Hurt Locker Makers Target Record Breaking 24,583 BitTorrent Users

Ernesto
May 23, 2011
327
hurt locker,
USCG
Print

After being honored with an Oscar for best motion picture last year, the makers of The Hurt Locker have now also secured the award for the biggest file-sharing lawsuit the world has ever witnessed. By targeting at least 24,583 alleged BitTorrent users, Voltage Pictures hopes to recoup millions of dollars in settlements to compensate the studio for piracy-related losses.

hurt locker March last year the law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver imported the mass litigation “pay up or else” anti-piracy scheme to the United States.

The initial customers of the lawyers – who are also known as the U.S. Copyright Group – were relatively unknown indie film producers. But this changed when the makers of the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker (Voltage Pictures) joined up and sued 5,000 alleged file-sharers.

Voltage Pictures always threatened that this figure was just the start, and it now turns out that they were speaking the truth. In their quest to recoup their claimed losses, the studio has now added nearly 20,000 new defendants to the lawsuit, bringing the total up to 24,583.

This turns the Hurt Locker case into the largest BitTorrent lawsuit in history, breaking the two week old record set by The Expendables case earlier this month.

In a status report obtained by TorrentFreak, Voltage Pictures lawyers give the U.S. District Court of Columbia an overview of the massive list of alleged BitTorrent downloaders they filed complaints against. This report reveals that most defendants are subscribers of Comcast (10,532), followed by Verizon (5,239), Charter (2,699) and Time Warner (1,750).

The report also provides details on the agreements the lawyers have struck with various ISPs regarding the release of subscribers’ personal information. There is currently no agreement with Comcast, while Charter has promised to look up 150 IP-addresses a month and Verizon 100 a month for all ongoing BitTorrent lawsuits.

The above indicates that it may take several years before some ISPs hand over the requested information. It would take Verizon more than a decade to look up all the personal details in the various BitTorrent lawsuits, which begs the question of how long an ISP is allowed to store such private details.

The Hurt Locker case is currently being handled by former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell. She now has to decide if Voltage Pictures is allowed to proceed their legal endeavor and under what restrictions.

During the course of the year many of the defendants in the Hurt Locker case who were already subpoenaed have claimed innocence. However, last week Judge Howell decided to dismiss all 119 motions to dismiss, quash, and for protective orders en masse, adding them to the pool of targets.

Defendants whose ISPs give up their personal details are expected to receive a settlement offer from Voltage Pictures. The ultimate goal is not to take any of the individual cases to court, but to get alleged infringers to pay a substantial cash settlement to make legal action go away.

The math shows that this scheme could turn out to be extremely profitable for the parties involved. If ‘only’ 10,000 of the alleged infringers eventually pay a $2,000 settlement this would bring in $20 million. In comparison, that’s more than the $17 million The Hurt Locker grossed at the U.S. box office.

Update: Here’s a full list of the 24,584 IP-addresses included in the complaint.

The Status Report

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

I am a sausage not a hotdog

This is ridiculous when so many other important things going on in the world.The hurt locker really sucks.I hope judge Howell overthrows this case it’s pointless
- Ninja
  
  Pointless. My first thought was “They are at it again?” and then I skipped the rest of the article.
  
  I don’t see avatar makers suing ppl to recoup losses. Bad revenues? Bought awards? I’ll leave to our collective imagination.
  - I am a sausage not a hotdog
    
    Speaking of which avatar should have won that Oscar that year.
    - Roller
      
      Please tell me you’re joking.
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      Well what was better then?
    - Roller
      
      What wasn’t?.It was Pocahontas in space…in 3d.Not much else.
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      Oh yes!!! That’s right was it mila kunis,jessica alba or that fox chick?
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      Oh yes!!! That’s right was it mila kunis,jessica alba or that fox chick?
    - http://Megarelease.net Billhilley
      
      Even considering the entertainment value of people blowing up americans I would have to say that Avatar was a much better film…
    - Friend of the People
      
      Wasn’t Inglourious Basterds up that year? I’d pick that over Avatar.
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      Hmm I think so.Oh definitely Quentin Tarantino is genius.I would’ve picked both.
    - Anonymous
      
      That movie was crappy and unoriginal.
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      Which was crappy which was unoriginal?You lost me there,lol.
    - Anonymous
      
      Avatar,both.
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      Which was crappy which was unoriginal?You lost me there,lol.
- Sc1t4le
  
  Note the part: “The Hurt Locker case is currently being handled by former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell”
  - I am a sausage not a hotdog
    
    Thanks for the reminder.It’s clear to me who she is.Hopefully she’ll choke on her next meal.
    - Whatever
      
      She might be afraid of mirrors.
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      lol
    - DirkMcQuigley
      
      but not minors. oh well.
  - Zzzzzz
    
    “The Hurt Locker case is currently being handled by former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell”
    Thats not the only case, I suspect she’ll be handling brief-cases full of cash befor this is over.
  - Anonymous
    
    She’s the great target. After Kim Jong-Il has died, ofc.
- http://www.facebook.com/eric.boehm Jack Murdock
  
  Yeah, it was bad. That was exactly why so many people wanted to download it! Im blown away by your genius!
  - I am a sausage not a hotdog
    
    Why thank you thank you very much.I think people wanted to see it and were extremely disappointed.It was crap and your know it. so move on and thanks.Matter of fact I find butt creme porn better then hurt locker.
    - Ugly American
      
      A well rounded “hurt locker” filled with plenty of “creme” would make for a great pr0n parody – and I’m willing to bet the storyline / acting would be several times more interesting than this piece of shit “movie.”
      
