Hurt Locker Producers Will Sue 24,500 People for Torrent Downloads

[brianluce]

Respectfully, everything on the internets is not free. People know exactly what they are doing when when they illegally download content. Granted, they don't want to think about it much because "everyone" is doing it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is illegal. None of us are entitled to free movies, bottom line. We all have the ability to rob a bank, but that doesn't mean we should do it just because we can.

As potential license granters making independent films, it boggles my mind why some feel this is no big deal.

Anyhow, off my soap box.

I'm not saying it *is* free, or that people don't know what they're doing, I'm saying there's an underlying mentality or culture people sign on to with regards to torrents. In the beginning the web was the wild west, wide open, free, and non commercial, the web has changed, but some of the original sentiments haven't and those sentiments drive behaviors irrespective of the law.

 

[CamVader]

I'm not saying it *is* free, or that people don't know what they're doing, I'm saying there's an underlying mentality or culture people sign on to with regards to torrents. In the beginning the web was the wild west, wide open, free, and non commercial, the web has changed, but some of the original sentiments haven't and those sentiments drive behaviors irrespective of the law.

"...there's an underlying mentality or culture people sign on to with regards to torrents." That's what Tinalera was talking about. Ignorance or lazy disregard is no excuse for people who download illegally. The history of the web is irrelevant. No point in going there. The rules are well known and established as we write this morning.

Anyhow, this is just debate. I appreciate the opportunity to suggest different points of view. It's all good!

 

[chilipie]

…and then the industry does things like this: Paramount silencing portions of Indiana Jones in theaters? - muting the sound for seconds at a time several times in a film, in order to track where pirated copies were coming from. I for one would not be handing over £10 to see a film with intentionally defective sound quality.

In the last year or so, British cinemas have switched from pre-film idents threatening pirates to ones saying thank you for supporting the industry - and you know what, it leaves a much better taste in your mouth. It's just a shame that every time I buy and watch a DVD I have to sit through several minutes of an unskippable anti-piracy advert along the lines of this…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuxO6CZptck

…whereas of course if I'd torrented the film, I wouldn't have to be lectured about why it's bad to pirate.

I am fully aware that piracy can hurt the industry we love - but I think the industry bigwigs need to change their attitude just as much as the pirates.

 

[NickClapper]

I am fully aware that piracy can hurt the industry we love - but I think the industry bigwigs need to change their attitude just as much as the pirates.

Why?

When someone gets robbed you don't blame the homeowner. And if someone has been robbed so puts up a sign saying 'CCTV Here' you also wouldn't blame them.

I have to say that sitting through a minute of being told 'you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a tv, you wouldn't steal anything from Poundland...etc' is hardly the end of the world. Nor is a couple of silent seconds of Indiana Jones (the last one could've done with a few more silent seconds).

And if you like those terrible adverts with Martin Freeman and Jamie Winstone being all earnest about the film industry despite the fact that piracy doesn't actually affect their million dollar paychecks then we are clearly reading from a different hymn sheet.

Just like Ryan Giggs trying to sue 75,000 Twitter users, I don't think this is actually implementable but I'm not surprised that the studios are trying to do something to scare the torrent users. I'm sure it won't work at all but why should people endlessly get away with a form of theft without any fear of the repercussions?

 

[brianluce]

The pirating issue has many sides. And to some extent, the industry has brought it upon itself. Here's an an example: In the Philippines, a licensed DVD costs about 4 days of salary for the average worker. What are the big boys thinking? Of course no one will pay that, that's why on every corner people are selling pirated DVD's at rates the locals can afford. You think they give a crap about what's good for Disney? They don't, they just want to see Pirates Of the Caribbean 4, and a pirated DVD is their only option because of the boneheaded pricing structure Disney uses. Disney should either stop Marketing in Third World countries or price their products at a realistic level. Pharma figured this out years ago, drug prices are adjusted to each economy.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

I think it's feasable to put through the lawsuit. Although, given the time restraints, this won't happen.

We can debate over the "attitude" of those who download, and those who don't. But we couldn't be sure unless we get a mass opinion of the two parties. We can already see that our view on "Piracy" is differing.

It's perfectly fine to be angry about those who illegaly download pirated movies. They are damaging our current/future livelihoods.

But, I think the problem isn't the act, I think the act is the result of another problem.

Cost inflation.

It's cheaper to watch a movie at home. Bus prices, petrol, movie tickets, snacks. All of these continue to rise, year after year. We all have less money, year after year. The number of releases see movies only staying in the cinema for 2-3 weeks. Again, with that option of paying over-priced fees, or sitting at home, why is it we're in disbelief that people are opting to download?

