costs of creating the original copy. But it is *not* theft, and the institution of intellectual “property” has all sorts of nasty side-effects.

      • OutofTHATWorld says:

        Okay, so, your argument is that copying someone else’s property, without their permission, and making it widely available is not stealing because it is creating something new? It creates competition?

        Lets be real here.

        Nobody is creating anything new, except perhaps a lower quality version of the original.

        Competition for what? The same exact product?? McDonald’s has a ‘monopoly’ on the Big Mac, not on hamburgers. Why should a movie’s producers have to compete with others for their own movie?!!

        You can’t just copy someone else’s movie and make it available to anyone for free. Nobody has any right to do that except the owners of the movie. You can talk all you want about business models, which may or may not be right, but if its not your business, its not your model, than arguing its merit doesn’t make you any more right in this debate.

        Copying and distributing movies or music when the owners clearly do not want you to is wrong because it is unethical, and it is illegal because it is bad for society.

        • djfatsostupid says:

          Are you actually arguing that the war on drugs has done more good than harm? We all know that drug abuse causes harm and that the harm caused is not limited to the drug abuser. That does not mean that a punitive approach towards those abusing drugs is the best solution for society. I think we have a very good reason to believe that it is not.

          Also, copying movies in not theft, at least not in Canada:

          (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
          (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
          (b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;
          (c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or
          (d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

          I’m not saying that legal definitions are the be all and end all of conversational discussion, but first of all, theft is a crime of *intent* and it is a crime of intent to *deprive someone else*, not to have something for yourself. People who download movies (aside from a few self-righteous jackasses) have no intent whatsoever to deprive the people who made the movie of anything. The harm is theft is the loss which the victim suffered, not the gain of the person who committed the crime. You cannot demonstrate that the victim suffers any loss when a movie is downloaded. I am not saying it isn’t wrong to do so, but it is not theft. Trying to call it theft is short-circuiting the entire conversation that we are having. Theft is by definition wrong, so if you get to call it theft then the discussion is over. Might as well just say that downloading illegal content is murder. Describe the real harm being done and the real benefits of one method or another of remedying that, don’t just mis-assign words.

          • OutofTHATWorld says:

            Please don’t misunderstand my position:

            1. I am not suggesting that the so called war on drugs is doing any good, I am saying that drugs in general are doing more harm than good, and thus should be illegal. The enforcement of these laws and the consequences of this approach is a completely different animal, which I am not prepared to debate.
            The same goes for illegal filesharing. It is harmful to people and society, and thus should be illegal. Again I am not saying that a producer is right to go after thousands of individuals, just that the activity in general is wrong and that it should not be happening.

            2. It is not the millions of people who freely download pirated material every day who are stealing, it is the websites/institutions who pirate the material and make it available in the first place who are stealing (see your quote below) The Pirate Bay has made it very clear that they intend to do this.

            “Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent”

            Its the same as marijuana in canada. You are not a criminal for possessing a small amount for personal consumption, you are a criminal if you have a large amount and intend to distribute it.

          • Anonymous says:

            your argument fails.

            If drugs are bad, and should be illegal, why do we allow people to even take medicine?

            People can kill themselves with aspirin just as much as they can with meth or heroin.

            Who does filesharing harm exactly? It’s certainly not harming any of the businesses that claim they are being harmed, in fact they’re doing better than ever. So where’s those lost jobs?

            Also, who is stealing? Nothing is lost. If you give me a tape, I make a copy of that tape and give you back your original (or make the copy without even taking away yours at any point in time), what is stolen, exactly? There’s no lost sale, there’s no lost product. What has the piratebay stolen? Are you going to say that mapmakers have stolen from the US because you can use them to get places and do illegal things?

  65. arkizzle / Moderator says:

    hello whirled

    I’m in the middle of studying for my finals, but I signed in to say: you are failing hard. Let it go, you are all kinds of wrong.

    • hello whirled says:

      you are failing hard. Let it go, you are all kinds of wrong.

      (gulp)

      At the risk of confronting a moderator … which is all kinds of risky I suppose … what’s wrong with my argument, specifically?

      Because saying it’s wrong, doesn’t make it wrong.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Personally, I’d be more worried about arguing with someone who’s studying for finals.

  66. Anonymous says:

    correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this production company being sued for stealing a soldiers story?

  67. Anonymous says:

    Since torrents of this film produced from industry “screeners” have been available since before this film hit theatres, it seems to me that _that_ was the time to sue, back when there were few infringing copies and the clear guilt of a few could be established (no doubt those screeners came with NDAs).

    Of course, the cynic in me realizes that the recipients of screeners are industry people with lawyers and clout, whereas the people being sued now have no industry influence and no money to mount a defense.

    I begin to think that movie producers may intentionally seed the internet with a few torrents, wait for the copies to propagate and then sue the last-folks-to-download for “small” settlements. It’s like farming, but loathsome.

  68. xyglyx says:

    Has it occurred to the lawsuit-happy producer to simply *ask* file sharers to pay the purchase price of the DVD, plus collection costs? Instead of threatening to sue (and then actually suing) if the sharer will not settle for thousands of dollars, just ask nicely for fair compensation — say, $50 for the lost disc sale, $50 to pay the ISP to dig up the sharer’s identity, and $100 in incremental legal fees. I would bet that the vast majority of sharers would happily pay $200 to avoid legal action, because when they get the letter, they would then know they are not untouchable. And, I would bet most sharers, once given a chance to come clean in this way, would never pirate again — or at least not from the same production company! So that would take care of the deterrence goal. What possible reason, aside from naked greed, could a producer have for wanting to extort $1000 or more from each file sharer?

    • greermahoney says:

      The fine you suggest is not steep enough to stop the majority of file-sharers. Let’s say you download a movie every week. And once this year, you were caught and had to cough up $1000. 52 movies X $26 each is roughly $1300. You just watched movies all year and saved $300 off the buying price. Was it cheap? No. Was it worth the risk that you wouldn’t get caught and will keep doing this? Probably.

      They have to make the fine so steep, so that you, and no one you know, would even think about doing it again.

      (I’m not agreeing with this reasoning. I don’t think they *should* make the fines this steep. I just think this is why they do.)

  69. Shay Guy says:

    Shame I got here so late, all I have to add is an anime quote:

    “I AM JUSTICE!”

  70. maybe i am a lion says:

    http://xkcd.com/14/

    not that i think this isn’t an important issue for debate, but people in here need to chill

  71. jack lecou says:

    Also, as usual, I’m patiently waiting for the “sharing is theft” crowd to explain how libraries are also “theft”. The parallel has been pointed out at least a dozen times in this thread alone.

    • CG says:

      There are a couple of arguments here that are being muddled together.

      The laws may be bad. However, even if the laws were made “reasonable”, reasonable would not include free, unlimited distribution on Bitorrent of any digital content created.

      It is up the the IP owner to determine how they want to sell their product. If you feel the price is too high, you are free not to buy a copy. It is not acceptable to download a permanent copy for $0. There’s no reasonable justification for that.

  72. Anonymous says:

    Actually, if someone could come into my house and make COPIES of everything, furniture, food, DVDs, whatever… leaving the original untouched, I would advertise it to the general public and make it free.

  73. Duffong says:

    I get it – his point after getting past the prickishness of it all. To be fair, downloading is on a very thin line stealing. But I don’t get the absurd lengths they’re about to go through to shut down thefts and the insane amount of damages they claim. The only thing I could even care about in this whole issue is just how much they’ll sue someone for given the item is a “service” and it only last 1 to 2 hours in most cases. If the service costs only $14 per hour max to enjoy at a theater, how does that translate into $75k per hour minimum in damages? Because they spent millions making the movie is their fault though simple rules of capitalism dictating market opportunity and how much that market will bear per person – or how much they hope to make en mass. But it appears that if one person steals that 1-2 hours service, they’re somehow liable for nearly 10 to 15% of the entire product cost?

    I’m probably missing something where the damages are always greater than the actual market cost of something. I’m so confused.

  74. insatiableatheist says:

    If they didn’t pay actors 50 brazillion times the salary of teachers and nurses and suchlike, they’d be able to cut the cost of movie making into a fraction.

  75. Beelzebuddy says:

    The more people who start accepting that they can take what isn’t there’s and give it away for free, the more prices will go up, wages will go down, an d people will eventually start getting what they paid for: nothing.
    Slippery slope fallacy. This has NOT held true for music, books or software, all of which have developed viable business models based on freely-downloadable content. Why should movies be any different?

    [Filesharing] is harmful to people and society
    Begging the question. You have yet to demonstrate this, yet continue to assert it.

    I think the biggest problem here is that I am arguing more from an ideological basis [...] whereas you are coming from more of a practical perspective.
    Yes, I agree. Let me know when you’re willing to discuss the matter rationally instead of preaching past each other. I prefer not to waste my time on dogmatists.

    • OutofTHATWorld says:

      So the recession, inflation, 10% unemployment rate, and highest division of wealth in US history, which I analogized as being caused by people taking things without paying- credit cards, mortgages, car leases- and associate with downloading ‘free’ movies, how exactly have I not demonstrated that people consuming things without paying for them, in this case movies, is bad for society? You may not agree with the analogy, but it is certainly not irrational to make that correlation.

      Secondly, why don’t you provide an example of these viable business models in the music and book industry that incorporate free downloading?

