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
You can argue over why it's right and wrong and use your car and tree analogys all you like; the fact is, this thread is not about whether pirating is right and wrong or why it's done (even though it's turned that way) so you were all pretty much trolling before I even got here.
BTW the thread is obscured and off topic because of posts like yours. Just because other people made ignorant posts similar to yours before you did doesn't make it okay for you to do it. YOU just posted about how terrible piracy is and how pirates are bad, etc. Have you already forgotten that?
trolling is posting something with the explicit desire to invoke an emotional response. (when that's not the intention of the thread)
"Have to resort to" is an interesting choice of words indicating people have no choice. Which they totally do. In the western world anyhow. A lot of people are not resorting to it, they just do it because .. I don't know really. They want to eat the cake and keep it to or something? The number of people that pirate stuff because "down with the Man" (or whatever) and actually mean that are likely very few. Oftentimes it feels like a prayer of some sorts people use to make themselves feel good about it.
While it's true we have other problems and so on piracy is a part of it and everything is connected.
Thanks for your cooperation.
so if the tactics are useless in preventing piracy, and all they do is potentially reward companies for sales they never might have had in the first place, something is obviously wrong.
so instead of focusing on the pirates, who (again) likely wouldn't have bought the product anyway - focus on more effective ways of stopping them from being able to, without showing obvious disdain for your paying customers. wide nets are not ok, as innocent people will get snared, and this is not a life-threatening situation worthy of such action.
when i can't play a paid game 5 years after release, because of the copy protection they used to stop pirates from getting it in the first 2 days, the company is doing something wrong. pirates are inevitable, they need to do business without burdening the people who PAY THEM.
Verb:
Turn to and adopt (a strategy or course of action, esp. a disagreeable or undesirable one) so as to resolve a difficult situation.
This is the actual definition ^
People require entertainment, and crave art. Many who pirate can't afford to download albums, go to the movies, etc. Does that make them unworthy of the art? Does that immediately make them evil wrongdoers? I have a feeling if the pirates who can't afford the material suddenly had plenty of means, they would probably pay for the things they pirated.
If I were a recording artist, I would want people to hear my art regardless of whether they could afford it. This is a conversation too complex for a topic as specific as this threads'. This is all extremely subjective, and everything I am saying is my personal opinion.
I will retire from this discussion as there doesn't seem to be anyone serious left here. Unfortunately this is a trend I've noticed that has prevented me from posting much over the past couple months. Feel free to PM me if you have an argument with me you want to settle.
Thanks.
There are two types of people in this world.
1. Those who want to make money by protecting their work legally via copyrights
2. Those who want to share everything freely, openly and without any type of restrictions
I, myself belong to the latter type who loves to get educated (and educate others) via free research in libraries or web. If there's any copyright which I'd want to display on anything I produce or work, it will go something like this;
(0) PUBLIC DOMAIN. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER LAW, MR.ABC HAS WAIVED ALL COPYRIGHT AND RELATED OR NEIGHBORING RIGHTS TO THIS WORK.
My reasoning is simple; For every free input, there should be a free output. However, not everyone will agree as they will come up with a gazillion reasons and logics to make money off of someone's FREE and public domain information. These money-hogs actually use (or abuse) the copyright law to extort money out of an innocent and a totally naïve researcher via threats to sue in the court of law for the lack of licensing, a modern term of paying to use their information or media. This reminds me of a James Bond movie slogan "License to Kill". Sometimes, too much law prohibits free spirit of innovation, research or movement of information across different mediums.
To avoid such copyright trolls, you can always include the following information at the appropriate section of a web-page or a book;
1. Title of the media or publication
2. Author's or Owner's name
3. Online Link Where found
If you have modified their work in any way (provided their license allows you to do that or you got their permission via mail), you can add the word "DERIVATIVE" or "BASED UPON".
For example, you need an image of a squirrel in your website or a book. If you use online research tools, you'd see hundreds of images related to squirrel which are licensed by greedy individuals or organizations ready to sue you in the court of law unless you pay their license fee. To filter out such money-hogs, there's a very useful online tool;
search.creativecommons.org/
Checkmark the "use for commercial purposes" and the "modify, adapt, or build upon" boxes. Select the appropriate website where you want to research (Be ware to avoid the ones mentioned below). And enter your search term "Squirrel". Select the image to extract the reference information as mentioned above before using it.
In the worst-case scenario, if you mistakenly (or innocently) used someone's licensed work and they request you to take it down, you can request further information to prove they are the actual owners of that particular item. If they cooperate with you nicely and professionally by providing you with the maximum information possible (which is verifiable), you should honor their request to remove their copyrighted work immediately. Otherwise, there's almost a quarter million dollars fine for using someone's copyrighted or licensed work without their consent. However, If that individual or organization starts off by threatening to sue you instead of a nice request, you got a copyright troll on your hands.
Unless they provide you all of the information (they may provide you part of it, but not all), simply ignore such threats. If such a troll happens to be an attorney, research about their respective bar association license number and file the complaint with the bar's administration. You can also file the complaint in the respective State's Attorney General's office and FTC as well. Trollish attorneys are usually relentless and use all kinds of legal jargon to prove you as some sort of a criminal in their letters by assuming you are guilty of a deliberate and a willful violation of their client's copyright or license.
I used to hate the "IGNORE" word. But today, I love it. It pisses the hell out of copyright trolls who are so desperate for our money and attention. There should be a provision to "criminalize" such an abuse of copyright law by trollish organizations, individuals and attorneys. Let's rally our own Congressmen and Congresswomen to introduce such "Anti-Bullying" and "Anti-Trollish" provisions to the copyright law.
@copyrightextortion OR you could just use your own original stuff and not rip other people off. Could do that too. Anyone can ctrl-c, ctrl-v. Why not contribute instead of leaching of off other peoples hard work?