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

Well, Rayw and company, you will find this as shocking as I did. But, I was in a major multimedia corporation's digital reproduction room the day their studio company was premiering a blockbuster science fiction movies in cinemas nationwide and witnesses them replicating the hell out of the DVD version of the movie for personal use. So, don't tell me they are not inside jobs.

Also, with a science fiction writers group that I'm with on LinkedIn we shared our links to free samples of our fiction writing on the Internet. Promoters require them too. Why give free samples of your work? To promote sales.


And, where do you think the distributor's screening copies out as torrents and bootleg copies from street peddlers come from?
 
Last edited:
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.

a dvd has nothing to do with a plate of food. you can't bootleg a plate of food or download it, lol.

bottom line, I don't think I should go "sue crazy" because I feel it will just piss everyone off and make them NOT want to support my films, there has to be a way of getting support from fans of film. but that's just me.
 
I won't say who because he is not on IT. But, an ultra low budget Indie filmmaker whose film I bought on DVD, which he autographed for me buying it has a rebel philosophy.

He is happy that his own film was pirated and is a torrent download. He calls it free advertising and the fact that it can be downloaded along with studio productions makes those who download it and see it believe it is a bigger and more important film than it actually is. He claims it has helped his DVD sales as more people have been seeking out DVD versions of his film.

People who sue everyone around them do tend to scare away business from people who may have wanted to do business with them before. I also would not do business with Harlan Ellison after seeing how many people he sued.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

Though, of course piracy is actually making a copy, rather than stealing - I wouldn't steal a car, but I might make a copy of one.

If DVDs and BluRays and movie theatres themselves were more reasonably priced, I'm sure the rate of piracy would go down.
I also tend to think that a vast majority of people who pirate would not have seen most movies they pirate at the cinemas anyway, or bought a DVD of it. If anything, they may have rented it from a movie shop (which are now mostly closed).

I think iTunes rentals and Netflix etc. are probably the future of curbing piracy, as it's relatively cheap and relatively instant. The issue is around the world. Places like Australia, for example, where we have incredibly slow internet compared to the entirety of the rest of the 1st world, and we get price gouged on everything that comes our way. For example, a quick iTunes store search came up with 'The Croods' for purchase at $24.99 in Australia, and $14.99 in USA. I personally think $14.99 is a bit steep for a download, as there are no overheads for production of a physical copy, but I'd rather pay that than $24.99.
On top of that, Australia has no real Netflix alternative... And I"m sure similar situations are mirrored around the globe.

If going to a movie meant it didn't cost nearly $40 just for tickets, and $20-$30 just for a drink and popcorn, and buying movies didn't mean a cost outlay of anything from $30-$40 for a new BluRay, $25 for an online purchase, and even $7 for an online rental, then I think you'd see piracy rates drop.
 
a dvd has nothing to do with a plate of food. you can't bootleg a plate of food or download it, lol.

It was a metaphor, not a direct comparison. Theft is theft, at least that's what the laws currently are on bootlegging. That whole FBI warning thing on every DVD and Blu Ray says so.

bottom line, I don't think I should go "sue crazy" because I feel it will just piss everyone off and make them NOT want to support my films, there has to be a way of getting support from fans of film. but that's just me.

Yeah, it's tough. That is the potential rub. We are in transition on what Intellectual Property means and will mean in the future. That makes this a tough business to be in right now. Profits are low except for mega budget super hero movies. People want a lot of new content, but they don't want to pay for it, or at least a vast minority will pay.

How this gets monetized and how we can make a living from motion pictures has been brutally diminished. I have no significant solutions or suggestions. I only know what I have to do for my investors and that's sue the hell out of people who do something illegal.
 
its a temporary problem. Compute speed and Memory capacity will increase while becoming cheaper. Eventually solving this issue with technology.

Maybe something like every frame of every screen is compared to a database of "restricted" images with some sort of advanced pattern matching thus nailing the users the moment they watch any unlicensed content... not a thought out idea, but where there is money to be made, someone will make it. Already most monitors have some built in security..
 
