Friday, December 30th 2011
Hurt Locker Copyright Extortion Racket In Tatters, Plaintiffs' Hypocrisy
Voltage Pictures, producers of movie Hurt Locker attempted to use a reverse class action tactic to extort hundreds of millions in 'settlement' claims aka extortion demands over alleged 'losses' due to 'piracy' - something that has never and can never, be quantified and proved. However, their attempt has failed miserably - plus read on for how Voltage Pictures did a little content 'theft' of their very own to make the movie.
The idea was to use the services of the US Copyright Group (USCG) to extract personal subscriber information from ISP's via subpoenas and then send demand letters averaging US $2,000 to hapless victims, with the hope of racking in a grand total of around US $94 million - way more than the film ever made, about US $12.6 million.
However, the ISP's, not terribly keen on throwing out their customers (those being the people who keep them in business, note) dragged their feet with the subscriber information demands, which really messed up VP/UCSG's little extortion racket. This forced USCG to drastically reduce the number of claims to just 2,300. Even this reduction wasn't enough though, as without the required subscriber information, they couldn't send out their precious 'settlement' letters in this reverse class action tactic and had to ask the court for one extension after another. However, even though the presiding judge was Judge Beryl Howell who had previously been an RIAA lobbyist, spending years decrying the evils of piracy was sympathetic to their cause, in the end got fed up with the UCSG's antics and did what she should have done in the first place: threw the whole sham case out of court, ending VP's expensive experiment in mass litigation.
Well, nearly. It appears that VP wants to focus on sending out a smaller number of 'settlement' letters, but demanding bigger amounts from each mark. Oh, so hang on, economies of scale apply here do they? If the amount downloaded illegally in total allegedly loses them X million dollars, then shouldn't that be spread evenly among all the 'perpetrators'? You can't just claim more from a smaller number of people to make up the difference! You might as well just go after one person and nail them for the whole amount! This is another telltale indicating that it's nothing more than an extortion racket and anyone caught by one of these extortion letters should use it as part of their defence.
It's a very, very good thing that this tactic failed. Had it worked, the media cartels would have launched wave after wave of reverse class action claims, extorting hundreds of millions from the American public, all in the name of copyright. The USCG alone had set a goal of suing over 150,000 Americans. What in particular makes this so disgusting is that 99%+ of these defendants don't have the resources (ie they're too poor) to defend themselves in court against these lawsuits from companies with deep pockets and would therefore be forced to cough up the money demanded in the 'settlement' letter. Note that making this kind of mass litigation quick and easy is one of the aims of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) currently going through Congress, so it's incredibly important that it's never passed into law.
DailyTech made the following important points:
So, just how low will these copyright maximalists go?
The idea was to use the services of the US Copyright Group (USCG) to extract personal subscriber information from ISP's via subpoenas and then send demand letters averaging US $2,000 to hapless victims, with the hope of racking in a grand total of around US $94 million - way more than the film ever made, about US $12.6 million.
The USCG quickly unloaded lawsuit claims against 47K members of the unwitting American public, even as Voltage Picture spewed a stream of vitriol suggesting that the children and families of file sharers would hopefully "end up in jail".explained DailyTech, putting it very well. Yes, let's get the kiddies in the name of corporate copyright and profit...
Well, nearly. It appears that VP wants to focus on sending out a smaller number of 'settlement' letters, but demanding bigger amounts from each mark. Oh, so hang on, economies of scale apply here do they? If the amount downloaded illegally in total allegedly loses them X million dollars, then shouldn't that be spread evenly among all the 'perpetrators'? You can't just claim more from a smaller number of people to make up the difference! You might as well just go after one person and nail them for the whole amount! This is another telltale indicating that it's nothing more than an extortion racket and anyone caught by one of these extortion letters should use it as part of their defence.
It's a very, very good thing that this tactic failed. Had it worked, the media cartels would have launched wave after wave of reverse class action claims, extorting hundreds of millions from the American public, all in the name of copyright. The USCG alone had set a goal of suing over 150,000 Americans. What in particular makes this so disgusting is that 99%+ of these defendants don't have the resources (ie they're too poor) to defend themselves in court against these lawsuits from companies with deep pockets and would therefore be forced to cough up the money demanded in the 'settlement' letter. Note that making this kind of mass litigation quick and easy is one of the aims of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) currently going through Congress, so it's incredibly important that it's never passed into law.