      You’re right to use the example of prohibition to say that the enforcement of laws prohibiting these kinds of practices historically has not worked, but that doesn’t change the fact that pirating and distributing movies illegally is wrong.

      Throughout my postings here I have presented a logical argument for how mass consumption of pirated movies is one symptom of a greater problem that is detrimental to society.

      If we can agree that while enforcing these ‘draconian’ laws is not the solution, though allowing pirating to continue the way it is currently is also not right, then we can certainly have a rational discussion about how this significant societal issue can be resolved, in the best interest of all parties.

    • AdamUndefined says:

      I think Beelzebuddy wins the internets today for proper use of “begging the question”.

  76. dson says:

    ATTN: Nicolas Chartier. it seems you have forgotten that your own movie has a one minute scene of the main character buying pirated DVDs. I would say if anything, The Hurt Locker promotes and suggests people acquire pirated movies.

  77. Anonymous says:

    No movie has the potential to make unlimited monetary profit for ever and ever and ever. In due time, this movie will be playing on cable, and eventually on free network television, over and over, for all to see, for free, whosoever would never have dropped a dime to see the movie in the first place. Just because technology has evolved to where folks can do the same thing whenever they want should not be subject to pay punitive damage. It’s arrogant, frivolous and greedy suppose otherwise.

  78. Anonymous says:

    Who’s the actual moron, here? I really enjoyed “Hurt Locker”, had planned on buying the DVD but won’t after reading this.

  79. boingaddict says:

    i hope someone will do this:

    here is the 26 bucks for the movie, but now im countersuying you for emotional trauma due to this film being so shitty that im suicidal now. here is the bill for my psychologist. haha

  80. Anonymous says:

    True, the response is overwhelmingly negative, but it proves that Chartier has no concept of the original point.

    I would GLADLY leave my house open and allow everyone in the world to come inside and use my things… IF my things digitally copied themselves infinitely and I lost nothing in doing so. It’s not like people are coming into his home and stealing the actual film. It’s a copy.

    Of course, I’m biased because as an amateur filmmaker and artist, I’m vehemently pro-file-sharing. File-sharing means more people are able to see my work and enjoy what I’ve made for them. Only greedy money hungry executives complain about people not paying them for their work. If I make a living and do what I love, that’s all I need.

  81. madara says:

    I agree. Why should you only pay if you get caught? I haven’t hear a reasonable explanation why people think it’s all right to steal a movie instead of paying a few bucks to rent it.

  82. theawesomerobot says:

    Reasonable people don’t need PR agents; Nicolas Chartier does. I wonder what he’s so angry about.

  83. MooseDesign says:

    There is nothing quite as hilarious to me as an email peppered with personal insults that signs off with “best regards”…

  84. Anonymous says:

    I don’t agree with the original emailer here, but at least he’s polite and Chartier’s response is sort of an insane overreaction. Why not just say “I’m sorry to hear that you feel that way, but this is our position…” instead of “I hope your whole family goes to jail”?

  85. jack lecou says:

    I’m seeing many comments here that I find quite disturbing, that show a complete lack of understanding of how the law in-general, and those governing copyrights in-particular, work. Many seem to think the law, as applied, should operate on the concept of “fairness”. When we talk about fairness and the law, the only thing that is supposed to be fair is how the courts apply the law “as written”.

    I think you may be misreading.

    Most of us are perfectly aware that the law in this case is rather unjust and backwards, and that Mr. Chartier is technically within his rights.

    That’s the point though: The laws should be changed and, in the mean time, creators should be dissuaded from suing their own fans. (You’re quite wrong if you think that Chartier’s hand is forced here – plenty of other studios have realized the foolishness of this kind of approach, and Chartier has no obligation to his investors to be foolish.)

  86. Anonymous says:

    Hmm. I was about to rent that flick. No More!
    Thanks for sharing.

  87. Anonymous says:

    Nic never said he pirated the movie, just that he doesn’t agree with how they are handling the situation by suing poor people.

    Seems he didn’t deserve that kind of response, and I suspect that mr. chantier didn’t really read the email completely before responding.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Look, this guy may or may not be an ass, and he may be wealthy, but pirates are only hurting themselves (because the studios and financiers are making less original content). And since no one apparently cares about anyone else in this world, pirates are directly removing jobs from the economy. It’s really simple. Sure, who cares if Tom Cruise doesn’t get $20Million, but there’s about 400 other hard working professionals who get to pay their rent and feed their families every time one feature film or one television series goes into production. I say bring on the lawsuits. Sure, the damages may be excessive, but people won’t stop unless there are actual consequences (hell, they probably won’t even stop now). And no whining about money for the people who willingly stole. Anyone who can afford a computer and broadband can rent a DVD. Honestly, all bit torrent sites should be shuttered. Anyone who actually needs to share large amounts of legal data over the web can easily and cheaply do so.

  89. ArghMonkey says:

    Nicolas has a history of sending stupid, embarrassing emails.

    His email response is no surprise.

    http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2010/02/the-hurt-locker-producer-apology-oscars-academy-awards-news.html

  90. Anonymous says:

    I get it. If you don’t sue to maintain your intellectual property, you lose the right ownership and such. It’s also pretty much including with every DVD the exact rights to a purchase or rental and if you don’t sue, you basically nullify the whole point of even putting those warnings on your product. There was however, a million better ways to address the subject that doesn’t make you a flame target and a raging (choose your own expletive) which reminds you and everyone else of all the other times you acted before you thought.

    I do believe the lawsuits are not worth the effort and that providing a reasonable price point and delivery system that reduces piracy to the utmost minimum is the best answer. Just like all of the whining that came out of the music industry until Apple and other companies proved you can make money by not keeping CDs at $20 a pop, the rest of the industry will eventually have to follow suit.

    In the meantime, people should be aware of what’s in the agreement you sign up for by cracking open that case or downloading that movie legitimately. Truth is you don’t buy a movie. You buy a piece of non-recyclable plastic or a file. Everything else is basically the limited rights that your payment allows. It’s like how you think your buying a Directv DVR from Best Buy but when you look at the finer points, you are renting it. So stop buying and rent. That Deluxe DVD Collectible Box Set isn’t worth crap anyways.

  91. JetPackTuxedo says:

    A friend streaming this (presumably illegally) online is the only way I was going to watch this. It was absolutely awful. I have no idea how it won any awards at all.

    For anyone who thought about checking it out and has now changed their mind, here is a rundown:
    “Oh look, a bomb.”
    *Diffuse bomb*
    “Oh look, another”
    loop for 2 hours

    It was seriously boring.

  92. shadowfirebird says:

    Well, I don’t agree with the response, of course, but this is sort of like emailing the pope and telling him you disapprove of his religion? He was hardly going to apologise, was he?

  93. Roy Trumbull says:

    Just another reason why You-Tube is beating the crap out of TV and films. Leave the brainless to the brainless. Real people know how to have fun.

  94. Chang says:

    Dewwwwwwwwsssssshhhhhhhhhhbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggg!!!

    Wow. What a dink.

  95. Antinous / Moderator says:

    You’re not a thief when you listen to a song on the radio because the rights holder for that music has given permission for it to be played on the radio.

    But the music industry threw a huge hissy when songs started playing on the radio. They regarded it as theft. Eventually they regarded it as advertising. It increased sales. Why are the film and music industries trying to go back to a Depression-era business model?

  96. Anonymous says:

    I sometimes wonder how companies can think that such PR nightmares as IP-based courtroom dragnets are a good idea. Now I understand.

  97. Usimian says:

    Actually I agree with Mr. Chartier. Whilst I doubt suing customers will make him any friends, the idea that downloading a movie (that cost real money to make) to watch without paying for it is definitely a crime. Unfortunately, the obviously pissed off Mr. Chartier could have used better language.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    • Anonymous says:

      Usimian, well said.

      I purchase every game/DVD/music/software I enjoy for that very reason. Haven’t pirated anything since I was an undergrad 10+ years ago. I’m just a lot more picky with what I decide to buy.

      No excuse for not proof-reading his email though, or for the juvenile response.

      This argument will always have various sides – Chartier’s response doesn’t support any of them.

    • Anonymous says:

      You might want to question it a bit deeper anytime you declare as criminal something that millions of people are doing everyday. People with no criminal history.

    • xyglyx says:

      So I take it you support the producer’s attempt to collect on the order of $1,000 from each person who robbed (I’ll stipulate to the use of that word) the producer of the perhaps $1 of revenue (probably less) that he would have received had the downloader rented the movie instead. That’s fair to you.

  98. M. Fioretti says:

    People who keep downloading everything they can are the BEST POSSIBLE allies of people like this Mr Chartier. Because, without any real need, they create the numbers that the Chartiers of the world need to convince lawmakers to vote for ACTA and similar abominations. For more on this theme, please read http://stop.zona-m.net/node/88

  99. knodi says:

    In the NPR piece about this, I heard a lawyer for this movie say “Yes, we saw a massive surge of sales after the Oscar win… but we saw a massive surge of piracy, too, and every illegal download is a lost sale. It’s a tremendous loss of money.”

    I understand if some average man-on-the-street believes the fallacy that every download is a lost sale, but, c’mon – an industry lawyer? He’s lying through his teeth!

    So I guess what this article tells me is, when a content owner like Chartier is so divorced from reality that this raving gibberish seems reasonable, there are plenty of liars who will carry his banner to further their own agenda-

    But we should be careful to distinguish between the two when we argue with them. This man needs to drive his Rolls Royce to a pharmacy and fill a prescription for chill pills… No amount of logic or reason will get through to him.