      Anyone who sat through the (condemned) unintellectual “property” of Fail Locker should sue the MAFIAA for infringement of their precious time, loss of income which was squandered on viewing said “work” – oh, and failure to be entertained. I can’t wait for the sequel – on HD plastic disc… <3
    - I am a sausage not hotdog
      
      Most definitely…totally agreed.:D
    - Roller
      
      I’m sorry you couldn’t wrap your brain around it but your opinion is in the minority.
    - I am a sausage not hotdog
      
      Don’t be such a shitter roller.
    - http://www.facebook.com/mwonch Michael Wonch
      
      It’s really a matter of perspective. To those who’ve never been in that particular situation (or witnessed someone who was), I can see why the film would suck. Those who HAVE been there understand it was a pretty exacting near-documentary. I liked Hurt Locker…guess why.
    - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ARRTWZ4BSQWAHKWJZJ7CFIXP4I Hutch
      
      Except for the fact that most of the movie was complete BS!!! For one, an EOD team would never go out alone…NEVER. Two, there are certain protocols FOR EOD, they have certain procedures, as with every other job in the Army. There would never be an EOD Soldier/NCO that would go out in the suit if he didn’t have to because THEY CAN’T!
  - Anonymous
    
    Or maybe so many people downloaded it because it was supposed to be a great film, but its box-office numbers stank because it wasn’t.
    
    I hope I didn’t just make your head explode by using logic. I know you’re violently allergic to it.
    - Anon
      
      Yes, and Transformers made so much money because it was the greatest movie since Casablanca.
      
      Just like spiderman 3.
      
      Nice logic m oron.
    - TerribleTony
      
      You’re trying to compare apples with pears, Transformers and Spiderman are for children, they are easily entertained by flashy CGI and empty storylines. Not so for adults.
    - Anon
      
      The point is box office results do not determine quality.
    - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=695640166 Jay Shaw
      
      transformers 2 and spiderman 3 are sequels. they had momentum going in to the theater. if spiderman 1 sucked like spiderman 3, it would have done shit at the box office – like clash of the titans for example.
    - Anon
      
      Uh, clash of the titants made 4x it’s budget at the box office.And you actually think Transformers one was great?.
      
      Plenty of slock films do well every year.If this shocks you then you truly know nothing.
  - Gae
    
    I wanted to download it because I heard it was a good oscar winning movie.
    
    I did download and watch it and turned it off half way in when I found out how boring it was. I would definately have been pissed off if I had paid for that experience.
  - Sfrbostic5
    
    ill download any craptastic movie so i dont have t pay for the loss of 90 min of my life lol thats why so manny dl it if its actualy good i buy the blu ray
  - Logic
    
    Yes, we had to download and WATCH it to determine if was bad, ironically!
    
    If i watched it at a cinema I’d ask for a refund. Can’t do that with a DVD
    - Anonymous
      
      Then we you ask for a refund they would say “No refunds. You paid to watch the movie and not to enjoy it”
    - Anonymous
      
      Then we you ask for a refund they would say “No refunds. You paid to watch the movie and not to enjoy it”
  - the wrath of maremie
    
    shut up before someone shoves you in the hurt locker.
- Money3434
  
  I think companies that gather IPs for things like this should be required to follow certain state or federal regulation when gather and recording infringement. It seems like they are given a lot of credit for being accurate and truthfully. There should be some regulations to ensure the fact are accurate, and the public should just have to trust their honesty.
  - I am a sausage not a hotdog
    
    Proof or it didn’t happen.It’s easy enough to use someone’s ip without the owners consent.Wi-fi connections etc..Service providers want to keep their customers they shouldn’t give out any public info or that’s infringing on the customers rights.If I were to receive a letter I want proof!!
    We are talking about close to 25,000.This case could always turn out into a complete and useless case without proof. I hope the accused counter sue.If a case like this doesn’t sound suspicious to you I wouldn’t know what did.
    - http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes
      
      If the judge hearing the case wasn’t so blatantly biased in favour of the MAFIAA and the Copywrong cartel, then I’d say there’d be some room that good sense would prevail.
      
      Unfortunately Judge Howell is bought and paid-for by the very people bringing these cases to her Court. And although this adds an additional problem into the mix, she has to exercise some care and due diligence because she’s not “untouchable”.
      