Why are we not now seeing this, accepting this, and challenging it as an alternative? Only when you see it as an option- one that does exist- can you compete.

I'm not speaking of a "price war", alike those of Tabloid Newspapers. But the sooner we see it as an alternative, rather than a threat, the sooner the industry will begin to pick-up.

It'll continue to hang like a dark cloud until the "Cinema experience" is again affordable. Even then, the "Experience" may never be the same as it was in the past. There's too much ready entertainment around. Too many things for people to do.

 

[chilipie]

I have to say that sitting through a minute of being told 'you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a tv, you wouldn't steal anything from Poundland...etc' is hardly the end of the world. Nor is a couple of silent seconds of Indiana Jones (the last one could've done with a few more silent seconds).

Of course it's not the end of the world, but not being utterly catastrophic doesn't mean I can't have a legitimate gripe about them. With both of these things, the only people affected are the ones that have paid for the product. It's like only stopping and searching the people who come out of a supermarket carrying plastic bags. The people who are honest are inconvenienced in an attempt to stop the shoplifters, who just waltz straight out the doors.

Neither the copyright infringers who download films nor the shoplifters in the hypothetical supermarket are justified in their actions - I'm sure we can both agree on that. But if you want to stop someone doing something, you need to understand why they're doing it in the first place. As Papertwin and Brian have both pointed out, the industry swallowing their pride and changing their pricing strategy would work a lot better than just blindly carrying on as they are.

And if you like those terrible adverts with Martin Freeman and Jamie Winstone being all earnest about the film industry despite the fact that piracy doesn't actually affect their million dollar paychecks then we are clearly reading from a different hymn sheet.

Like them? No, not really. But it's better than being told "well, you've paid this time but we still think you're a grotty little thief".

I'd like to make a living in this industry one day. Giving into piracy is not something in the best interests of anyone here, but it's clear that the current approach isn't working. Suing downloaders may set an example and if it puts people off torrenting films in the future then it's no bad thing, but the fact of the matter is it brings them no closer to solving the industry's current predicament.

 

[NickClapper]

Of course it's not the end of the world, but not being utterly catastrophic doesn't mean I can't have a legitimate gripe about them. With both of these things, the only people affected are the ones that have paid for the product. It's like only stopping and searching the people who come out of a supermarket carrying plastic bags. The people who are honest are inconvenienced in an attempt to stop the shoplifters, who just waltz straight out the doors.

I would disagree with this metaphor.

I think it's more like having CCTV in a supermarket. In effect everyone is being treated like a thief, because you cannot just film the people who have stolen- you have to film everyone. But the main difference in this metaphor is that the inconvenience is really negligible. Do I like the idea that the security guards in Tesco are watching me on a monitor to make sure I don't steal some Actimel? Not really, but I accept that they're going to do it anyway because it will, ultimately, help them catch people who are swigging Actimel in the yoghurt aisle.

I just think that the situation could be a lot more inconvenient. Think of full body scanners at the airport, bouncers at nightclubs, the self checkouts at Sainsbury's that ritually accuse me of being a thief.

I don't think we can really blame the studio bigwigs for trying to protect their product especially given the fact that everyone on here knows how important your vision, from inception to distribution, is to a number of people involved.

 

[chilipie]

I would disagree with this metaphor.

I think it's more like having CCTV in a supermarket. In effect everyone is being treated like a thief, because you cannot just film the people who have stolen- you have to film everyone. But the main difference in this metaphor is that the inconvenience is really negligible. Do I like the idea that the security guards in Tesco are watching me on a monitor to make sure I don't steal some Actimel? Not really, but I accept that they're going to do it anyway because it will, ultimately, help them catch people who are swigging Actimel in the yoghurt aisle.

I just think that the situation could be a lot more inconvenient. Think of full body scanners at the airport, bouncers at nightclubs, the self checkouts at Sainsbury's that ritually accuse me of being a thief.

The analogy perhaps exaggerated the inconvenience of the paying customers, but that wasn't my point. CCTV doesn't really work as an analogy because it doesn't inconvenience anyone - it's no more difficult or time-consuming to buy or use something than it would be without it. But having to sit through anti-piracy adverts or copyright-violating rootkit software being installed without my permission inconveniences only the paying customers and not the ones who download it illegally.

I don't think we can really blame the studio bigwigs for trying to protect their product especially given the fact that everyone on here knows how important your vision, from inception to distribution, is to a number of people involved.

I don't blame them from trying to protect their product - I do think they'd be more successful in doing so if they approached it differently.