    • Anonymous says:

      If the person pirated the movie, he obviously
      a) didnt want to buy it “waste money on a bad movie”
      b) didnt care about the quality because he didnt expect the movie to be good
      or c) realizes hes already paying money out the “ass” for cable and thinks he shouldnt have to fork over EVEN MORE money for a bad movie…

  100. fyodordos says:

    Think that downloading leads to an increase in sales? Please read the later BB post on Rhino records going out of business

    • Felton says:

      Think that downloading leads to an increase in sales? Please read the later BB post on Rhino records going out of business

      The post on Rhino records doesn’t back up what you’re implying. What’s your reasoning?

    • Anonymous says:

      The rise in digital media (in this case mp3s) in general is probably the culprit for the troubles that Rhino and other record stores are having. It’s far more likely that legal outlets such as iTunes and the like are to blame, as opposed to BT sites (though I won’t deny they may play some role). Record stores are an unfortunate casualty in the shift in technology.

      As has been stated elsewhere in these comments, I believe content producers should be able to make a living (and more, if possible) off of their material, but I don’t believe that suing people into the poorhouse for downloading their material is right, either.

      Ultimately, the entertainment industry needs to come up with a better business model for generating revenue from their content online.

      And, I’d like to add, I would like to see a lot of support for “amateur” content creators and “independent” content creators who willingly make their content freely available (like Mr. Doctorow). Let’s send a message to Big Media that we don’t really need their inflated content, when individual consumer/producers can create (sometimes) more meaningful/entertaining material.

  101. TooGoodToCheck says:

    The hello whirled discussion of copying a car vs copying a movie reminded me of this
    http://www.angryflower.com/supergo.html

    I actually think that hello whirled sort of has a point; if you could copy a car as easily as you can copy a movie, it would almost certainly be illegal. Although, in that hypothetical case, it would actually make sense to pitch a lot of resources into making the most awesome car ever, and then duplicating it a lot. Except that who would want to sink in the initial cost for that first awesome car, and how would they monetize it? In the absence of a profit model, no corporation is going to want to make the investment. I think I just unintentionally argued in favor of the BBC?

    • hello whirled says:

      I actually think that hello whirled sort of has a point; if you could copy a car as easily as you can copy a movie, it would almost certainly be illegal

      Yes! That’s a big part of my point.

      I’m not arguing for gargantuan lawsuits.

      I *am* arguing that someone who blithely says, “But it’s easy to copy a digital movie, so it’s ok!” is terribly misguided and doesn’t appreciate intellectual labor and the value of it.

      I *am* arguing that creators of something — whether it’s a Ferrari that you love, or a movie that you love — have the right to ask you to compensate them for their work.

      I *am* arguing that you should reward the creativity that you consider valuable.

  102. fyodordos says:

    Think that downloading leads to an increase in sales? Please read the later BB post on Rhino Records going out of business

  103. Anonymous says:

    Interesting because the movie probably only got its academy award by giving away free DVDs to academy members.

  104. Sam Fletcher says:

    BoingBoing reader: “I will boycott your movies.” Voltage prez: “Go ahead, see if I care.”
    Not seeing any break in the logical chain here tbh.

  105. Wingo says:

    Ummm… cocaine is a helluva drug (and and expensive habit)?

  106. the_pants says:

    Since I work in the television industry, I understand the argument against piracy. However, these lawsuits are wrong. Here’s why:

    Not everyone on this list are guilty. Yet, because of jerks like Nicolas Chartier, innocent people will be put through economic and psychological hardships that they don’t deserve, because some on that list are completely innocent of the accusations.

    By filing a lawsuit, Voltage Pictures will force innocent people to hire lawyers, and in some cases even SETTLE, without ever having pirated their film. I’m sure some families will be sued, and innocent parents and family members will be dragged into tens of thousands of dollars worth of costs. When a 14 year-old commits a crime, the parents don’t go to prison with them, and a public defender is always an option. In a lawsuit, everyone with an economic connection to the sued can be devastated for decades. In the end, Voltage won’t be able to collect from many of these bankrupted families, but hey, their destroyed lives will help Nicolas Chartier sleep better at night, because he made innocent people an example to the real crooks WHO COULD CARE LESS.

    Whether they are guilty or not, Nicolas Chartier will gladly take the money and put it in his own pocket. That’s the definition, in my opinion, of a dirtbag.

    And in the end, I can guarantee that Nicolas Chartier has broken this law himself. He’s ripped a friend’s music CD once in his life – no difference there Nicolas, try holding yourself as accountable as you hold others.

  107. chasuk says:

    Chartier’s response was extreme, but I didn’t interpret Boing Boing reader Mr. Redacted’s letter as “very polite” (which is how Xeni Jardin described it).

    It threatened in the second sentence, lectured in the next two, then threatened again (in the form of an ultimatum) for the entire final paragraph.

    If the letter had succinctly explained the benefits of free (though unauthorized) distribution, perhaps Chartier would have been less hostile.

    Engaging your opponent in dialogue before the attack is nearly always a wise strategy.

  108. Anonymous says:

    Ya, there’s a real irony here. Small production films have been showing up at the Oscars *because* the people that are illegally downloading them are spreading word of mouth.

    So, this douche produces a film that wins an Oscar on the cheap. You can’t even find it in theatres, but because people are talking about (thanks in no small part to torrenting, I guarantee), it catches on and beats out a mega monolith Avatar.

    Except that captain douche doesn’t even pick up his Oscar in person because he can’t keep his mouth shut and sends an asinine email bashing Avatar that gets him banned from the Oscar ceremony. Ya that was him too. So I guess if that’s his attitude towards the Oscar committee, then this tongue lashing to nick in Toronto should come as no surprise.

    One more thing – don’t dictate to me what’s ethical. You can tell me what’s illegal, that’s factual, but dictating ethics is record industry propaganda. People are dying all over the world because they can’t afford medication with patents on it. Is that ethical?

    The very history of art is the processing and re-shuffeling of previous works. That’s why you get an arts degree be reading things and consuming art, not by isolating yourself on a desert island.

  109. abstract_reg says:

    Christ. What an asshole.

  110. ryanrafferty says:

    I agree with Nicholas- I think suing the users who download his movie is the legally correct thing to do– let a judge sort this out. I do not agree with his tired analogy of comparing copyright infringement to theft- but I guess I am picking nits.

    • ryanrafferty says:

      I am not sure if it’s Kosher to reply to my own post… but I think what would be fair is that a 100% upload or download is assigned the value of $26.99 (the ‘new’ dvd price at amazon.com)…

      The court should add the amount uploaded and downloaded per bit torrent user, and send them the bill… so if one person download 100% of the movie, then uploaded 50% to other users, they would be ordered to pay: $40.49. In exchange the Plaintiffs would be ordered to provide each defendant a copy of the DVD after any trace of the pirated version is deleted from their system.

      Don’t you think that would be fair?

      • bkdotcom says:

        That would be much closer… but….
        “… so if one person download 100% of the movie, then uploaded 50% (they should pay for 1.5 copies)”

        Someone else obviously downloaded that 50% that was uploaded.. Both the sender and receiver each pay the full amount? Each copy is actually netting 2x retail.

        If I buy a DVD from amazon (lets keep the $26.99 value) they don’t send $53.98 to the studio.

      • EricT says:

        Kind of what I was saying but I would only charge the recipient and not allow court, make it a magistrate kind of thing where the burden of proof is on the production house and the required proof is say… torrent tracker logs. KISS principal

        • ryanrafferty says:

          I do think there should be some kind of punitive damages only when someone exceeds a 100% upload/download ratio… If I just leech the movie, and am ordered to pay the market value for it, and I am given a physical copy and an order to delete the pirated version– that would seem fair, and justice would served.

          The punitive damages should be applied to those who upload more of the movie… and the reason is: this discourages other (perhaps less honest) production companies from attempting to sabotage their competitors by uploading 200,000 GBs of data to pirates in order to undermine sales… I think the settlement should, at the very least, fit the crime…

          • EricT says:

            Sure I dont disagree with you. I jsut do not want to ruin some poor family and at the same time allow a legitimate business to profit off or thier effort.

            So keep it really small and bill the downloaders of the content with punitive damages to the torrent uploader.

            No Lawyers allowed, No Middlemen so paramount gets 100% if the 18.99. Essentially decriminalize data sharing but if caught you have to pay fair market for what you got.

          • zio_donnie says:

            yeh because that worked with drugs in america didnt it?

            fun fact: much of Europe has not a legal concept of punitive damages. The punishment must fit the crime is all.

          • EricT says:

            As far as I know drugs were never decriminalized in America.
            If I did not make my point clear let me try again.

            Parking ticket like fine plus average retail value of product to uploader.

            Average retail value to downloader

            Retail returns to content owners

            30 dollar “Punitive” fine to municipality where case heard

            No courts No Lawyers
            I trip to the magistrate Up down decision on guilt or innocence Pay the damage and walk.

            Again Fair and Equitable

          • zio_donnie says:

            You were very clear and i agree with what you say. I was just pointing out that the US of A is not famous for being Fair and Equitable. And it has a terrible track record dealing with victimless crimes. You can go to jail for owning a glass tube is what i am saying.

            600.000 $ for 24 songs. I rest my case.