      See § 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge of USC Title 28 here -
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.html
    - I am a sausage not a hotdog
      
      I like that you said she’s untouchable..Even someone at her ability to create a shit storm. I feel tables can turn.25,000 I mean seriously if the that doesn’t smell like an inside job.
- Sketch
  
  apparently you have no idea who judge howell is…….,..she was an RIAA lobbyist…..she is going to rule in favor of the plantiffs, its a foregone conclusion, she should recuse herself, but wont, shes being and has always been paid by the RIAA.
- Sketch
  
  apparently you have no idea who judge howell is…….,..she was an RIAA lobbyist…..she is going to rule in favor of the plantiffs, its a foregone conclusion, she should recuse herself, but wont, shes being and has always been paid by the RIAA.
  - I am a sausage not a hotdog
    
    I know very well who she is…unfortunately.
- Anonymous
  
  I just don’t see how this is possible or legal… suing 24,000 people, and not having to go systematically or provide actual evidence that they did anything. This is astounding and incredibly stupid. It’s not legal whatsoever. You shouldn’t be allowed to “mass sue.” However, I hope the right decisions are made for this case, as this will certainly be a landmark case for future copyright cases. It’s funny how much money they’re going to make off of it, isn’t it?
  - I am a sausage not a hotdog
    
    Exactly my thought mass suing like I said to rob sounds like an inside job.Time for me to contact demandprogresss again :)
Anon

Unsurprisingly. They were after all on the top-lists for torrent downloads some while ago too.
- I am a sausage not a hotdog
  
  It wouldn’t surprise me.
Rabiithole

Where is the Opimum Online ISP in the PDF?
Foo

so Voltage Pictures can PROVE
a) that out of the 24,583 people being sued, all of them would have gone to see the film
b) they were all guilty of illegal downloading
c) each person was actually seen sitting at a computer engaged in that activity (photo?) and are not just using an IP address that could easily have been hacked by someone else
get outta here! who are you trying to kid? trouble is, the thick, bribed judges will go against the accused, with or without specific evidence. what kind of justice is that from a supposedly ‘civilized’ country?
- Anuria-34510
  
  a) that’s not an element of consideration in proving infringement
  
  b) that’s what hearings do.
  
  c) ever get a ticket from a red light camera or speeding camera?
  
  The US has very high standards of judicial integrity. For you to suggest they render decisions due to bribery is an outrageous statement. I get that you don’t like the way they rule in these matters but claims of bribery are almost certainly false and deliberately inflammatory.
  - Anonymous
    
    “The US has very high standards of judicial integrity”
    
    LMFAO !!
  - Nospam
    
    “The US has very high standards of judicial integrity. For you to suggest they render decisions due to bribery is an outrageous statement.”
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
    
    SCOTUS: corparations are people and can flood–err–donate as much as they want to a politician.
    
    Clarence Thomas’ wife: in bed with Tea-baggers.
    
    Judge in PA: getting kick backs for sticking kids in juvy.
    
    The list goes on….
  - Trespass
    
    You gotta be kidding me! The judge over this circus sideshow is an RIAA lobbyist who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the music industry. Which way do you think she will rule?!
    
    Integrity was lost when corporate america began running this country through special interests and lobbying. There is currently a debate about her “conflict of interest”.
    - Ven
      
      Integrity everywhere was lost when companies had the ability to go public. At that point, pleasing stockholders meant that no amount of profit was ever enough.
    - SomeAsian
      
      Unfortunately, most Federal department heads and CEO’s of large corporations are the product of the “revolving door” in this country. Those who make the law, are those who benefit most from it. Sad to say, but true.
  - Jimbo
    
    i doubt if anyone likes how they rule in these matters. however, as they rule using ridiculous ‘evidence’ provided by the complainant, but usually ignore anything in the favor of the accused or, even when evidence against an accused person is so weak it’s ridiculous, there is no way that would happen without some ‘incentive’. judicial integrity in the USA legal system? i dont think so!
  - Anonymous
    
    Anuria-34510: “The US has very high standards of judicial integrity. “
    
    TorrentFreak: “The Hurt Locker case is currently being handled by former RIAA-lobbyist Judge Beryl Howell.”
    
    EL.
    
    OH.
    
    EL.
    
    Hey guys, what country do you think Anuria is mistaking for the US?
    - http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes
      
      Is the Moon a country yet?
  - Pissperma
    
    a red light camera takes a picture of ur car & often u, different matter in this sitution… no camera
    - Ven
      
      I can download a torrent from your IP address if you are seeding. If you aren’t behind a proxy, I know exactly which connection is uploading the content. All a firm would have to do is hop on BitTorrent, download as many different files of a movie as can be found, log all of the seeding IP addresses, and then complete the download to verify that it is copyrighted material being seeded.
      
      Any judge is going to take that for evidence. Whether or not they choose to hold the name registered to the IP address responsible is another matter (although it stands to reason that they will be eventually if we want to hold ISPs and websites responsible for illegal traffic on their network).
    - Anonymous
      
      That’s total bullshit. Ask the inanimate office printers and old folks who can barely use a computer who have been threatened with legal action for torrenting movies.
      
      “Durr, they must be copyright infringers if their IP address is in a swarm!” leads to result that are about as accurate as a monkey with a machinegun. Did you know, for example, that IP addresses are dynamic? 275.76.294.37 or whatever today may belong to a completely different person than it did a week ago.
      
      IP harvesting is a tried and tested fail.
      
      Of course a judge would accept it as evidence, though, depending on low little integrity they have. Like if they’re a former RIAA lobbyist, whom to which bribery and power go together like peanutbutter and jelly, since bribing authorities used to be their line of work.
    - Ven
      
      The printer belongs to somebody. If the IP addresses are farmed using a court-approved method, and the defense can’t convince the judge to throw the evidence out, then the name the ISP hands over is going to be held responsible.
      