DailyTech made the following important points:
They also point to growing legal support for the notion that an IP address cannot be equated to a person -- something the tech community has long understood. Given that somebodyAnd now the juicy bit that you've been waiting for: Hurt Locker writer Mark Boal spent time with Army Master Sgt. Jeffrey S. Sarver and his company of brave soldiers before making the movie. Sarver claims that the films storyline has been lifted from the time they spent together, but that Boal claims it's fictitious expressly to avoid paying any kind of compensation to the soldiers who risked their lives on the battlefield. Yes, the film makers are hypocrites: hypocrites against the very people who help defend their country for them! Disgusting. These accusations are very similar to those being made against the major music labels, who reportedly have been lifting works from independent artists on a large scale.
crack your Wi-Fi connection, download content, and leave you with the fine, this seems a pretty valid point.
Voltage, for its part, appears to be unwilling to give up the fight. It reportedly is changing gears, hoping to launch a number of smaller suits against individuals, with higher settlement targets.
But like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), it may find itself fighting against the wind. The RIAA spent $64M USD to win a mere $1.4M USD from pirates during its most prolific lawsuit period between 2006 and 2008.
So, just how low will these copyright maximalists go?
67 Comments on Hurt Locker Copyright Extortion Racket In Tatters, Plaintiffs' Hypocrisy
1. The use of the term extortion would mean that what they are doing is illegal and punishable. That is not clear. I do not like these tactics, but qubit writes it like it's not even a discussion. He elevates his personal moral code to law.
2. Writes of the idea that piracy hurt people entirely. At least he didn't claim it sometimes actually helped bussiness, a small step forward I guess. But this is still open for debate, not just in qubits world.
3. Media cartels and a picture that if these people would have succeded the media cartels would extort hundreds of millions from americans. As I've said before, a long look into wether there are media cartels or not and what they do would be interesting, but here it's just a statement of fact. And then he use the word "would" that indicate that IT'S BOUND TO HAPPEN. He's an oracle.
4. The word disgusting is thrown around a lot. Qubits position on the subject is clear, which I'm actually OK with because the entire thing is shady, but he wants us to agree with him very bad. So he throw in strong words, such as "disgusting", so that we don't have to think.
5. The idea was stolen. That sgt guy is suing Boal, but not because of that but because of "misappropriation of name and likeness, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligent misrepresentation". When I read qubits take on it I actually thought Boal was in Iraq with the purpose of doing a movie about it. It turned out he was just a journalist stationed there who did a movie about some of the stuff he'd seen. That is not stealing ideas, that is inspiration and is quite common in every creative outlet. Sgt. Sarver probably have a case against Boal but it has nothing to do with what qubit is saying. Part of the blame go to Dailytech.
6. All things combined, we know how qubit feels about it. Then he makes a news post about it and try to cram it down our throats as some kind of truth. If it'd been a random forum post/topic, it'd be fine. But it's not. The entire thing is shady and I agree with the IP thing, but it's written in such a way it feels like it's designed not to inform readers, it's about inform/force qubits personal views on us and whatever visitor happen to visit the front page. And I don't like that.
In every other line of work, people have to keep, well, working to get paid and that's only fair. I have an excellent example of someone who produces content and only gets paid once for it and is happy with it: me. Yup, I get paid a small amount for each news/editorial article I write for TPU and that's it. My articles can then be re-read, remixed and reused in any way you like. Enforcing royalties is neither possible nor desirable for me (what, stick it behind a f* paywall? No thanks!) My articles become copyright of TPU, as I work for W1zz, but if I was publishing these on my own site, I wouldn't even use copyright at all. The only thing I ask is that if someone uses my work, then they credit the source with a small linking credit like we do on here, or do so inline within the body of the article. That's it. This small piece of etiquette is all I ask. Of course, some reporters can't even be bothered to do that.