More (dated) stuff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/copyright-alert-system_n_2003296.html



I'm not in the least bit conversationally intelligent* about file sharing, p2p, and the whole music download universe, but the business aspect of the two following links seemed interesting to me as I applied a consideration of substituting indie films for music in the described service revenue model structure and criticism, the latter of which makes complete sense to me - especially as a warning to my indie filmmaking brethren.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify#Revenue_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify#Criticism

The reason I even went hunting "to see and understand WTH 'spotify' was": http://torrentfreak.com/spotify-was-designed-from-the-ground-up-to-combat-piracy-131204/



* A fair representation of my knowledge of WTH '"spotify' even is:
3e1fdc9d8497678141782d73b7f5a9f6.jpg


http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-drunk-uncle/n41328/

tumblr_mkc7aruJrX1rdzuduo1_400.gif
 
Last edited:
Russell Brand: Get My New DVD From The Pirate Bay
http://torrentfreak.com/russell-brand-get-my-new-dvd-from-the-pirate-bay-131202/

"Whether Brand’s tweets to his 7.3 million followers will result in masses of Pirate Bay piracy remains to be seen, but given his anti-capitalist stance he’s probably quietly amused by the prospect, especially if he got his DVD payment up front."​

And that's the critical two step (and understood third step) that makes this promotion strategy at all sensible.
  1. Brand already has 7,300,000 Twitter followers. (How many do you or your film prodco have?)
  2. Brand probably already did get payed a "respectable" amount UP FRONT.
    and here's the secret third step...
  3. Compensated or not, if today's work is equal to a 1.3 or something similar multiplier towards his next future work of same/similar effort or value (or even less), then any "loss" today is offset by that future gain.

Howzis relevant to indie filmmaking?
Just what I've been blabbin' about lately: plan your films at least three deep.

One-and-done, rest on my laurels, and wait for the royalty/residual checks to roll in is sooooooo dead.



Okay, and this about wraps up this evening's education quest on the subject: http://betabeat.com/2013/10/directo...downloaders-with-80-minutes-of-his-own-balls/
 
Last edited:
Though, of course piracy is actually making a copy, rather than stealing - I wouldn't steal a car, but I might make a copy of one.

If DVDs and BluRays and movie theatres themselves were more reasonably priced, I'm sure the rate of piracy would go down.
I also tend to think that a vast majority of people who pirate would not have seen most movies they pirate at the cinemas anyway, or bought a DVD of it. If anything, they may have rented it from a movie shop (which are now mostly closed).

I think iTunes rentals and Netflix etc. are probably the future of curbing piracy, as it's relatively cheap and relatively instant. The issue is around the world. Places like Australia, for example, where we have incredibly slow internet compared to the entirety of the rest of the 1st world, and we get price gouged on everything that comes our way. For example, a quick iTunes store search came up with 'The Croods' for purchase at $24.99 in Australia, and $14.99 in USA. I personally think $14.99 is a bit steep for a download, as there are no overheads for production of a physical copy, but I'd rather pay that than $24.99.
On top of that, Australia has no real Netflix alternative... And I"m sure similar situations are mirrored around the globe.

If going to a movie meant it didn't cost nearly $40 just for tickets, and $20-$30 just for a drink and popcorn, and buying movies didn't mean a cost outlay of anything from $30-$40 for a new BluRay, $25 for an online purchase, and even $7 for an online rental, then I think you'd see piracy rates drop.

Not to mention receiving it much later. At the moment we either receive the film at the same time as the rest of the world (Catching Fire), about a month later (The Hobbit) or several months to a year later in limited to release (Cabin in the Woods).

Or what about TV. The show The Mentalist has just begun Season 6 in Australia but elsewhere in the world it is already at ep 9. This is a big season for the show, and so sometimes difficult to avoid spoilers. Big things happen in ep 7/8 but when the show gets paused for the school holidays I wouldn't expect those episodes to be shown until March next year (going by previous seasons). Therefore I 'pirate' or put things on my browser so that I can watch the episodes at a similar time to the US.

A show like Game of Thrones can't even be seen on Australian TV (R can't be shown and GOT has far too much R material to simply make an alt cut). That means I have to wait several months for other countries to see it before we might get a DVD copy.