      In the case of a dynamic IP, the judge can either choose to hold the network provider responsible or throw out the IP as inconclusive.
    - Anonymous
      
      I believe the printers he’s referring to were ones available at a university (forget which one specifically). And they were on their own separate IP address. The point made at the time was how unreliable the methods of gathering the IP addresses was. Because there was no way those printers could have downloaded any copyrighted material.
    - Donotreply
      
      @electric_worry
      That might be this one from the University of Washinton
      http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/index.html#papers
      
      direct link to pdf
      http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/dmca_hotsec08.pdf
    - Anonymouse
      
      “Did you know, for example, that IP addresses are dynamic? 275.76.294.37 or whatever today may belong to a completely different person than it did a week ago.”
      
      Dynamic IP addresses are allocated using the DHCP or RADIUS protocols. Users are identified when they’re assigned the address and a log is kept linking the specific user to the specific IP address for the exact times that they hold the address.
      
      All the authorities have to do is note the time, date and the IP address and have the ISP search these logs.
      
      As for the printer, disconnecting the printer from its RJ45 socket, plugging in a laptop and using the printer’s name to obtain it’s IP address from DHCP isn’t that difficult a thing to do.
    - Anonymous
      
      You’re assuming timestamps are including with the IP address that the MAFIAA and its associates harvest. From the evidence presented in court, they aren’t. Also from the innocent people and objects that get sent extortion letters, they aren’t.
      
      And you’re stretching reeeaaaal far to explain the printer. How about the tech-illiterate old people who were horrified to be accused of downloading hardcore gay Nazi porn? You think they were just lying about it? Or did somebody disconnect them from their RJ45 sockets and…
    - Ven
      
      The judge can throw out the one IP address belonging to the printer, but that in no way invalidates the other 24,582 IPs unless the defense can present a good argument as to why they would be connected. They may be able to get IPs belonging to universities thrown out, or even business networks, but on a residential internet connection the judge won’t accept the printer as an excuse.
    - Plop
      
      @Ven
      
      “but on a residential internet connection the judge won’t accept the printer as an excuse”
      
      And neither can the complainants prove which computer attached the to network assigned that gateway IP was used to infringe, and neither can they prove which person was responsible for using the unidentified printer.
      
      The equivalent would be a murder case where you couldn’t prove that a weapon which is found is actually the murder weapon and secondly you could not link that particular weapon in any meaningful way to the defendant. In any other case the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt and circumstancial evidence is not acceptable, never mind circumstancial evidence twice-removed.
      
      So tell me again, how exactly does an IP address identify an individual?
    - Ven
      
      @Plop
      
      “So tell me again, how exactly does an IP address identify an individual?”
      
      I don’t disagree with what you said prior to this statement. This is one of many examples of how dated and slow-changing law meets up with the the ever-changing modern age. I believe that eventually the government will decide to hold someone responsible (head of household, whoever has a contract with the ISP, etc.), but for right now it’s a total crapshoot that leaves all the legislation in the hands of the courts.
      
      In my opinion that is a huge mistake. Not only because of the possibility of corruption, but the overwhelming possibility of ignorance playing a part in the decision.
    - Plop
      
      @Ven
      
      “In my opinion that is a huge mistake. Not only because of the possibility of corruption, but the overwhelming possibility of ignorance playing a part in the decision.”
      
      Totally. I think it’s important that the simple insufficiency of evidence based on IP alone should be held up in court, but so far not one single case seems to have focussed on this. In any other normal court case the defence would pull the prosecutions ‘evidence’ apart if it were this thin. It can easily be shown that there is sufficient doubt over the identity of the downloader to cast doubt over whether justice could be served by prosecuting the bill payer. The way these cases are going is tantamount to collective punishment given the high percentage of false-positives generated in IP farming. All it would really take is one of these high profile cases to be thrown out through lack of proof for the whole extortion racket to collapse.
    - TerribleTony
      
      And you can also generate a fake screenshot of any bitTorrent client with whatever IP you like, try it here: http://piratbyran.org/bevismaskinen/
  - Sfrbostic5
    
    you are sorely out of touch, for instance look up judge william finnigan in marion ohio then after seeing the rap sheet he has and see he just got promoted to felony court where surpriseingly,not, no more “dealers” of his fav past time get time the us is and has been a corupt country for manny years go back to digging up ip adresses troll
    - Ven
      
      To build a logical argument about the system being corrupt, you need to provide not just one example of corruption. In fact, in order to call the system into question logically you would need proof of corruption on over 50% of people within the system. At that time you could rationally argue that the system and not the individuals were to blame.
      
      Even then it would be a weak argument (compared to something like the 10/80/10 rule in retail loss prevention that points to 90% of employees being willing to commit theft under proper circumstances).
    - Anonymous
      
      You shouldn’t talk about logic. You don’t seem to be very good at it.
      
      All a person needs to prove the entire system is corrupt is to prove that a single Judge is corrupt, and that despite his corruption being known, the system fails to eject him.
      
      Bam. That’s it, that’s all. You don’t have to prove over 50% of people in the system are corrupt, you don’t have to fuck round with any contrived statistical criteria.
      