 

[Tinalera]

Reading the different views just in this thread shows how complex an issue this can be.

Sorry, I didn't meant to start the whole "entitlement" debate there, my apologies, but the gist of my later idea was gotten, that there's a mindset here we are all trying to understand and work with.


Getting back to the OP and subject, it will be interesting to see where this goes (if anywhere) as far as pursuing the downloaders. There seem to be no easy answers here.

 

[aceofspades70]

I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to put my thoughts in.

My second film just came out on DVD. I plan to also have it on Amazon for download. We're only charging 10.0 for a professionally made DVD. It has a 2-side 1 page insert and the dvd has the film, film with commentary, interviews with all cast members, interview with me, and a blooper reel. I feel that's worth 10.

I agree with the prices of other media being high and should be lowered. 15-20 bucks for a dvd is a bit much. A good Blu-Ray price is 15.00

I already know my film will get pirated and bootlegged. In all reality, there's not a whole lot I can do about it unless I wanted to start suing people. I think I'd rather get involved with the fans, interact with them and if they prefer to "try before you buy" as they call it, so be it.

The whole thing with protection on the physical media should be developed so it works instead of people being able to crack the code and copy it. I mean hell, if a rocket ship can be made and sent to space, why can't that be done? I did hear of a new approach to CD's.

It's equipped with something that alerts you when it's being copied. Then a message is sent to the person trying to copy it, it's a warning. Second offense is their internet being taken away and then they can never get internet in their name again. Not sure if it is in effect at this point or if will be, but...

 

[WalterB]

.......

The whole thing with protection on the physical media should be developed so it works instead of people being able to crack the code and copy it. I mean hell, if a rocket ship can be made and sent to space, why can't that be done? I did hear of a new approach to CD's.

It's equipped with something that alerts you when it's being copied. Then a message is sent to the person trying to copy it, it's a warning. Second offense is their internet being taken away and then they can never get internet in their name again. Not sure if it is in effect at this point or if will be, but...

Protection will always be a key or a code and both will always be cracked.
Taking away internet... Some studios may marvel with the idea of such power.
But... in Western societies internet is becoming more and more irreplaceable when it comes to dealing with banks and governments, so basicly it becomes a basic need in life, like electricity. I would say: it should be a human right to have access to internet if you want to.
No access would mean being shut out of modern day society.

I don't think crime and punishment are balanced if they would do this.
But if they do... then better be ready to install a guillotine for the real big thieves amongst us, who play the moral hazard card to enrich themselves and let others pay for their mistakes that made them rich in the first place...

Piracy is a difficult thing to tackle: it was always there, but it was more hassle to copy tapes.
Internet gave people the idea everything can be free.
And the fact that it's on your harddisk instead of on your shelf, makes it less tangeable and thus it gives people less of the feeling that they are stealing.
The industry has been 3 steps behind from the start, but slowly we see that people are becoming more aware of the legal ways to get online stuff. The question is: is streaming (like Spotify) a viable business?

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

There is no security measure that cannot be overcome. I think that suing the individual downloaders is a losing proposition. A reasonable civil tort award would be $15-$20 per download (it is currently available on Amazon for $5). At that rate, they might get awarded $490,000.00. Out of that you have to deduct legal fees (typically one third) in the area of $163,333.33, leaving about $326,666.67. That is not going to make any significant financial impact on he film's bottom line. Criminally, (in the US) each of the torrent downloaders could be fined $250,000.00. I think that the real impact on the industry would be going after the people who post the files on the sites. Those people could be criminally fined $250,000.00 per copyright violation and ordered to pay restitution based on a perceived value of damage to the film's bottom line. The odds are against any of the uploaders being able to pay even a fraction of the award. The real value of going through with a lawsuit like this is to try to affect the mindset of potential future offenders.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Like the others have said, all software/DRM is crackable and trying to stay ahead of hackers and pirates is a Sisyphean task. What recent (legal) technology has shown us, and what industry needs to get more on board with, is that if you make buying more convenient than pirating, and keep it relatively cheap, people will opt for the legal method. For an example of an industry doing it right, look to PC gaming and the Steam platform.

Sure there will always be people who would rather jump through a million hoops and wait forever to pirate a song/film/game rather than pay a single penny for it. But all trends point to them being in the minority and/or people who would never have bought the product anyway, and are therefore not representative of lost revenue.