A fine example of someone who doesn't give the appropriate simple credit, thereby infringing copyright, is Hilbert Hagedoorn of Guru3D. He often uses other people's articles without credit, don't you Hilbert? ;) And here are the screenshots of his HD 7770 pictures and benchmarks story and mine to prove it:
Just in case you're tempted to change it, buddy. ;)
My article is here and his derivative is here. Note that mine is also a derivative, but I remember to give credit to the original source. So, how can I tell that he's copied/lifted it (not stolen) it? Because the following line is identical, along with the way the benchmarks sentence is written: "ChipHell has leaked more pictures with some benchmarks to go with them. The test setup consisted of an Ivy Bridge ES CPU – Core i5-3550K at 3.3Ghz and Z77 chipset-based motherboard. The driver used was the AMD Catalyst 8.940 RC2, giving the following 3DMark benchmark results:"
Don't forget that little credit in your next article eh, Hilbert? What, you won't? I didn't think so. :slap: Here's a screenshot of my original:
And finally, copying is never stealing, because the original creator still has the original work (like I do here) - that's why there's that word infringement, because if I don't want someone to copy my work, that's what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. I know MailMan doesn't agree with me on this point and it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree unfortunately, I'm cool with that. :) So, in the example above, Hilbert of Guru3D has infringed TPU copyrights by copying without crediting, but not stolen anything. Big difference.
Finally, to anyone that thinks I use IE as my browser, I don't, I use Firefox. I preferred to grab the screenshots in IE, that's all.
You do know that trolling is expressly against the rules of this forum, don't you? :slap:
Maybe we could go back in time and stop industrial revolution because it would make some handcraft workers out of business....
But I do care about honest people make a living of it... not some crap guy or girl buying airplanes and stuff on peoples money.
I know many good artists that make their living giving for free their albums on the net and being asked to play live, but they ain't got any glamor because just like every single living human being they're just regular people.
MM You really got stuff wrong if you think anyone here is defending piracy, anyway I don't blame you, it's just how you see thinks based on your experiences, but you're just getting everybody here wrong.
But don't think the media industry will be successful trying to label the honest working people as criminal just to make money. And please don't do that yourself.
Your art and living isn't really the concern at all from this type of law. People behind this law don't give a s**t to your living and you'll hardly be able to put someone into trial for money of copyrights based on it... I'll say it again: This kind of stuff has nothing to do with your work.....
Don't be fooled mate, you're just everybody else in their vision. :pimp:
PS: and if you think the US don't use face recognition or that this isn't underway there.... LoL.... you really have to google about it... :laugh:
Analogy (explains that you are blaming the wrong party):
I have a tall tree in my back yard that my neighbor thinks is stealing his view of the sky.
My neighbor cuts down my tree forcefully to get his view of the sky back.
Am I to blame for my own tree being cut down? NO. The guy who cut the tree down is to blame, and no one else. He cut it down, not me.
The government should not have the power and unyielding control that is has now, period. You should be blaming the individuals who have been pillaging and destroying the US government and economy for centuries, leaving us with this bloated mess.
In my opinion your stance comes off as lazy and a bit arrogant, and you are blaming a large majority of users on the internet. Also, until you can prove that you don't pirate anything and never have, you should probably stop calling people you don't know such insulting names.
we elect the very people who do this to us.....wise up and elect people who share the same ideals we do.
See I know both ends of this story. Been there done that. Intellectual property is PROPERTY.
Publishers are the devil. But without them I could not make a living. So excuse me if I value the food in my children's stomachs over people being able to download things they didn't pay for.