          • EricT says:

            Ah, Then understand that that is what I propose so that there are no longer 600 large judgements for downloading lady ga ga

            As a Democrat I was glad that Hollywood backed Obama. Unfortunatly it is time to pay the piper and that means horrible legislation like the DMCA. My whole point is to find a way to change the laws to fall in line with modern technology.

            Actually Down loading Lady Ga Ga should be mandantory Stoning

          • zio_donnie says:

            Why exactly where you happy that Hollywood backed up Obama? Also what exactly did you expect from Obama?

            Best wishes for your noble goal but i sincerely doubt that anything can be done for you. In America you have handed your civil and human rights to mthrfkin Disney and your courts believe that downloading a movie merits the same punishment as say rape and murder and in any case will take nothing less of the financial destruction of a family. The tragedy is that some people find this right, just and normal.

            We in the rest of the world just to try to avoid DMCA aids that your government tries to spread around with little tricks like the ACTA.

            Smallpox blankets: we dont want them.

      • Sea Daddy says:

        This guy has about got it right. If you get caught, make it similar to a traffic ticket. On the other hand, his posession of MY name and MY IP address, and his unauthorized use of them is a violation of my unique copyrighted name and IP address, and I will demand payment accordingly.

    • tmat says:

      Judge? You do realize 90% of these “cases” will be settled out of court. The accused will get a letter or a phone call demanded a few thousand, or they’ll get sued for a few million.

      Since many won’t even be able to afford to fight, they’ll just empty their savings a pay. It’s basically extortion.

  111. nexusheli says:

    Nicholas’ email and intent were incredible polite, simple and informative. Nicolas’ response was anything but.

    To take the advisory that someone is boycotting your company as some sort of implied admission of guilt is completely outrageous. Anyone that agrees with Mr. Chartier’s response is ignorant; of course he’s right that it costs money, but to personally attack someone for criticizing his company’s actions is childish and unbecoming someone in his position.

    It’s always amazed me how uncouth/dumb/out of touch people in power can be…

  112. holtt says:

    Nicholas, I think using the “not intending to profit” argument is weak. Yes, the vast majority had no intent to profit. Their intent was to not spend money. They looked at the cost on Amazon or in Borders, and they thought, “Screw that, I’m downloading it for free.”

  113. Anonymous says:

    Hiya Nick…

    Was gonna rent the Hurt Locker cuz I heard it was good. Now, just gonna borrow a torrent from a friend. A**hole.

    Danny

  114. EricT says:

    His analogy completely falls apart. the better analogy would be to have people come into my house and make exact copies of my stuff and take the copies home and use them.

    I believe in the inte of Copyright laws. Their current enforcement is an abomination.
    I believe that Filmmakers and Artists of all stripes have every right to monitize their work and if good enough they should be able to make a living at it.

    The behavior of Trade groups is a travisty and is only trying to fuerther line their pockets with punitive damages.

    I have a solution to propose
    Remove punitive damages. Those found guilty only have to pay fair market value for thier copyright infringement.

    That seems fair and equitable

    • kmoser says:

      His analogy completely falls apart. the better analogy would be to have people come into my house and make exact copies of my stuff and take the copies home and use them.

      Your analogy would be apt only if all the stuff in your house cost you millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to design and construct, just like it cost Hollywood to produce The Hurt Locker.

      Problem is, you probably bought your furniture from Ikea and Target and wouldn’t give a hoot if somebody cloned your copies. Why? Because you don’t make a living selling copies of the furniture you produce.

    • entropy says:

      the problem with a punishment that has you pay the cost for what you copied and no more is that you have no reason to buy anything after that. copy as much as you can, and only pay for what you get caught copying. For this obvious reason the punishent must be more severe then simply paying the value of what you copied. What the powers that be are handing down as punishment is far excessive and seems to be punishing a person as an example to hopefully scare others.

      • bmcraec says:

        What’s wrong with that? It’s what currently happens on Wall Street. The markets are continuously being manipulated by people looking to wring yet more money out of thin air. That’s what the DVD business is. The tiny overhead that is DVD production, packaging, shipping, sales & accounting is SERIOUSLY covered many times over by the retail price of the IDENTICAL COPY of the the thing of value: the bits that are encoded on the plastic. Remove the DVD, streamline the process to easy one-click online viewing, and the overheads are slashed by yet more orders of magnitude.

        Movie makers want to make sure that every single pair of eyes have to pay to receive the digits from their efforts, they’ll have to figure out scanning the memories of the people who have or haven’t seen their products.

        Charging for using a virtually free medium of distribution is adding more costs than are currently there. The accounting systems cost more to implement, then to run, than the cost of the transmission media the accounting systems meter.

        It’s basically digging holes, then filling them in, then charging you for the great job they’re doing. Just stop digging the holes. There’ll still be plenty of money in the system to pay everyone who actually CREATES the content. And the recipients of the content will be happy to return value for the value they have received.

        That’s my 2¢ worth.

    • Anonymous says:

      Perhaps he didn’t use the best analogy, but anyone saying he’s wrong because “You still have your furniture” is *completely* missing the point. Of course you don’t care if someone takes copies of your furniture, you’re not making a living from them. But if you were a carpenter selling dressers, and someone invents a button that magically makes copies of it for anyone, anytime, for free, it’s killed your livelihood, and you’re going to have a problem with that.

      Downloaders aren’t stealing the movie, they’re stealing the money that would have been made in DVD sales, rentals, or movie tickets. No, every download isn’t a lost sale, but some percentage of them are, and it’s perfectly reasonable to be pissed off about it.

  115. Anonymous says:

    I’m sure Metallica would shoot Mr. Chartier double devil horns. You rock pussbag!

  116. zandar says:

    “wtf did we expect?”

    His position is so well known and controversial, I really thought lawyers might have stepped in by now and provided a handy form reply so he wouldn’t have to fuck with it.

    But clearly this is the sort of man who WANTS to fuck with it.

  117. Anonymous says:

    heaven help me, but…

    yes the guy has an acid tongue

    yes the lawsuits are heavy-handed

    but wtf did we expect?

    lots of successful film producers are self-possessed screaming intimidators. why on earth would they care about bystanders complaining about their legal actions?

    is the guy a wanker? based on his response, probably.

    but he’s sleeping on a pile of money and i’m schlepping it at a desk all day. trade (business) places? absolutely.

    • Anonymous says:

      > why on earth would they care about bystanders complaining about their legal actions?

      B/c what he says now days gets posted on youtube/the internet?

  118. Anonymous says:

    “There is no difference: There are costs associated with making *any* product, whether it’s a cupcake or a movie. The fact that it’s cheaper or easier to make duplicates of one (a movie) than the other (a cupcake), doesn’t justify theft.”

    So….. when I bake my own cupcakes at home, I’m a thief?

    Who’s making fallacious arguments?

    Copying and consuming media that I wouldn’t have been interested in otherwise, and thereby not spending money I didn’t even have in the first place may be copyright infringement and illegal, but it’s certainly not a lost sale. Therefore constructing the argument that I’m thieving “potential” money that didn’t exist in the first place strikes me as highly dubious.

    I also highly resent being put into everybody’s accounting as a potential sale for everything. Believe me I’m not; exhibit A: there are plenty of music and movies that aren’t even worth stealing.

  119. lasttide says:

    I’m just struck by his horrendously poor writing. This is a guy in charge of a production company?

    His complete dismissal of the obvious fact that downloading doesn’t actually take anything from him is pretty sad also. The “open house” analogy doesn’t hold up at all.

  120. Anonymous says:

    Jesus… it’s pretty apparent why Voltage is trying to squeeze every last dime out of the Hurt Locker once you take a look at their other films.

  121. Anonymous says:

    If people steal all your furniture and possessions, you don’t still have your furniture and possessions. If people download your movie, you still have your movie.

    But what do you expect from a guy who tried to cheat in the Academy Awards? The guy has no idea what’s going on.

  122. Sleepybat says:

    I’ve just taken ‘The Hurt Locker’ off my love film list.

    I’ve never downloaded media from a BT. If I like a film, TV show or Album I’m happy to pay for it, that’s fair. However its hard to justify what the film and music industries are doing to those people that have not paid for enjoying (or not) their media. Ruining peoples lives is a very shabby way to go about protecting your IP. Don’t even get me started on what they are persuading governments to pass as Copyright law and internet legislation.

    No matter how much imaginary money these people believe they have lost through downloads, it simply does not justify their actions against the public.

  123. za7ch says:

    Wow. Now I just want to BT the shit out of this asshole’s movie.

  124. fsck says:

    I’ve got to say, I’m with Nicholas on this. You called him out and told him you think he sucks, he told you to go fuck yourself. In his position I’d have done the same. Perhaps with more eloquence, but at least the guy has a passion for his job.

    • querent says:

      “You called him out and told him you think he sucks, he told you to go fuck yourself.”

      You don’t see a difference in tone, friend?

      To say, “While it is completely understandable that Voltage Pictures wishes to defend its intellectual property, this is an inhumane way of doing so,” is to send a valid market signal.

      To call someone a “moron” after they make a valid and reasonably worded (ie non-inflammatory) point is to call yourself out to no end.

      Here’s to big content making the spirit of their endeavor clear.

      • fsck says:

        “You don’t see a difference in tone, friend?”

