Hurt Locker torrenters: prepare to get sued

I live in Canada, try touch me.

 

They can and they will. Demonoid was based there and got shut down for quite a long period before they were relocated.

 

ye but thers a difference in law between torrent hosts and the users who download the torrents, so it doesnt exactly work the same way.

 

Be interesting if it does happen and it back fires.

 

All this sort of actions will result on two things:

1st - ISPs will lose costumers? Are costumers paying to an ISP to provide private information to third-parties? Are ISPs, companies that profit from their clients, willing to lose clients?

I'm sure future will reveal a world war 3 or 4, whatever, but in the cyber world.

2nd - Companies like Xerobank will appear like peaches in a tree, providing the privacy such users need. If no information is recorded, no information is provided.

But, then again, will those powerful companies turn on companies such as Xerobank in the future? Will they cease to exist?

And, what about they start to sell cheaper DVDs, CDs, books, etc? For example, producing a music CD doesn't even reach €1, yet they sell them for near €20. The musicians/bands will only get €2 euros from each CD sell.

If you like a band, but their latest CD wasn't much of a deal, still there's 1 music you like, you either don't buy it or buy the all CD just to listen to 1 music.

Why can't we decide which musics we want to buy?

Moreover, the days when live performances were a way to promote CDs are long gone. For a very long time CDs are the way to promote live performances. Those who get the CDs, ?illegally? or not, I'm pretty such they are the same ones who spend hours and hours to buy tickets to watch their favourite bands live performances.

The same way those who download films ?illegally? go to the theaters/cinema. Maybe they just want to have the same film on DVD to watch once in a while, without having to pay for it all over again.

Then, there's something really quite fun: Author's rights.

By sharing a CD/DVD you aren't breaking any author's rights. When you share that CD/DVD, the person/people who will be getting it know that the CD/DVD is the work of xyz person, not yours.

They say, you make us lose money. Of course we do. Yet, they're not the poor ones. They have > $ billions in their wallets.

Then I ask: What is the different between Internet sharing and every single person in each country buy a music CD and then share each CD among each other? Is this illegal? Can't I share what I have with whom I want? I'm not selling (which I could, if original CDs) something as being my work.

Funny, I always hear them saying culture is for everyone. It seems it is for those who can afford it. It's just like democracy. Does it exist? Yes. For those who can afford it.

For all this to change, they are the ones who need to start making the change, and it starts with prices. As I said, does it make sense selling music CDs for near €20 if it only costs them €1 to produce it?

 

I don't download torrents, but a lot of friends do.

The conclusion I've come to, after all these years, is that the people downloading are usually not interested in the movie (wouldn't have purchased a ticket or DVD), or too 'tight' to do so (wouldn't have purchased the movie ticket or DVD).

Secondly, the quality of the torrent, to me, isn't as good the DVD release, and now with Blu-ray, the gap is much wider. Don't see someone downloading a 30GB blu-ray release, chewing up their ISP download quote, or a majority of it.

Regarding music, I used to be 'anti-downloading of music', but after spending thousands of dollars, and seeing hundreds of cds that have one or two good songs per cd, it's me, or the buyer who feels ripped.

Many artists have seen a decline in their income, but considering most only received under $1 per CD sold, the artist usually survived on live shows and merchandise.

What we're now seeing, with people downloading many albums, they're becoming interested in music they wouldn't normally have listened to. When the artist comes to town, people are buying $80+ tickets in a heartbeat, concerts are selling out faster than ever. I know people who go to 20+ concerts a year, some paying a few hundred dollars for some shows, per ticket.

Of the live shows, the commission is much higher than the $1 or so the artist received for selling an album/CD. So it's actually benefiting many artists, having their music for free on youtube, to be downloaded etc, increasing exposure, making their live shows with high ticket prices a sell-out.

Films are slightly different, once you have seen a movie, there isn't a live act to follow, or a 'theatre production' of it to come. So the movie industry have a little more to worry about. But if they make the 'extras' more enticing to the viewer, an extra disc with not just the trailer, but with interviews and commentary from key staff, you'll keep the value in buying the disc.

The sad part is, when these 'studios' reclaim the money, and sue users, is the extra money distributed to the actors, and writers, or only to the 'studios'?

With high-definition DVD, box sets coming out for cheap, with the downloads via many either un-interested viewers, or 'cheap-skate' or 'casual' viewers who wouldn't pay anyway if they had the cash, I don't think there's anything to worry about.