      You want more proof? Then how about putting a former RIAA bribery-artist on the bench and letting her handle a case that centers on alleged copyright infringement. That the system would actually allow this is more than enough evidence of its wholesale corruption.
    - Ven
      
      And most likely the defense (assuming they are good at what they do) will get the case booted somewhere else if the judge still has tangible ties to her past work. That isn’t proof of a corrupt system, nor even a proven example.
      
      “All a person needs to prove the entire system is corrupt is to prove that a single Judge is corrupt, and that despite his corruption being known, the system fails to eject him.”
      
      All you have done there logically is shown that the system is capable of containing a corrupt official. Not the whole system, nor the whole judging population, just one person. When that one person’s case is reviewed and they aren’t thrown out, the system may very well have decided legitimately that removal was not necessary to purge the corruption. If the corrupt person was still corrupt, and corruption led to them being ruled still fit to be a judge, that only shows the system capable of containing two corrupt officials. Your conclusion is that, since the ruling was not in line with YOUR OPINION, the system must be corrupt.
      
      Again, a logically unsound argument. While an innate distrust is (in my opinion) a good thing to have in this world, it should not affect your ability to reason logically your way to conclusions.
    - Anonymous
      
      “Your conclusion is that, since the ruling was not in line with YOUR OPINION, the system must be corrupt.”
      
      Aww. At first I thought maybe you weren’t a troll, but there you go with the strawman.
      
      And your talk about logic is getting even funnier, because your last comment didn’t have any. What ruling wasn’t in line with MY OPINION? I didn’t say anything about a ruling. The system might legitimately decide that removing a corrupt Judge isn’t necessary to purge corruption? Yeah…
      
      I can prove that Judge Beryl Howell is corrupt. Her former career was bribing officials on behalf of an amoral corporation of bloodsucking thieves who pay their own employees sweatshop-level wages. That isn’t exactly a line of work you join if you’re Mother Teresa. That a person like that could even become a Judge is unbelievable. That she’d be allowed to preside over a case where the defendants are the sworn enemies of her former employer is mindboggling. That is, until you realize that the system is corrupt, and it mostly revolves around politics and payola. Then it makes sense.
      
      Do you think the woman who used to bribe people for a living would balk at the idea of receiving bribes herself? Bribing the authorities used to be her job, so I’m gonna go with “fuck no”. That’s not even bringing bias into the equation, which isn’t tangible so good luck tangibly proving that one. The whole thing is a sham.
      
      It’s not just the USA’s legal system, either. Remember the Pirate Bay trial? Remember how 2 of the 3 judges had ties to the copyright industry? Remember how TPB was found guilty even though the prosecution’s evidence had holes in it the size of the western hemisphere, which the judges ever-so-graciously never called them on?
      
      This is going to be another show trial. Verdict: predecided. It’s like letting a former Ku Klux Klan member handle a civil rights case – the system just doesn’t allow shit like that to happen unless it’s looking for a specific outcome.
    - Spock
      
      Rose colored glasses!!! TAKE THEM OFF MORON!!
      Your logic isnt logical!!
      And your opinion is all im seeing you spout,
      
      It is obvious that if any part of the system is corrupt then it follows that the whole system is corrupt, that doesnt mean it is corrupt by comission (choice), but that by NOT acting against the corrupted area then the rest is corrupt by omission (failure to act)!!
      
      You apparently have never heard the old addage…………”One bad apple spoils the whole barrel.” It becomes very Captain Obvious that Judge Beryl Howell is corrupt or she would have removed herself from hearing this case based on former predudice due to her former job of ass kissing for the Industry that this whole case revoles around!
      
      So do us truely logical people a favor and STFU now!!
    - Spock
      
      Rose colored glasses!!! TAKE THEM OFF MORON!!
      Your logic isnt logical!!
      And your opinion is all im seeing you spout,
      
      It is obvious that if any part of the system is corrupt then it follows that the whole system is corrupt, that doesnt mean it is corrupt by comission (choice), but that by NOT acting against the corrupted area then the rest is corrupt by omission (failure to act)!!
      
      You apparently have never heard the old addage…………”One bad apple spoils the whole barrel.” It becomes very Captain Obvious that Judge Beryl Howell is corrupt or she would have removed herself from hearing this case based on former predudice due to her former job of ass kissing for the Industry that this whole case revoles around!
      
      So do us truely logical people a favor and STFU now!!
    - Ven
      
      And most likely the defense (assuming they are good at what they do) will get the case booted somewhere else if the judge still has tangible ties to her past work. That isn’t proof of a corrupt system, nor even a proven example.
      
      “All a person needs to prove the entire system is corrupt is to prove that a single Judge is corrupt, and that despite his corruption being known, the system fails to eject him.”
      
      All you have done there logically is shown that the system is capable of containing a corrupt official. Not the whole system, nor the whole judging population, just one person. When that one person’s case is reviewed and they aren’t thrown out, the system may very well have decided legitimately that removal was not necessary to purge the corruption. If the corrupt person was still corrupt, and corruption led to them being ruled still fit to be a judge, that only shows the system capable of containing two corrupt officials. Your conclusion is that, since the ruling was not in line with YOUR OPINION, the system must be corrupt.
      
      Again, a logically unsound argument. While an innate distrust is (in my opinion) a good thing to have in this world, it should not affect your ability to reason logically your way to conclusions.
    - http://www.facebook.com/Flappos Philip Pervan
      
      That’s right!
      Having judges pick their sides before even knowing the case, it would lead to a failure in the system. And in order for a system to work, all components must do optimal work. It’s like a chain, one weak link leads to the failure of the whole.
      