        I think I also made it clear that I would likely have been a tad more eloquent in my response. Being rude doesn’t make you wrong, but it often makes you sound like a petulant dick.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          I think I also made it clear that I would likely have been a tad more eloquent in my response.

          Actually, you’ve made it pretty clear that you’re incapable of doing so. Do you read your own comments?

          • fsck says:

            “Actually, you’ve made it pretty clear that you’re incapable of doing so.”

            Trolling or hypersensitive? Either way, I’m not getting into a pissing contest in a comments thread.

        • querent says:

          “Being rude doesn’t make you wrong, but it often makes you sound like a petulant dick.”

          True. But petulant dicks are usually less likely to have thought this stuff through. :)

          And the original email said nothing like “you suck.” There is no semantic content in that. There was semantic content in the original email. Not so for the reply.

  125. Willie McBride says:

    Nice. I bet he is going to sue BoingBoing for publishing his intellectual property (the email) without permission…

    I haven’t seen ‘The Hurt Locker’ yet. I was moderately interested in it and figured I was going to rent it soon, but between the lawsuit and this email I think I’m going to pass. I’ve got better uses for my money than giving it to people like this Nicolas Chartier.

  126. davidasposted says:

    I am curious about how many of the folks charged in this case downloaded the film prior to its DVD release on 12 January 2010?

    Prior to this date, most moviegoers simply did not have access to Hurt Locker because of its limited release. For nearly a month after the North American release, the film was shown in only 9 theaters. As far as I can tell, at its peak it showed in about 500 theaters across the continent. In comparison to other ‘Best Picture’ Oscar winners, Titanic (1997) opened to 2,674 theaters and expanded considerably afterwards. Even smaller initial releases like No Country For Old Men (initial release in 28 theaters) eventually expanded to reach a much wider audience (No Country showed at 2,037 theaters).

    So… for a majority of the time that Hurt Locker has been available to the average person in theory, in practice it simply hasn’t. If you live in most places around North America, you couldn’t see Hurt Locker even if you wanted to. Unless, of course, you downloaded a copy in anticipation of the DVD release eight months later.

    In summary:

    Mr. Chartier: You cannot claim that a majority of people who downloaded the film would otherwise have seen it in theaters if your distributor didn’t make it available to that same majority of people.

  127. Anonymous says:

    I don’t condone pirating, but I think his logic is flawed in this letter. I’m sure most people would gladly give let others take copies of their house furniture if it took little or no effort to produce them.

  128. davidasposted says:

    Oops, forgive the formatting errors.

  129. grimc says:

    Chartier should realize he’s getting off pretty easy. How many hours of people’s lives did he steal with the turd that was “The Mutant Chronicles”?

  130. Anonymous says:

    What a complete and utter asshole. I’m sure his compatriots in this production are loving his involvement now. Could he possibly make himself look worse? I suppose we shall see – I doubt we will have to wait long.

  131. Daedalus says:

    I want to find this guy’s e-mail addy and send him this

  132. AirPillo says:

    Dear concerned fan:

    SNARRRRRL WOOOF BARK BARK BARK RAAAAAAAAGE!!!!

    P.S.- I hate you.

  133. Anonymous says:

    I hope they are also tracking the dip in DVD sales experiences immediately following the lawsuit filings.

  134. Anonymous says:

    If there’s anything to take from this, it’s that people are horrible at analogies.

    Copyright infringement isn’t analogous to stealing because in theft the object is removed from the possession of the rightful owner.
    In copyright infringement, no such removal of property takes place, rather, the loss is in profits that could’ve been made selling that property.

    However, it’s also not analogous to people coming into your home and making copies of your furniture for themselves. In this case, you don’t experience a loss since you weren’t trying to sell the property they’ve made copies of.

    However, the problem here is determining how much of a loss is actually experienced as there’s no reason to assume that someone who makes a copy for free would’ve otherwise bought a full priced DVD if copying wasn’t possible.
    That’s like assuming that just as many people would buy the DVD if it cost 5 cents as if it costed $20.

  135. Roger Wilco says:

    After browsing a lot of responses, I found precious few out of the 210+ that actually try to refute Chartier’s comments. Most of you just want to bash but I don’t think you guys can actually put together a meaningful counter-argument of why downloading/watching/seeding his movie for free is justifiable.

    “Just because I can” isn’t a good reason nor is it defensable.

    To planaplagiarism: They made the product, they get to decide how much they want to charge for it. Your only decision is whether you want to buy it for that price, not whether you should steal it because you think spending $1 at the local redbox to rent the movie is too expensive.

    • planaplagiarism says:

      to exclude “illegal” choices is ignorant. the people have quietly spoken. if we adopt the attitude of prohibition/ war on drugs, in that we restrict the unrestrictable (in the sense that technology affords this freedom, and without it, we are no longer free), we’ll get the same result, and then we’ll see how successful they are at changing natural human behavior. bow to the people’s will, or your industry will die. it’s amazing that the film industry spends so much money sampling audiences to find out what we like in our movies, but they refuse to listen to what we would say about how you’re making our movies.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      They made the product, they get to decide how much they want to charge for it.

      A fascinatingly earnest and oft-repeated meme that has no basis in economics. Buyers, not sellers, determine price. Especially when scarcity is not an issue. The exception, of course, is when prices are regulated. This lawsuit nonsense is an attempt by the entertainment industry to use government resources to regulate prices. Because it’s cheaper and easier for them to get the government to do their work than for them to develop a business model that takes current technology into account.

      • hello whirled says:

        “They made the product, they get to decide how much they want to charge for it.”
        A fascinatingly earnest and oft-repeated meme that has no basis in economics. Buyers, not sellers, determine price.

        That’s not quite right. The *market* determines the price — meaning, the meeting between buyer and seller. The buyer alone doesn’t determine the price.

        Example: I might consider buying a cupcake, or an mp3, for $1.29. But in the end, I decide the cost is too high. So, I don’t buy it after all. If enough other people feel like me, then the seller needs to adjust the pricing to attract more buyers.

        However — and this is important — the fact that I think $1.29 is too much for that product doesn’t justify my paying $0 for it. In other words, it doesn’t justify my stealing that mp3 or cupcake.

        My local cupcake shop (or the music label) might go out of business because they fail to get their pricing right. But that doesn’t justify theft, either.

        (Note: trying to abandon the Ferrari example here!)

        • failix says:

          First of all, stop using these analogies, they won’t work. You’re comparing digital copies to physical copies. There are costs associated to the making of physical copies. There are no costs in the making of digital copies. You don’t need to remake a movie each time you want to show it, view it, or sell it, but you have to remake a cupcake each time you want to eat it. As long as you don’t get these basic concepts you will make the same mistakes and fallacious arguments over and over again, and in the end no one will bother to take you seriously on this issue.

          And as someone already said in this thread: don’t use the word “theft” to describe copyright infringement. It’s unauthorized copying; not unauthorized taking.

          • hello whirled says:

            You’re comparing digital copies to physical copies. There are costs associated to the making of physical copies.

            There is no difference: There are costs associated with making *any* product, whether it’s a cupcake or a movie. The fact that it’s cheaper or easier to make duplicates of one (a movie) than the other (a cupcake), doesn’t justify theft.

            And it is theft, my friend.

            As long as you don’t get these basic concepts, you will make the same mistakes and fallacious arguments over and over again, and in the end no one will bother to take you seriously on this issue. (tee hee!)

          • holtt says:

            Keep up the fight Hello Whirled. I agree with your thoughts, and it’s refreshing to hear a more middle of the road argument for once.

          • hello whirled says:

            it’s refreshing to hear a more middle of the road argument for once

            Thank you, holtt! I’m gobsmacked by some of the comments, which seem driven more by anger than logic. Ah well.

          • failix says:

            “There are costs associated with making *any* product”

            If you simply ignored it or didn’t understand it the first time, I doubt repeating it will help… but here I go anyway: If you say digital copies are a “product” or a “good”, which IMO is a mistake, then there actually are products to which ZERO costs are associated. If you don’t regard digital copies as products, then I agree with you; there are costs associated with making any product. There are still no costs associated with making digital copies. That’s not a very controversial statement btw…

            “And it is theft, my friend.”

            We could debate whether or not it’s morally equal to theft, but in the end it won’t matter because the law doesn’t regard copyright infringement as theft. And I’m not your friend.

            @bboyneko:

            “In this case you are taking a copy without paying.”

            No you’re not. You’re making a copy without permission. Aka copyright infringement. Whine and shout “theft” as much as you want; the court won’t agree with you (see Dowling v U.S. 1985).

  136. Anonymous says:

    Those interested in boycotting chartier’s work might try the boycott toolkit at http://boy.co.tt

  137. Sork says:

    Remember, if you buy the DVD and let a friend watch it together with you – you are stealing one DVD-sale from Mr. Chartier.

  138. Anonymous says:

    He’s just another in a long line of fools who analyzes a spreadsheet of how many times Hurt Locker has been downloaded on BitTorrent and mistakenly believes each entry is a person who would have purchased a ticket.

  139. redesigned says:

    The whole lost sale concept is total rubbish. if you download did they lose that sale? if you watch with a friend or family, did they lose those sales? if you checkout from a library did they lose that sale? if you netflix or rent did they lose that sale? if you buy a used copy did they lose that sale? if you give away or loan your copy did they lose that sale? all those behaviors have the exact same result, yet only one is a crime?