All is well, in my opinion, without the studios 'intervening'. Besides, I've watched burned torrents, ok on the computer screen, absolute sh!t-house on the big home cinema screen. Give me Blu-ray or standard DVD anyday. Besides, the 30 mins spent downloading, and burning the disc, preparing the cover etc etc, and maybe seeing a bad glitch half-way through the movie or a freeze-up, I'd rather spend my time doing something more productive.

I'll say it again, nothing to worry about, leave people be. In the old days, plenty of people were copying tape to tape. lol

 

I have the opinion that film studios sell DVDs for the extra money they don't need. It's pure greed. They want to release DVDs, fine, sell them for €1/$1 for people who go watch the film and buy the ticket to watch it. To the others sell them for €2/$2.

All the profit comes from the theaters. People rather enjoy the thrill of watching the film in a big screen.

If they don't want to spend the few money to produce DVDs, well release the content on-line a few months after the film has been released. Guess what, I've just found the way to end with film DVD piracy.

 

Actually I'm quite sure that 'they' are perfectly aware of the numbers. It's just that the current situation suits them.
This is business. In business the single most important thing is money. Not ethics, not consumers, not anything else but money. Well... Maybe sometimes there are others things besides money that are also important, but money still remains in first place. The larger the company/industry, the wider the gap between the importance of money and anything else (assuming there is anything else to begin with).
If, for some reason, business isn't going well or an entity believes it can increase profits even more, then we see some sales with % off and stuff like that. If an entity does nothing to increase popularity and encourage more sales, then the product is selling very well/well enough.
We are not seeing any change in the strategy, employed by the music/film industry, ergo profits are good.
That's the theory that I have for the moment.

It's also very interesting to watch how the industry keeps on claiming they have losses due to piracy. That complete BS. What they claim to be losses I'd actually call potential profits. These are not the same thing, not by a long shot. There is absolutely no way anyone in the world that can prove that a person, who has downloaded something illegaly, would've purchased it, had there not been a way to get it for free. Yet, those potential profits are cited as losses and the majority of people believes that.

A true fight against piracy would indeed be for the industry to present the consumer with a real alternative and viable alternative. When you treat an illness you need to treat/eliminate the cause, instead of managing the symptoms, which is what the industry seems to be doing now (and has been since... well... always).

Quality content/products is the best way to ensure sales and profits. Since this is exactly what there is lack of, the industry resorts to plan "B" - intimidation, fear mongering and threats. But since the average user is more fearful than a sheep and dumber than a turkey this will go on uninterrupted.

It's kind of sad really.

 

Another take on that from TorrentFreak

Why the RIAA, MPAA, etc have singled-out this particular Film escapes me but it is an effort in software and movie piracy.

I have no personal comment on this.

 

It is a very interesting debate. Keep it up guys, and nice read.

Thanks.

 

You are not immune from the long arm of the Law mon ami

 

Here is a letter to the Pirate Bay 2004 and the answer they sent back.

Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:21:43 -0100 (GMT)
From: anakata
To: 'KMWLAW@flash.net
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Use of DreamWorks SKG Properties

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 'KMWLAW@flash.net wrote:

> Dennis L. Wilson, Esq.
> KEATS McFARLAND & WILSON, LLP
> 9720 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite
> Beverly Hills, CA 90212
> Tel: (310) 248-3830
> Fax: (310) 860-0363
>
>
> August 23, 2004
>
>
> VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
> AND U.S. MAIL
>
> ThePirateBay.org
> Box 1206
> Stockholm 11479
> SWEDEN
>
> 'tracker-40-aa-5f-03-412675c8@prq.to
>
> Re: Unauthorized Use of DreamWorks SKG Properties
> 'http://www.thepiratebay.org
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> This letter is being written to you on behalf of our
> client, DreamWorks SKG (hereinafter ^ÓDreamWorks^Ô).
> DreamWorks is the exclusive owner of all copyright,
> trademark and other intellectual property rights in
> and to the ^ÓShrek 2^Ô motion picture. No one is
> authorized to copy, reproduce, distribute, or
> otherwise use the ^ÓShrek 2^Ô motion picture without
> the express written permission of DreamWorks.
[...]
> As you may be aware, Internet Service Providers can
> be held liable if they do not respond to claims of
> infringement pursuant to the requirements of the
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In
> accordance with the DMCA, we request your assistance
> in the removal of infringements of the ^ÓShrek 2^Ô
> motion picture from this web site and any other sites
> for which you act as an Internet Service Provider.
> We further declare under penalty of perjury that we
> are authorized to act on behalf of DreamWorks and
> that the information in this letter is accurate.
> Please contact me immediately to discuss this matter
> further.

As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States
of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
For your information, no Swedish law is being violated.