      Where are these modern governments going to, with their Great Firewall, censorship, and privacy infringements…? They need to fucking wake up before we get mad as hell and send our pirateship their way. :D
    - Spock
      
      btw……….your 10-80-10 example is bullshit!! (90% of employees being willing to commit theft under proper circumstances). Some dumbass bean pusher with to much time on hand came up with this nonsense.
      Given the right curcumstances you probably bray like a jackass!!
    - Ven
      
      You can Google the 10/80/10 theft theory, it has been a part of retail loss prevention for decades.
  - Sfrbostic5
    
    you are sorely out of touch, for instance look up judge william finnigan in marion ohio then after seeing the rap sheet he has and see he just got promoted to felony court where surpriseingly,not, no more “dealers” of his fav past time get time the us is and has been a corupt country for manny years go back to digging up ip adresses troll
  - SomeAsian
    
    Correct. I too find these statements inflammatory, but for good reason. Unfortunately the system is breaking if not already broken and it is pretty clear where most politicians and lawyers stand. Don’t believe me? Ask former Sen. Chris Dodd who the largest recipient of lobbyist dollars were over the past decade. I am fairly certain he will not incriminate himself, but he received the most lobbyist cash out of any member of the House or Senate. And look at him now, new head of the MPAA. Who woulda thunk it?
  - anon
    
    you clearly haven’t learned the basic most fundamental rule regarding understanding public policy and judicial rulings in the United States: FOLLOW THE MONEY. If you don’t think there’s money behind this you’re very naive.
  - Covenist5
    
    c) those cameras shouldn’t be legal, since there is no way to legally contest them like you can do with any other ticket. Innocent until proven guilty. they don’t bother giving the accused the option of defence. Which I believe is unconstitutional, just like this is
    - theinternetsux
      
      those red light cameras are illegal in Minnesota, for that exact reason. They were installed in the twin cities but were later deemed unconstitutional. The cities were force to refund the tickets and remove the cameras
  - Someone
    
    The US has very high standards of judicial integrity…..
    Yeah, that is exactly right…. just ask David Hicks.
- Ven
  
  They don’t have to even mention the first one in court. For part B, I believe the studios will say those people were actually seeding the film, which is easy to prove if it was being done.
  
  I think C is interesting, because currently in the US the name(s) on file with the ISP is/are contractually responsible for the content being moved on the connection. Of course we all know that it doesn’t currently hold water in court (see the case back East with all the child porn being downloaded by the neighbor). Still, the US government has a track record of trying to make all parties involved as responsible as possible for their part in crimes, so I would expect to see something put forth regarding this.
  - Plop
    
    So if the router used by the ISP has pre-configured security and that security is broken (which all WEP/WPA is, quite trivially), then at what point does it really become the responsibility of the bill payer to control what happens on their connection? If they are required to log all users then surely they have just become an ISP themselves and, as such, are immune to liability for what happens on their network.
    - Ven
      
      Under the law, ignorance is not a defense that can be claimed. If having a pre-shared key can make a network insecure, it is going to be the responsibility of the network owner just as much as if they chose no security at all (considering that WPA can work just fine, you can filter MAC addresses, etc.). I think the law in these kinds of cases needs to be changed (as do judges that dismiss cases based upon similar situations).
      
      The only justice for those people is the possibility of a claim against the WIFI router manufacturers that are setting them up with easily-cracked security features. WPA2 has been required on WIFI-branded devices since 2006; the companies should at the very least be defaulting the devices to the WPA2 setting.
    - Walker
      
      That is insane Ven. An analogy would be having someone break into a house unseen, use the homeowner’s tools to do something illegal and then charge the homeowner for the crime not because they did the crime but because they should have had an up to date security system.
      
      What’s next Ven, internet hotspots being made illegal or becoming targets for any sue happy law firm, do you want to start litigating against Internet Explorer users because they open themselves up to large numbers of security threats, how about people who use ‘sub-standard’ antivirus software? The main mandates on network security are to protect user data and privacy, there is no legal basis to force anyone to keep their personal network secure if they want an open network with no AV and Firewall, click on every popup and download everything from chain letters then they are free to do so.
    - Walker
      
      That is insane Ven. An analogy would be having someone break into a house unseen, use the homeowner’s tools to do something illegal and then charge the homeowner for the crime not because they did the crime but because they should have had an up to date security system.
      
      What’s next Ven, internet hotspots being made illegal or becoming targets for any sue happy law firm, do you want to start litigating against Internet Explorer users because they open themselves up to large numbers of security threats, how about people who use ‘sub-standard’ antivirus software? The main mandates on network security are to protect user data and privacy, there is no legal basis to force anyone to keep their personal network secure if they want an open network with no AV and Firewall, click on every popup and download everything from chain letters then they are free to do so.
- Covenist5
  
  I couldn’t have said it better. Here Here brother
Dr_Faustus

Budget: $15,000,000

Gross Revenue: $49,000,000

Profit: $34,000,000

Staring A bunch of kids barely out of college-age who look nothing like those who really serve the country – Being that they come from rich families has everything to do with it. Criticized by iraq war veterans and reporters – This is probably the real source of their “Losses”, but what do I know?