    What if you are not near a library and consider bittorrent a virtual online library. You check out movies and books via download and delete them after you view/read them. if you want to keep a copy, you buy it. it seems strange that one is considered the ideal of an enlightened society and the other a crime.

    it amazes me that the industry has brainwashed the public to think that copying is stealing. even if it is illegal to copy something, illegal duplication is a very different crime from stealing. guess all the money they are spending to misinform the public is paying off based on the mindless parroting of their talking points.

  140. Galadriel says:

    Ooookey dokey.

    I’ve never downloaded a movie. I heartily disagree that it is theft (theft is criminal; copyright is civil). I do think it’s right to support artists, authors, etc if you’re going to be using their work.

    With that said, I need a convenient list of Voltage Pictures productions so I can be sure never to watch them in any way…

    • grimc says:

      You can see a list of Voltage’s movies at their website. And once you do, you’ll see that your threat is kind of empty…

  141. Anonymous says:

    Well now, I’m so glad I’m not as smart as Mr. Chartier.

  142. PeaceLove says:

    Two things:

    1. The Hurt Locker is awesome, a tight, terse thriller. Don’t hold Chartier’s douchebaggery against the film and it’s talented director Kathryn Bigelow. She also made Near Dark, after all!

    2. Creators do not have an inherent right to monetize their creations. Like everyone else, they only get paid if they have a viable business model. The old business model depended on scarcity and worked out great for a small number of artists and some giant corporations. But now that model is over. Time for a new one.

    A working business model precludes the need to sue hundreds of millions of people who freely and frictionlessly share bits. A model that depends on controlling everyone’s bits — and encouraging a surveillance state in order to do so — is a bad, broken and dangerous model. The only reason digital copying is illegal is because large content owners have basically bribed Congress to make it that way. Digital copies are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, which makes them a Public Good, not private property.

    A healthy business model recognizes this fact and tries to monetize a different part of the process. It has always been the case that a lot of art doesn’t get made because the creators don’t know how to pay for it. The advent of torrenting changes the parameters but it doesn’t change that essential fact about art production. If your business model is obsolete and you want to continue making films…you shouldn’t sue your customers, you should figure out a new business model.

    • planaplagiarism says:

      Yes! yes, yes, yes! it may be because i’m drunk, but, who wants to start a think tank and solve all the world’s problems? tonight? as i’ve already said, i have a few thinking beers in me. :)

  143. hello whirled says:

    That’s certainly an intemperate email from Mr. Chartier.

    But Nicholas’s argument is flat wrong: It doesn’t matter whether the downloaders intend to profit. If that’s the bar for legality, I could walk into a Ferrari dealership, and take a Ferrari, as long as I didn’t intend to profit from the car.

    Or I could walk into a movie theater, sit down, and refuse to buy a ticket, becasue I didn’t intend to profit from the viewing.

    Or I could buy a Kindle, download lots of wonderful e-books, charge them to my Visa, then refuse to honor my Visa bill because I didn’t intend to profit from those downloads.

    Do you see the problem with that argument, Nicholas?

    • insert says:

      You’ve missed the point.

      When you steal the Ferrari, the dealership doesn’t have it anymore.

      When you sneak into a movie, the theater has one fewer seat it can sell.

      When you “steal” a movie, the movie is still there. There’s just one more movie in the world. See the difference?

      • TooGoodToCheck says:

        Except that if you could walk in to a Ferrari dealership, and just make a copy of a shiny new car, then the dealership technically hasn’t lost anything – there’s just one more car in the world. Except that if that were actually possible, then Ferrari would promptly go out of business.

        I don’t consider myself to be a copyright maximalist, and Mr. Chartier does seem to be a bag of dicks, _but_ I strongly disagree with this notion that downloading copyrighted material becomes legal or moral just because it’s for personal use or no one is profiting from it.

        Large media productions require an environment of artificial scarcity to turn a profit from their investment. I don’t have a good solution for that.

        • insert says:

          Except that if you could walk in to a Ferrari dealership, and just make a copy of a shiny new car, then the dealership technically hasn’t lost anything – there’s just one more car in the world. Except that if that were actually possible, then Ferrari would promptly go out of business.

          Yeah, if I could just *copy* a Ferrari, Ferrari’d be screwed. But that’s why Ferrari (as a company) and Ferraris (as individual cars) are so valuable: they can’t be easily copied. Very few of us have the metalworking or engineering skills to do that.

          Large media productions require an environment of artificial scarcity to turn a profit from their investment. I don’t have a good solution for that.

          You just hit the nail on the head. Why should the government be guaranteeing large media conglomerates a profit via the legal system’s artificial scarcity?

          I’m willing to accept that we may have less “art” if we accept the profit-wrecking implications of filesharing. But I’m not sure we’ll miss the corporate art that is motivated by profit. I think I might rather have the art that is created for its own sake: ars gratia artis.

          • pauldavis says:

            Yeah, if I could just *copy* a Ferrari, Ferrari’d be screwed. But that’s why Ferrari (as a company) and Ferraris (as individual cars) are so valuable: they can’t be easily copied. Very few of us have the metalworking or engineering skills to do that

            Once again, someone is confusing the two different processes of “making” and “copying”. In the case of the Ferrari, these two processes are essentially identical – copying a Ferrari is essentially as hard as making a Ferrari. But in the case of media that can be rendered in digital form, the process of making the original and the process of making a copy are not at all similar. And very few of us have the film/music-making skills to make the things that we do have the ability to trivially copy. A failure to distinguish between “the making of” and “the copying of” is at the heart of a lot of confusion in the “free culture” debates.

      • Olly McPherson says:

        I don’t see the difference. I see a poor rationalization for using someone’s work without their permission.

      • hello whirled says:

        Actually, you’ve missed the point.

        Allow me to school you.

        Ferrari sells copies of the Ferraris it manufactures. Movie makers sell copies of the movies they make.

        The process of selling these copies — Ferraris, or movies — is how the creators of each earn money to continue doing what they do.

        You don’t have to buy either. Maybe you hate Ferraris or like Tauruses better. Ditto for movies that you may or may not like. That’s personal choice. But to pretend there’s a difference in the two products — that one product should be free to you, simply because it takes a different form — is unsophisticated on your part.

        • EricT says:

          That would apply if the produciton company had to shoot each and every copy of the film.

          Ferrari Manufactures cars and sells those. there is of course inherent cost in each copy.
          What is the cost aside from bandwidth in copying bits. Not zero but infintesimal. The cost is the $18.99 retail value of the DVD.

          • hello whirled says:

            there is of course inherent cost in each copy [of a Ferrari]

            The same is true of movies.

            It’s easier to take a copy of a movie than a Ferrari. That doesn’t make it right.

          • insert says:

            What’s the inherent cost in making the instance of a movie that I (hypothetically*) download from BitTorrent?

            The only cost is of bandwidth (which I pay for and the seeders pay for) and of minimal wear and tear to my hard drive and to those of the seeders. The movie producers/distributors incur absolutely zero cost when I download the movie.

            *I really don’t care for movies that much, so I don’t to pirate them. I don’t really have the attention span.

        • delt664 says:

          Something tells me the school of hello whirled is unaccredited…..you just demonstrated that you have a terrible grasp of the copy issue.

          Lets try this: Using my own materials and time, I create a perfect replica of a Ferarri for my personal use. In doing so, I have possibly deprived Ferarri of the $300,000 that car costs, less manufacturing, distribution, and middleman costs (if they never incurred those costs, they cannot be losses). Its also possible that I would have never paid in the first place but I digress….

          Assuming I have infringed on Ferarri’s copyright by creating an unauthorized copy, should I be sued for punitive damages in excess of 50,000 times the cost of the item in question? In the case of a DVD, this works out to around 1 million dollars, and is not unheard of.

          In the case of the Ferarri, the punitive damages would be 15,000,000,000 or about 7.9 times the gross annual sales of Ferarri. Thats fair, right?

          Hey, heres an idea – if you get caught infringing on copyright (for no profit), you pay double the cost of the item you infringed upon.

          (this post is copyrighted by Delt664, and any reproduction of any kind including within your memory is expressly forbidden and punished by fines of up to $15 trillion dollars US)

          • hello whirled says:

            Assuming I have infringed on Ferarri’s copyright by creating an unauthorized copy, should I be sued for punitive damages in excess of 50,000 times the cost of the item in question?

            Show me where I argued in favor of this.

            The “School of Hello Whirled” might be unaccredited, as you say — but you must have flunked debate class!

          • delt664 says:

            Show me where I claimed you argued in favor of that.

            You were caught up in a hypothetical that was very skewed.. I just brought the Ferarri analogy back into line with the reality of copyright issues. But thanks for playing.

  144. Amsterdaam says:

    If they just sued the people for the price of a DVD, I’d be A-OK with it. Get caught, pay for the movie.

  145. alisong76 says:

    Chances are, had I ever gotten around to downloading The Hurt Locker and liked it, I’d have bought a legit copy. I like to have proper copies of movies I like – movies that deserve my money.

    But considering I wouldn’t go near this flick now, we’re never going to know for sure.

  146. hpavc says:

    You could download a dvd copy of the movie during the festival, its been around for a long time. It was a popular download at the time. When the movie got its awards it got another bump.

    My guess is that the downloading of the movie helped its success and this would be born out by other artists claiming similar activities I think

    I am also guessing that a lot of people in the military or similar that disliked it downloaded it to qq about it. Its “i take my bomb suit off now” stuff is over the top and insultingly stupid.