 

[Richrebel]

The hurt locker still made a profit and I do not think the piracy crippled it really. Besides it is incredibly ineffective to sue 24500 people. Like picking up one piece of pasta, cooking it and then placing them individually on a plate.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I think that suing the individual downloaders is a losing proposition. A reasonable civil tort award would be $15-$20 per download (it is currently available on Amazon for $5). At that rate, they might get awarded $490,000.00. Out of that you have to deduct legal fees (typically one third) in the area of $163,333.33, leaving about $326,666.67. That is not going to make any significant financial impact on he film's bottom line.

But that assumes they're actually expecting to take any of these suits to court - that's certainly a losing proposition, but it's also not the way it works.

What they're doing is a shakedown, not a legal process.

Say you downloaded 'The Hurt Locker' and they sue you. Right after you get notice of the suit you get a letter saying you can settle the suit out of court for just $3500 - what would you do? If you fight the suit - whether you win or lose - it's likely to cost you more than that in legal fees (not to mention time). Can you afford to fight it on principle? Or do you jut give in and take the settlement?

Most people are in no position to fight things in court, so they settle. Lets say only 80% of the people decide to settle - since they started with 25,000 people that works out to 20,000 * $3500 = $70,000,000. So even if they lost the other 5000 cases and lose $10 million in legal fees they still end up bringing in 3.5x the original box office take of the film.

It's a racket, pure and simple.

 

[rayw]

It's a racket, pure and simple.

Yeah, Baby!
One I've recently been thinking about exploiting, too.

Nothing personal. Just business.

F#ck the f#ckers!

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

First of all, I agree that a lawsuit against the public will kill a fan base for films like The Hurt Locker. I hope the law suit blows up in the producers face. They can control the piracy problem, if they really wanted to by going after their own employees and third party companies they work with such as the disc replicators who make illegal copies available on the Internet and their own people who let copes made for shopping around for distributors getting out as torrent copies.

Piracy is an inside job at big studios. They should clean house instead of scaring away potential fans. If a kid gets a pirated copy from a torrent and likes the film, that film may well be on their shopping list to buy on Blu-ray and DVD to have a collector's copy later because it is good enough to buy.

Listen up, producers of The Hurt Locker, a good 90% of the pilot film for Terminator The Sarah Conner Chronicles was leaked onto YouTube. So, fans saw 5 minute clips here and there from different portions of the pilot before it aired on TV. How did that effect the ratings for the pilot?

To date, Terminator The Sarah Conner Chronicles is the most watched TV pilot of all times. Free samples helped to build that fan base. So, lighten up and drop your ridiculous lawsuit and show potential fans what you can do.

As a fan, can I sue the producers of the Max Payne movie for false advertising with their trailer what their piece of crap film was about? I walked out before the film was over because it was that bad. I'd like my money back for that garbage. I wish I could have seen that before hand, so I didn't waste my money.

 

[rayw]

Piracy is an inside job at big studios. They should clean house instead of scaring away potential fans. If a kid gets a pirated copy from a torrent and likes the film, that film may well be on their shopping list to buy on Blu-ray and DVD to have a collector's copy later because it is good enough to buy.

Sorry, MDM, but this is incorrect.

Even ULB indie films get ripped off right from the internet VERY VERY fast.

An internet friend of mine had her ULB films ripped off in two days:

After two days of the release, they were available online at 32 different torrent sites. That's why the distributor insisted that no one was given a DVD copy of any of the films. That sucked because that meant I had to pay to watch [my own film].

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2251227/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_3 Ratings: 3.1/10 from 126 users
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2219868/?ref_=nm_flmg_wr_4 Ratings: 4.8/10 from 93 users

Look at those "users" stats.
These aren't big films.
And even still they got nabbed off the net.

This theft of services destroys any profit potential of small indie producers.

These ARE NOT distributor inside jobs.
These are outside jobs by stupid @ssholes in the general public with nothing better to do than to totally f#ck over indie producers, directors, and writers with their misguided Robin Hood POV.



This is why I advocate writing your indie film stories at least three deep so that the first film promotes the upcoming second film when the first one gets inevitably pirated, the second one promotes the thrid, an I hope you're writing out stories four, five, and six.

IMHO, you gotta think tent poles, even on an indie scale.

 

[sonnyboo]

I already know my film will get pirated and bootlegged. In all reality, there's not a whole lot I can do about it unless I wanted to start suing people. I think I'd rather get involved with the fans, interact with them and if they prefer to "try before you buy" as they call it, so be it.

This sounds like a restaurant's business plan being "Hey, let's give out free meals to anyone who wants them. If they like it, they might pay next time, even though they can still get it for free, we're hoping that a few of them like it so much, they'll volunteer to pay."

You are right though, there isn't a lot you can do about it at this point in time. I've made back thousands of dollars from suing individual users though, so I don't have the slightest regret punishing people who steal.