As for copyright infringement, the title itself “The Hurt Locker” was claimed to have been invented by someone other than the director..But it actually goes back to the vietnam war – There goes hollywood’s notion for being ‘original’; thus the director shouldn’t have nearly as many rights to his film as he does.

Take your ‘Pay up or else’ and shove it up your fat ass. You didnt lose any money, but its real easy to complain from an office a few thousand miles away.
- Anonymous
  
  what do you think veterans look like, exactly?.
- Jake101091
  
  I’m not sure what your first paragraph is trying to say. I think it’s a statement against rich families and profiting from soldiers, but I can’t really tell, so I can’t address it. I’ll focus on your second line paragraph.
  
  “There goes hollywood’s notion for being ‘original’; thus the director shouldn’t have nearly as many rights to his film as he does.”
  
  All art takes inspiration from somewhere else. The world has over 4000 years of written culture. It’s impossible to come up with something completely original. There’s nothing wrong with having a title that comes from somewhere else. For example, Invictus is named for the Victorian poem by William Ernest Henry that appeared in the film. Does the director have fewer rights to the film because the name comes from something else? No. The director has rights to the film because he created it. It may be a reinterpretation of something else or retread on familiar themes, but that does not lessen the act of creation. Nothing is original in this day and age. If we held all artistic creation to the standard of pure originality, we would have nothing.
  
  2 things about your last line; first, you can’t say they didn’t lose any money. They made a profit, but that does not mean that they wouldn’t have made a larger one if people hadn’t pirated it. We have data to show that piracy can both help and harm smaller artistic works, but we don’t have conclusive data about how piracy affects larger works. Secondly, and this is more important, you have no right to view the movie if you aren’t willing to meat the creator’s terms for watching it. If they want you to pay to watch it, you should pay. Control of distribution is one of the creator’s rights when they make art. How much money is earned is irrelevant. By watching it without permission, you violate the artist’s rights.
  - Jake101091
    
    I didn’t mention this before, but I have not seen the movie. I’m addressing what you said in absence of the movie itself. I don’t think that makes a difference, but full disclosure and all.
  - Jake101091
    
    I didn’t mention this before, but I have not seen the movie. I’m addressing what you said in absence of the movie itself. I don’t think that makes a difference, but full disclosure and all.
  - Anonymous
    
    The people who made The Hurt Locker are a bunch of self-entitled douchebags who think they DESERVED to make many millions of dollars for their BRILLIANT movie. People didn’t think it was such a brilliant, though, and it flopped at the box office. So the douchebags were faced with a choice: blame themselves and accept that their MASTERPIECE probably wasn’t a masterpiece after all and it didn’t actually have that much appeal, or fall into denial and scapegoat filesharers as the reason why The Hurt Locker didn’t gross a billion dollars. They chose the latter, and fuck them for it.
    
    @Jake101091
    “They made a profit, but that does not mean that they wouldn’t have made a larger one if people hadn’t pirated it.”
    
    They made a nineteen million dollar profit. I don’t give a shit if it could’ve been more. If you make 19 million dollars and that isn’t enough for you, then hey, you know what: FUCK YOU.
    
    And your sense of entitlement.
    
    You’re no longer an artist the moment you sue 24,583 people because your glorious “work of art” made too few millions of dollars to meet your expectations and that bruised your planet-sized ego. Perhaps you can soothe your pain by going for a nice swim in your Olympic-sized pool filled with money, you bag of shit.
    
    As for you, you can go slither back into whatever hole in the ground that copyright industry jizz-receptacles come from.
    
    kthnxbai.
    - Ven
      
      Your first paragraph is several logical fallacies stacked upon one another, so I won’t get into it.
      
      “They made a nineteen million dollar profit. I don’t give a shit if it could’ve been more. If you make 19 million dollars and that isn’t enough for you, then hey, you know what: FUCK YOU. ”
      
      How long do you think an executive who went before shareholders and said, “I think X amount of money is enough for us” would last? This isn’t about a couple of guys sitting in a room wishing they had more money, its a few people who are paid a salary to do what is known as “maximize profit.” It’s their job to always want more, especially in an industry where one bad move can cost 100 million dollars (see: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and the the resulting sales of SquareSoft).
      
      “You’re no longer an artist the moment you sue 24,583 people because your glorious “work of art” made too few millions of dollars to meet your expectations and that bruised your planet-sized ego.”
      
      Logical fallacies:
      - Artistry is in no way judged by pending legal actions.
      - Profit has no connection to the copyright holder’s claim of infringement. A court of law makes judgements based on reason, and the finances of both parties will not affect the ruling (finances of the guilty parties will be considered when the judge decides how much should be paid to the copyright holders).
      - Name calling is not logic.
      
      “Perhaps you can soothe your pain by going for a nice swim in your Olympic-sized pool filled with money, you bag of shit.
      
      As for you, you can go slither back into whatever hole in the ground that copyright industry jizz-receptacles come from.”
      
      - More name-calling is still not logical.
    - Anonymous
      
      “Your first paragraph is several logical fallacies stacked upon one another, so I won’t get into it.”
      