  147. Autoharpy says:

    Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but aren’t the hurt locker producers being sued for stealing someone’s life story? I know the law is supposed to be that you’re innocent until proven guilty, but if they did indeed steal somone’s life story – which is worse, stealing somone’s life story or stealing digital media? (I haven’t seen the movie and don’t care to).

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

  148. aleezy says:

    well, at least there is still a reasonably intact infrastructure to charge people to see a film. mr. chartier should try the music industry on for size. everyone there has grown accustomed to getting robbed and has simply stopped locking the door.

    i don’t think people would be downloading illegally nearly as much if the mark-up for films, music, etc. hadn’t been so exorbitant for decades. why does it continue to be, i wonder? a cd is still ~$14 and a film is anywhere from $11-20 if you’re talking 3d. it would be so easy to meet the consumer halfway and still profit.

  149. LX says:

    I haven’t yet seen his film yet, but if it is only half as bad as his answer, I don’t want to anyway. Even if one half of his argument is correct (movies are made to earn money), screwing your own potential customers doesn’t seem such a good idea if you start to think logically about it.

    Greetings, LX

  150. DrClue says:

    Firstly , I must say that the idea that every illegal download is a lost sale is purely delusional. Most things I might download , I would never have bought or rented, so no money has been lost in those cases.

    On the other hand , some things I’ve seen
    as a result of them having been downloaded
    have indeed caused me to make a purchase
    that I never before that would have considered
    doing.

    This week alone saw the purchase of two titles
    that if it were not for *someone* having
    downloaded related materials never would have been
    purchased.

    Has it ever occurred to the industry types
    where most of them illegal uploads come from?
    You guessed it , purchased materials! ! !

    Many bittorrent sites operate much like competitions to see who can upload the most stuff
    and folks actually buy materials to upload.

    I know this might seem an odd marketing model
    but perhaps the next bit torrent site should be run by the recording industry

    It takes time to download materials , and if one sees something like a season of some TV show
    it does often translate to real world sales.

    It has for me at least.

    The movie and recording industry is willing to spend billions on marketing , but does not understand that this IS marketing

  151. irishdaze says:

    Since the e-mail address is part of the correspondence, I think it’s a shame that it wasn’t included. I think EVERYONE should e-mail their feelings to that guy.

    • Anonymous says:

      Let’s unredact it then:

      Downloading the movie to put it on long-term seeding. Just because I’m in a piracy friendly Asian country, and they can’t touch me. Even thought it looks like utter war propaganda rubbish, I will never watch it and don’t really want to promote it. But I really don’t want these dirtbags to get any money.

      How the hell did the Academy Award go to this? I know it’s just a golden butt-plug anymore anyway, but this movie looks like such utter crap.

      Oh right, because it was against at least two movies that might make people think and reconsider the power structures of the world: avatar and district 9. Have to do something to keep them from spreading their message any further.

      Hey, Chartier: Fuck You. Hope you go bankrupt and have to go on food stamps, as may well happen to at least one of the victims of your state enabled violence.

  152. Anonymous says:

    I’d like to type him an email like this:
    “Dear producer, your movie had a premiere in our theatres like 2 months ago. I dunno when it was showed to public for the first time in the US, but considering my brother managed to obtain a DVD RIP COPY of your movie IN NOVEMBER 2009, I guess your lawsuit idea is now as useless as an attempt to fix broken brakes on a car after crashing your neighbour’s house. The movie rip is squatting on the ‘net for long time now and all attempts to remove it from the net or make people stop downloading it is futile. Best regards and best luck,
    Peter”

  153. Antinous / Moderator says:

    This guy is already a laughingstock. In a town that takes Paris Hilton seriously.

    • CheshireKitty says:

      “This guy is already a laughingstock. In a town that takes Paris Hilton seriously.”

      Yow!

      Best. Comment. EVER.

  154. Anonymous says:

    This calls for a “bad review” campaign on Amazon!!

  155. Anonymous says:

    I think it’s interesting to note that some of the economics *are* different when it comes to intellectual property.

    Example: I’ve been trying to sell a Stroller on Kijiji for a month now. The stroller itself is useless *to me*. This means that I’m loosing money the longer it goes unsold.

    But if I was selling my movie, not only is what I’m selling useful to me, but I can continue to sell it even after every sale. Because copying isn’t transference, and even in legal transactions, it’s copying.

    The market isn’t “the meeting of buyers and sellers”, that’s a very sophomoric definition. Actually it’s the measure of the utility of the product in question, as well as the capacity to produce. Supply and demand. Software piracy IS a free market transaction. An illegal one granted, but for that matter, buying a bag of weed is a free market transaction.

    So the oil market isn’t defined at the gas station, it’s defined in all actions which themselves determine the demand (how much gets burned), as well as how much we manage to get out of the ground.

    So we get to media and supply is virtually unlimited because of how easy computers can copy data. So we artificially create a supply shortage through law and new kinds of “ethics”. Let’s be realistic here: has that ever worked?

    I’m not condoning piracy, but I do condone the power of supply and demand to force change on the studios. This is not *just* a matter of demand (“If you don’t want to pay go without”), but also a matter of supply being out of the control of the producer (thanks to pirates) – as it is with all other commodities, and as it should be.

    We’ve already seen that it was the pirates that allowed us to stop buying an entire $20 for a single song. That’s the power of supply side economics.

  156. TNGMug says:

    The market isn’t “the meeting of buyers and sellers”, that’s a very sophomoric definition. Actually it’s the measure of the utility of the product in question, as well as the capacity to produce. Supply and demand. Software piracy IS a free market transaction. An illegal one granted, but for that matter, buying a bag of weed is a free market transaction.

    So the oil market isn’t defined at the gas station, it’s defined in all actions which themselves determine the demand (how much gets burned), as well as how much we manage to get out of the ground.

    So we get to media and supply is virtually unlimited because of how easy computers can copy data. So we artificially create a supply shortage through law and new kinds of “ethics”. Let’s be realistic here: has that ever worked?

    I’m not condoning piracy, but I do condone the power of supply and demand to force change on the studios. This is not *just* a matter of demand (“If you don’t want to pay go without”), but also a matter of supply being out of the control of the producer (thanks to pirates) – as it is with all other commodities, and as it should be.

    We’ve already seen that it was the pirates that allowed us to stop buying an entire $20 for a single song. That’s the power of supply side economics.

  157. hbl says:

    I bought The Hurt Locker on DVD back in March because a) I don’t download movies (I know, get me), b) I missed it at the cinema, and c) I didn’t wanna wait for my postal rental service to take 6 months to queue it up for me. I think I paid £10 for it.

    It is the last DVD I will ever buy. It’s just a dead format, but what I won’t be doing is downloading movies, or paying for downloads (unless they start coming DRM free for about £5), or going to the cinema, or buying bluray nonsense… rentals will do for me. I don’t need to see everything immediately.

    I don’t like the way the big media screwed with my democracy, screwed with my internet, and screwed with my pals. You know what? I don’t need to buy your product. If that makes me worthless, then so be it.

    As it happened, I watched The Hurt Locker again last night. It’s a damn fine film.

  158. Anonymous says:

    I rented “Hurt Locker” but I watched it twice, does that mean I’m going to get sued?

  159. TNGMug says:

    The market isn’t “the meeting of buyers and sellers”, that’s a very sophomoric definition. Actually it’s the measure of the utility of the product in question, as well as the capacity to produce. Supply and demand. Software piracy IS a free market transaction. An illegal one granted, but for that matter, buying a bag of weed is a free market transaction.

    So the oil market isn’t defined at the gas station, it’s defined in all actions which themselves determine the demand (how much gets burned), as well as how much we manage to get out of the ground.

    So we get to media and supply is virtually unlimited because of how easy computers can copy data. So we artificially create a supply shortage through law and new kinds of “ethics”. Let’s be realistic here: has that ever worked?

    I’m not condoning piracy, but I do condone the power of supply and demand to force change on the studios. This is not *just* a matter of demand (“If you don’t want to pay go without”), but also a matter of supply being out of the control of the producer (thanks to pirates) – as it is with all other commodities, and as it should be.

    We’ve already seen that it was the pirates that allowed us to stop buying an entire $20 for a single song. That’s the power of supply side economics.

  160. Anonymous says:

    Don’t talk to me about so-called “independent” cinema.

    I am Canadian, so I know the true meaning. Cinema you can’t torrent or buy for love or money — that is independent cinema.

    “The Hurt Locker” is positively mainstream in comparison, never mind the few theaters.

    I would tell this guy that it’s not about seemingly poor sales, it’s about distribution. Make sure it’s available on Oscar Night at Walmart, DVD and BluRay both.

    Go ahead and sue the torrenters. But if you do, make sure your accountants ascertain who is robbing you more, the public or your lawyers. After all, they get more money out of this game than you do.

  161. Saint Fnordius says:

    Can we please, please stop calling copyright infringement “theft”? It’s trespassing on the copyright holder’s monopoly, not taking it away.

  162. Attila says:

    Well, damn. I was going to rent it on BluRay for this evening – it was just released here in Hungary, a one-day rent is cca $2.5 here (with home delivery!), and not many people have BluRay players so I can usually rent any title at moment’s notice.

    But now I’m thinking I shouldn’t even channel a fraction of those $2.5 back to Mr. Chartier.