The Australian government (or some high up minister) has encouraged us to use location blocking plugins in order to access material which has a significant delay in coming here. I'm basically 'justifying' or attempting to explain why a country other than the US might be pirating..
 
hilarious

A show like Game of Thrones can't even be seen on Australian TV (R can't be shown and GOT has far too much R material to simply make an alt cut). That means I have to wait several months for other countries to see it before we might get a DVD copy.

And because you can't be expected to be patient, that justifies theft? Again, this is like saying "Well, I started to pre order the DVD at the store, but then I decided that stealing it from someone else who already has it would be quicker...."

Although you may not find it "fair" that a movie or TV show isn't available in your territory, but that's not actually a legitimate excuse for theft.

:lol:
 
And because you can't be expected to be patient, that justifies theft? Again, this is like saying "Well, I started to pre order the DVD at the store, but then I decided that stealing it from someone else who already has it would be quicker...."

In your example I would think of it more as borrowing.
 
A show like Game of Thrones can't even be seen on Australian TV (R can't be shown and GOT has far too much R material to simply make an alt cut). That means I have to wait several months for other countries to see it before we might get a DVD copy.

I'm pretty sure GOT is on Foxtel, but even 'fast-tracked' Foxtel content can be behind anywhere from a day to a week.


And because you can't be expected to be patient, that justifies theft? Again, this is like saying "Well, I started to pre order the DVD at the store, but then I decided that stealing it from someone else who already has it would be quicker...."

Although you may not find it "fair" that a movie or TV show isn't available in your territory, but that's not actually a legitimate excuse for theft.

:lol:

It's not like that at all, for the simple reason that you don't pay for TV. The minimal monthly amount you pay for subscription television changes based on the channels you get, not the shows you watch, and free to air TV is, well, free.

It's more like saying 'A friend of mine was having a viewing party of this episode movie in a month, but another friend is having a small get together and watching it tomorrow, so I'm going to go to that instead'.

A lot of television 'piracy' at least here is simply streaming episodes of shows earlier than their Australian release, rather than completely downloading an episode. The loss of profit there is equivocal to any loss of profit from free online viewing sites such as iView, or loss of profit of someone watching an episode on television versus on a DVD they may have bought.
Who can say what the affect is on DVD sales.

Of course the argument could be made that if enough people stream the episode, there's loss of profit because of lower likelihood to sell to the territory, but it doesn't seem to be having that catastrophic an effect at the moment.

As well, the reality is if enough people feel that not having it available in their country is 'not fair' enough to decide to pirate it, then won't we get better results from creating solutions that monetise their piracy, or at least start to cater to their needs and monetise that?
If one person speeds down a road and kills someone, they get sent to jail. If 2,000 speed down the same road and all kill people, then the powers that be start looking at ways to better the road itself so it's not so dangerous.

Of course, as a screen practitioner, I don't want my livelihood jeopardised by piracy, but at the same time I can understand to an extent some of the motive behind it, and in a lot of cases, I fail to see as catastrophic a loss of profit as it's always made out to be.
 
In your example I would think of it more as borrowing.

Not if you didn't like it, or lose your job and can't afford it later. You cannot remove the factor of time from the equation.

If anyone told me in 1991 I'd buy a Peter Gabriel CD, I'd have told you to bite me. Today, I've purchased every single album he's made. If I had downloaded all the music for free, where would my incentive be to purchase?

Same goes with movies. I might like it enough to keep a file, but not buy it. That doesn't give me the right to have the file and watch the movie in the first place. You right is something someone has to pay for. That's the intellectual property rights that are being blatantly ignored in favor of the whims of users who don't see it as theft.

It's not like that at all, for the simple reason that you don't pay for TV. The minimal monthly amount you pay for subscription television changes based on the channels you get, not the shows you watch, and free to air TV is, well, free.

Except those channels PAID for the movies...unlike the torrent sites you got it from.
 
Same goes with movies. I might like it enough to keep a file, but not buy it.

But you might not have known about it in the first place or be interested enough to spend your cash on it had you not downloaded it. You might like it enough to buy it on BluRay for HD, whereas before you may not have even considered looking at it at all.

I'm not saying piracy is right, I'm just trying to illuminate that it's more than just a black-and-white 'piracy costs all movies money and therefore everyone who does it should be sued for everything they own' issue.

Except those channels PAID for the movies...unlike the torrent sites you got it from.