Let's go back to the architect analogy that somebody mentioned. You get commissioned to design an apartment complex. Alright, you do the job and you get paid for it. Now, whoever paid for it owns the complex that is built and can collect money from anybody who lives there for as long as they live there, because they are only renting.
ok , an adult with a real job - I spend 4 hours fixing a computer, make $100 , and that's it. over. I can't ask for money EVERY time they use their computer, why should you be able to ask for money every time someone uses that image? i know it seems fair to you, but not to anyone else. anyone that spends the same time you spent, working at a factory or anything else - makes less, and only once. you're just upset that you have to work EVERY DAY, and keep doing it to make more money. welcome to life dude.
art is not a necessity, therefore if you want to make a living based on it you should be prepared to compromise and make less than someone working in a necessary career, like a doctor. it's ridiculous imo you would even use that as an example. i know you weren't comparing the importance of your jobs, but still.
if i missed your original point, i assume this summed it up:screw that. they would find a way to do it anyway, and blaming the existence of pirates for the insane practices government and corporations take is ridiculous. IT WILL NEVER BE ERADICATED, EVER. it's that simple. so to pretend as though point->counterpoint is sensible is false. And for the sake of argument, if it WERE eradicated - do you HONESTLY believe it would stop the practices of these companies? it's not about piracy but market control, you can't even resell a game - it's pretty clear imo that this would happen whether there are are 10 pirates or 10 million, and that is not ok.
8-tracks were going to KILL the music industry, then tapes, then cds. vhs and then dvds were going to KILL the movie industry. these are not nice groups of nice people just getting screwed by everyone, these are corporations that rip off their own artists, pissed that they aren't making ENOUGH constantly increasing profit, and paying the government to do something about it. pirates are an excuse, but if they didn't exist there would be another as there ALWAYS has been . though again, it's ridiculous to think they ever could not exist.
Wait, so you're saying pirates don't grow? Are they not from seed, which is germinated, and then grown? I don't understand what you are saying. Besides the origin of the tree is irrelevant. (trees and humans grow, and they are shaped by the environment around them. not that it has anything to do with this analogy) The analogy was about setting BLAME. I'm guessing you didn't notice?Your point of view and argument on pirates seems "lazy" to me. Just because you were a lazy thief when you pirated does not mean everyone else is the same. Some people pirate because they are lazy, some because they are poor. Others pirate out of compulsion, and then others pirate to sample works of art (music, movies, books) before buying.
Your post indicates you've done a LARGE amount of pirating. You hate pirates. Therefore you hate yourself.
You're projecting yourself on to others, and what seems to be internal self loathing. Who here is claiming to be a "Freedom fighter", and what does that have anything to do with the subject at hand?
I don't see any relevancy to your arguments. I just see an emotional outcry.
It's a shame that some people believe "pirates are right for downloading illegal content but companys are wrong by trying to go after them." Even if they do use the dirtiest tactics.
I just wish a quick death to all torrents :laugh:
I don't think this is about justifying piracy. (Piracy is wrong) This is about a specific group of people using an extremely unethical approach to sue possibly innocent people, and all because the movie sucked and they didn't make their money back? You actually think that action is justified?
BTW torrenting is not illegal. bittorrent is a genius method of distributing files over a peer to peer network, which reduces the need for costly dedicated file servers, etc. It promotes redundancy, speed, and anonymity. There is nothing bad about it. That's like saying cars should be made illegal because bank robbers use them to escape. It's just a means of transport. People will always abuse things and exploit them for their personal gain. It doesn't mean everyone using it is bad. I use torrents to distribute files and OS distributions and such, as it gives me an easy way to have redundancy.That's exactly what I thought before posting, but I feel I have an obligation to speak up when someone posts something ignorant and just plain wrong. Bad information is worse than no information sometimes.You thought wrong. You completely misunderstood the analogy. Your replies to me so far have been of sub-trolling quality. Just PM me next time if you have confusion with something like this.
if you saw a man you knew to be a pedophile, being beaten to death in the street - would you intervene? i would hope so. yes the man has a disgusting problem but he does not deserve a beating death.
so if you intervened, does that mean you support his pedophilia? i don't think so.
we ALL agree piracy is wrong, you don't need to keep reiterating that. that part is accepted and agreed upon, but with that in mind - are the tactics effective or harmful? is it wrong to speak about that simply because the piracy was wrong in the first place? i don't think so. maybe you would have let the man be beaten to death to make a point instead, idk.
Seems you guys don't know me as much as I though you did :(
So, what should we do about pirates then? I think the IP thing will be redone sometime in the future so that we will be held responsible for our own networks.
We shouldn't do anything about pirates. We should be looking at society, and why people have to resort to pirating in the first place.