  163. querent says:

    I think maybe the apologists here are trolls who have recognized one of their own, and flock to his defense.

  164. Anonymous says:

    If I was choosing to invest in a film by Nicholas Chartier or Any Other Producer, I would choose the latter.

  165. ikoino says:

    Two issues: idiot producer and a new distribution channel that doesn’t collect money.

    As for the first, I’m boycotting the following future idiot productions: By Virtue Fall, The Company You Keep, The Whistleblower. I may also Boycott Bigelow’s next movie based on the fact that she let an idiot use her movie to sue customers – it will be the first Bigelow movie that I haven’t paid to see.

    As for the distribution channel, that’s a tough one. Suing the customer diminishes the brand. 3D may not be the answer, either. Improving quality didn’t help the Music industry, as customers preferred the lower quality yet mobile mp3s. So, not sure if 3D will be more than a novelty.

    Perhaps the social side is what could drive revenue. A couple days ago I heard Cory speak at Borderlands and bought Makers. If Cory wasn’t there, I would have been too busy to read his book. Perhaps actors, directors, and film crew should tour. Ironically, such a direct interaction with the customer best serves independent films, like what Chartier put together for the Hurt Locker.

  166. dross1260 says:

    Funny, I can’t find any Orson Welles / Ernest & Julio Gallo links.

  167. Anonymous says:

    The movie was not very good at all. I’m not sure how it got an Oscar other than paying someone off. I would feel completely ripped off if I had actually paid to see it. And THAT is why so many people download content. If you want more people to pay for it, stop making us feel like we just wasted 2 hrs of our life, let alone paying for your crappy films.

  168. Anonymous says:

    I was just looking at the movie poster today, but now it looks like I’ll pass on this one. Smart and honest is an interesting choice of words, especially since his recent actions have been anything but.

  169. zyodei says:

    Oh, so that’s why the movie sucked. The producer is a flaming idiot.

    Hey asshole: no victim, no crime.

    Mark my words: the lawsuit will hurt sales/rentals of this movie more than BY did.

    So maybe he should be suing his lawyers?

  170. das memsen says:

    all this would have been avoided had he read this:
    http://foolfactory.com/haus/comics/2gtech.html

  171. Xenu says:

    Let me guess, he makes humorless “serious” films that only blowhards can appreciate?

    • Anonymous says:

      From looking at their movie list, I would agree with that statement. The only one I had seen was “Who Killed the Electric Car”.

  172. Lucifer says:

    Well I’ll take his word for it and take all his belongings from his house. That is what he said he wanted…

  173. Anonymous says:

    Nicholas Chartier is an absolute moron himself if he thinks people pirating The Hurt Locker was the reason it flopped at the Box Office. People just aren’t going to flock to an Iraq/Afghanistan war film. Also, he’s even more idiotic to believe that suing a bunch of people who can’t afford whatever fee they give out for pirating The Hurt Locker will actually do anything. It’s not going to slow down piracy. It’s not going to do diddly squat. It just means that the people uploading (aka the ones you SHOULD be targeting) films will be more cautious and discreet, making it even harder to fight piracy.

    So once again Mr. Chartier, knock it off with the temper and just face the facts. You’re a prick and a moron.

  174. TNGMug says:

    I think the “war on drugs” comparisons are pretty accurate too.

    What are the lessons learned from the “war on drugs?”

    -Making consumption an ethical issue doesn’t work

    -Affecting supply side economics with artificial measures posed by government (or courts) on markets, also, doesn’t work.

    The very fact that these businesses need to resort to these tactics proves a flaw in the model. Yes I need the law to prevent people from stealing from my house, but actually, most of the time I don’t. I simply lock the door.

  175. Forteto says:

    I just have to add my two cents on this. I read most of the comments and came to the following conclusion:
    1. Yes the producer guy is a being a bit of a asshole.
    2. Yes the stealing of the movie takes money from him.
    Oh and also…
    Can we scrap this Ferarri metaphor?

  176. Anonymous says:

    You can photograph the actual art at lot museums, usually no flash allowed.
    If one was so inclined from the photo they could print up a pretty damn good copy, on a canvas or whatever, then hang it in the house. It doesn’t even cost very much.

    If it is legal for me to copy something priceless, as long as it is not distributed or sold, then why can’t I download some shitty shakeycam copy of bad b movie I would never buy anyway?

  177. signsofrain says:

    Let’s say that Big Content manages to push their insane law/policy demands into Canada. Let’s say that they get everyone in the US and Canada so scared of being financially ruined by lawsuits that the North American BitTorrent dries up and people stop downloading… what the suits in the towers don’t realize is that if they ever manage to do this (and that is their holy grail) they will simply push us into darknets and sneakernets.

    A well managed darknet that is discriminatory about its membership could last for years without being busted. The only bump in the road might be your ISP spying on you. Even if you encrypt everything, using “too much” encryption may become a reason to be investigated, insane though that might sound.

    If the darknets for whatever reason don’t do it for people, my prediction is they will simply move to sneakernets. Old fashioned digital swap meets. Piracy was still happening before the internet, the internet just made it a lot easier, both on the pirates and the people trying to track them down. If the pirates move back to the real world, catching them is going to get a lot more complicated for the powers that be. They won’t be able to just send the court a big list of IP addresses anymore, they’ll have to find actual evidence.

  178. fyodordos says:

    When you “steal” a movie, the movie is still there. There’s just one more movie in the world, and one less potential sale of that movie.

  179. W. James Au says:

    Far as I know, the distributors of *Hurt Locker* had no deal in place to make the movie available on a monetized streaming/download service in the run-up to the Oscars. Not on Netflix, not on the 360/PS3, nothin’. (Maybe I missed it, which would actually just prove my point.) This is a hugely acclaimed movie that had a huge opportunity to bolster its customer base, once the Oscar nominations came in. So far as I can tell, the distributors missed a big chance to make their movie widely available online through legitimate, for-pay means, and instead, are taking out their frustrations in a way that won’t make them a damn dime.

    • fsck says:

      “Far as I know, the distributors of *Hurt Locker* had no deal in place to make the movie available on a monetized streaming/download service in the run-up to the Oscars.”

      It was in Netflix’s top 25 for January (at 13th). That took about 10 seconds to google. To my mind that makes the rest of your argument moot?

    • Bevatron Repairman says:

      I agree that the business model Cory et al espouse that giving away stuff helps make sales. I don’t agree that this model should be made compulsory. I agree the lawsuits are heavy handed and counterproductive. But the people that think they have some inalienable right to download movies for free — when the producer hasn’t agreed to the preferred copyfighter model (a model think more people should adopt, and are free to do so) — are wrong and they are thieves.

  180. ikoino says:

    The library analogy. Are libraries for the “time-rich-dollar-poor” people who cannot afford to buy books? Or do they serve a purpose beyond that?

    Some Torrents are often easier and faster than going to a store, finding parking, waiting in line, and dealing someone who may have an attitude.

    iTunes made paying for music easier and faster than searching a torrent, downloading a substandard rip at 56K baud (remember those days?), and organizing your library. It filled some of the gap.

    Bandwidth and storage is just now making it possible to make downloading movies easier and faster than a torrent. I suspect the Netflix download model will also fill some of gap.

    But there will be still be a gap. SMS messaging is twice the market size than music. Figure out why. Because, that is where entertainment is going. More SMS dollars means less music and movie dollars.

  181. hello whirled says:

    The market isn’t “the meeting of buyers and sellers”, that’s a very sophomoric definition.

    are you kidding?

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/market

  182. Daedalus says:

    COPYING IS NOT THEFT.

    Saying otherwise is spreading misinformation.

  183. the_pants says:

    “Sorry but you are committing a crime when you copy a movie illegally and distribute it for others to watch, and you should be heavily punished for it.”

    The people being sued are people who downloaded and watched the film – they aren’t accused of distributing it.

    It’s the exact same thing if you rip a friend’s CD (or allowed a friend to rip one of yours), or ever made a mix CD for a girl or a friend. You and all the other “scumbags” who have possession of a song that they didn’t pay for, should be sued for thousands of dollars and made to pay thousands in legal fees. Listening to a song you don’t own is no different than watching a movie you don’t own.

    There’s also the issue that this is a giant list, and unless Voltage Pictures has some magic device then there are probably plenty of inaccuracies and innocent people on that list. In all likelihood people who never downloaded and watched this movie will be forced to settle rather than spending thousands to defend themselves. So when I factor in that Voltage Pictures will most likely be taking innocent people’s money, I think someone needs to say this is a wrongheaded way of attacking this problem.

  184. jack lecou says:

    We’ve all probably got decent computers and a high-speed internet connection. I assume you paid for it, right? But when there’s a product out there that’s easy to pirate, then everyone’s all Marxist. What a bunch of disingenuous brats. Just incredible.

    Because OBVIOUSLY the way we buy laundry detergent is also the ONLY POSSIBLE model for ensuring that works are produced and creators are rewarded for their efforts. And of course the only type of creations that are ever going to be worthwhile are the ones made by the status quo of movie studios and record companies.

    So we OBVIOUSLY just need a draconian enough set of laws, and a large enough force of lawyers and G-men to bust down everyone’s virtual doors and prop that status quo up forever. Consequences be damned. Why is anyone even discussing this, it’s all so OBVIOUS.

    Yeah. The people who think maybe that’s not the best approach are the ones being disingenuous brats. Totally.