Please be assured that any further contact with us, regardless of medium,
will result in
a) a suit being filed for harassment
b) a formal complaint lodged with the bar of your legal counsel, for
sending frivolous legal threats.

It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are ****ing morons, and
that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons.

Please also note that your e-mail and letter will be published in full on
'http://www.thepiratebay.org.

Go **** yourself.

Polite as usual,
anakata


As far as I know, the Pirate Bay still lives.
/DonMartin

 

True, but Canada does not have near enough resources to go after pirates. There are much better things they can spend money on. Where i live there are only two ISP's. My ISP sent me a warning once, but it was obviously just a pre-written message that they feel they must send for their own safety. The worse they can do is lose me as a customer, which hurts them since they only have one competitor.

 

What absolute nonsense Can you honestly see them taking time to travel around the globe looking for each and every offender

 

Tip of the Hat, JR I am aware that the film was leaked to Torrent sites months before the theatre release, which begs the question, who leaked the screener to the Torrent sites ?

 

how about those live-streaming sites?

 

while i do not condone theft or pirating there is no way they will get everyone who downloaded it. especially those who got it from places like rapidshare hotfile etc. i do agree with many here about the music side of things though. when i like one song i dont want to buy the whole thing.

 

See, Academy Awards are just commercial **** these days. Has nothing to do w/ the quality of the movie. Also, the quality of the movie has (sadly) nothing to do w/ how many people pay obnoxious money in cinemas. Evidenced by tons of completely crappy films which managed to earn $$$.$$$.$$$

The only evidence related to so called piracy so far suggests that piracy actually stimulates sales - lot of people who download the stuff and like it actually end up buying it.

So... executive summary - when these people fail, they love to blame everyone else but themselves for the failure. They are also reknowned for bribery of extreme sorts when it comes to legislature.

 

This analogy isn't the best, but here I go anyway.

Go shopping, try on a $200 long-sleeved shirt, don't like it, you put it back. Leave the store.

Movies, we all know the trailer has ripped many of us off for years. Sometimes all the best bits in the trailer, see the movie and it plain sucks.

With the movie downloads, some people might have only watched the first 15 minutes (like the shirt example in the store), and decided, they don't like it, and they hit delete.

Problem is, the movie studios are saying, you downloaded, you would have bought, you stole. To me, as extreme as it sounds, it's like saying, you tried on that item, it's as good as yours. Both instances, the person might respond, 'but I didn't like it, and wouldn't have bought it!'

I'm against piracy, but I'm starting to realise how 'word of mouth' and 'downloads', although illegal, can work in a studios favor. Look at avatar, the movie offered something 'extra', and it's the highest grossing of all time. DVD sales are going through the roof. Not only that, the studios are milking customers out of the standard DVD sales, and say they will release the '3D' version soon.

In other words, we'll milk you once, and milk you twice.

As someone else mentioned, download doesn't mean you would have bought it anyway.

The Radiohead experiment was a fantastic example, where a band has realised the potential of the internet. They offered their last album 'In Rainbows' for free, but gave the user the option of either selecting an amount to give, or putting 'zero', and getting the album for free.

Most people thought, this was an awesome deal, some gave a few dollars, most gave zero, but others gave large amounts knowing it was going straight to the band, and not some 'fat cat executive'. http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/10/estimates-radio/ Average price paid was $5 per download, meaning, people are willing to pay, but not part with $30 (Australian dollars anyway). more on radiohead here: http://www.doshdosh.com/radiohead-anti-marketing-in-the-music-industry/

The point is, people are willing to pay, but not the amount the studios have set for years. I mean, back 15 years ago, album prices were $30 for a full priced CD. Today they're the same. Somewhere along the way, production was a lot cheaper, yet the artist still made less than $1 per cd sold, meaning, executives have been profiting for years.

Work out a better model, say $2 per CD download, and the artist avoids packaging and shipping costs, artwork costs, distribution costs etc. Artist gets twice what they've received for years ($2 instead of $1).

Make movie downloads say $3 for a high quality download, the user is already paying through their increased internet usage for the download, and the studios get 'something' instead of nothing. The downloader is guaranteed a decent download, without viruses, etc etc.

I don't have the answers, but suing won't have any effect except downloaders will seek another file distribution service, that isn't as well known ie. rapidshare, mediafire, the list goes on.

 

Bring it ..

I dont run.

 

I've never heard of Hurt Locker movie nor am I interested in it, but these threats make me wanna download it. Just to take a stand and make a statement.

 

Heh... exactly my thoughts. If everyone does that, the courts gonna get a bit overloaded I guess.