Of course, if we're talking in a broader sense. Realistically though, there's no channels as far as I can tell that aren't buying movies because so many people are pirating them it's not worth running them.
Talking more specifically to television shows, but this can apply to movies as well - the channels are still purchasing the shows/movies. People make their own choice about whether they watch it or not. There's an argument to be made that if more people pirate it, it's less likely for them to watch the next episode when it does eventually air, and therefore less incentive for the television network to re-instate the rights for the next season.
However, that's speaking as if a vast majority of people pirate - I don't know the figures, and I doubt anyone could give more than just a ballpark figure (which would be biased depending on who you spoke to) as to how many people are pirating. Given that, it's hard to track whether pirates make up a majority that's able to bring about such devastation, or if it's more a minority that has a big spotlight put on them.

Major studios are still making a whole lotta money, major television networks are spending a whole lotta money on production and making a whole lotta money out of advertising, despite the fact that piracy is apparently hurting them so much.

Again, I wonder how pirating of a show such as Game of Thrones, the rights to which are already purchased and will continue to be for the foreseeable future by Australian subscription television provider, is hurt by people who still pay for the subscription television, but would prefer to watch the one show or episode a bit earlier.

As well, to re-iterate, if so many people do it that it's such a big problem, wouldn't it be better to come up with ways to monetise their use or cater to them (i.e. releasing episodes earlier in other territories than 6 months to a year later) than simply tell them that the thing they're doing is illegal, even though they already know it's illegal?
 
Realistically though, there's no channels as far as I can tell that aren't buying movies because so many people are pirating them it's not worth running them.

No, but they are paying a FRACTION what they used to because of piracy, along with the demand for lower budget indies declined as well for broadcast television rights.

In the legit sense too, Netflix streaming pays a flat rate no matter how many views a movie does or does not get.
 
I generally only 'pirate' what is available for free online in America but is blocked because of my ISP.

I have downloaded/streamed songs 'illegally', liked them, and then purchased the song. My view is that it is like a trailer for a film, often you can't get a proper song preview.

On that note, how is it any different if I were to borrow my friends copy of the film and watch it. A few things could happen. I could make a copy on my computer because it isn't good enough for me to buy but I MIGHT watch it again. I could give it back, disappointed but happy I didn't spend the money. Or I could love it and go off and buy the 4 disc edition. In my eyes that is the same as online in a try before you buy mentality.

Recently I posted a photograph I was happy with to Reddit. Looking at it's view page, it has been viewed over 70,000 times. I didn't even post my details (FB/website/where to download hi-res for money) until long after it had been viewed a lot of times. I've barely been recognised as the photographer and I certainly haven't earnt money from it. However lurking the pages I have seen peoples comments and have been happy they could share my experience and enjoy looking at my photo.

I'm not saying I don't want money, but in my eyes there is more to being an artist than the paycheck.
 
Last edited:
For the record I have downloaded songs illegally, liked them, and then purchased the song.

Every single song?

On that note, how is it any different if I were to borrow my friends copy of the film and watch it. A few things could happen. I could make a copy on my computer because it isn't good enough for me to buy but I MIGHT watch it again. I could give it back, disappointed but happy I didn't spend the money. Or I could love it and go off and buy the 4 disc edition. In my eyes that is the same as online in a try before you buy mentality.

Okay, using that analogy, your friend bought a movie and you borrowed it. Putting it on a torrent site is like loaning that single copy out to tens of millions of friends at the same time. Not even slightly similar.


Recently I posted a photograph I was happy with to Reddit. Looking at it's view page, it has been viewed over 70,000 times. I didn't even post my details (FB/website/where to download hi-res for money) until long after it had been viewed a lot of times. I've barely been recognised as the photographer and I certainly haven't earnt money from it. However lurking the pages I have seen peoples comments and have been happy they could share my experience and enjoy looking at my photo.

I'm not saying I don't want money, but in my eyes there is more to being an artist than the paycheck.

And that is YOUR right to make that decision as the copyright holder of your photograph. That's the entire point. The people who spent the tens of dollars or millions of dollars on their own art are NOT being given the right to choose to have it downloaded for free. There is nothing wrong with you choosing to give your art away anymore than it is theirs (and my) right to charge money for our art.
 
Back
Top