      No, you won’t get into my first paragraph because you can’t figure out how to argue with it. But you’ll pretend you won’t get into it because it’s “several logical fallacies stacked upon one another”.
      
      @Ven
      “How long do you think an executive who went before shareholders and said, “I think X amount of money is enough for us” would last? This isn’t about a couple of guys sitting in a room wishing they had more money, its a few people who are paid a salary to do what is known as “maximize profit.” It’s their job to always want more”
      
      There are two kinds of businesses. The first kind is composed of normal, at least semi-honest human beings with a conscience. Its main concern is making enough money that it can cover its own operating expenses, pay its employees’ salaries, and continue to release products. It doesn’t need to obsessively “maximize profit” or make an exponential amount of money. Being successful is good enough. The executives aren’t really interested in making fifty trillion dollars per week and relocating the corporate headquarters to a thousand story skyscraper made entirely out of diamonds and unicorn tears.
      
      Then there’s the second kind of business. It’s run by motherfucking self-entitled sociopaths. It’s all about “maximizing profit” and always wanting more, at the expense of everything else. Being merely successful isn’t enough, it needs to make MORE, MORE! all the time, like a completely fucked up cokefiend always needing a fix. It needs to be THE most successful business EVER. And then it has to be even more successful than that. It doesn’t give a shit who or what it has to crush to get there. To paraphrase Orwell, money and power aren’t the means to an end for a business like that. They are the end.
      
      And hey, guess which category Voltage Pictures belongs to?
      
      Hint: trying to seriously mess with the lives of 24,000 people because $19,000,000 wasn’t enough for your ego and you want more – that’s a really fucking sociopathic thing to do.
      
      Speaking of, here’s a nice article about sociopaths in business:
      http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html
      
      It should give people a good insight about how millionaires can sue poor people for money because they don’t feel like they’re big enough millionaires and still sleep at night. Also, insight into why the entire MAFIAA is the way it is.
      
      @Ven
      “Artistry is in no way judged by pending legal actions.”
      
      Really? Whew. Then it’s a good thing I’m judging the artist and not the artistry, you illiterate fuck.
      
      @Ven
      “Profit has no connection to the copyright holder’s claim of infringement.”
      
      lolwut. These Hurt Locker shitnozzles are suing because they don’t think their orgasmically awesome, world changing, life-affirming movie made enough profit. They’re seeking compensation for the profits they would like to imagine they lost. Did you not realize they’re suing for large sums money? Do you think the large sums of money are just coincidental or something? The copyright holder’s claim of infringement is profit.
      
      @Ven
      “Name calling is not logic.”
      
      Sure it is, you fart sniffing little testicle. For example, if you’re acting like a fucking jerk then it’s logical to call you a fucking jerk. What isn’t logical is trying to discredit somebody on the basis of their namecalling, as if that has any baring on the validity of their points. Einstein’s theory of relativity wouldn’t have been any less valid if he’d ended it with “and fuck ya’ll stupid bitches”.
    - Anonymous
      
      Einstein’s theory of relativity wouldn’t have been any less valid if he’d ended it with “and fuck ya’ll stupid bitches”.
      
      No, it wouldn’t have been any less valid. But I’d like to think we can all agree it would’ve been that much more f*cking awesome if he had ended it that way. : )
      
      As for the rest of what you said, word!
    - Ven
      
      “No, you won’t get into my first paragraph because you can’t figure out how to argue with it. But you’ll pretend you won’t get into it because it’s “several logical fallacies stacked upon one another”. ”
      
      Alright, let me wade into the sludge of that first paragraph:
      
      “The people who made The Hurt Locker are a bunch of self-entitled douchebags who think they DESERVED to make many millions of dollars for their BRILLIANT movie.”
      
      This is a textbook Ad Hominem argument.
      
      “People didn’t think it was such a brilliant, though, and it flopped at the box office.”
      
      It flopped at the box office yes.
      
      “So the douchebags were faced with a choice: blame themselves and accept that their MASTERPIECE probably wasn’t a masterpiece after all and it didn’t actually have that much appeal, or fall into denial and scapegoat filesharers as the reason why The Hurt Locker didn’t gross a billion dollars.”
      
      This is an example of a False Dilemma. So far we have two logical fallacies and one statement of a widely known fact.
      
      “They chose the latter, and fuck them for it.”
      
      A personal opinion. So people who have taken a beginning logic class will dissect that first paragraph, ignore the faulty logic, and come to the conclusion that you are saying that the movie flopped at the box office.
      
      “There are two kinds of businesses. ”
      
      I agree, and the think the difference you will see comes down to stockholders vs. privately owned companies. Stockholders sit on the other side of the “faceless corporation” and demand return on their investment. Those companies are forced to compete with every other potential investment out there. Executives don’t have to play dirty to succeed, but within the confines of the law you had better believe they will do anything else.
      
      “It’s all about “maximizing profit” and always wanting more, at the expense of everything else.”
      
      Every management job application I have ever seen has some form of the term maximizing profit on it. In business profit is the main goal, and in a free market like ours we really can’t get away from that.
      
      “Whew. Then it’s a good thing I’m judging the artist and not the artistry, you illiterate fuck.”
      
      art·ist·ry
      ? ?[ahr-ti-stree]
      –noun
      1.
      artistic workmanship, effect, or quality.
      2.
      artistic ability.
      
      You pointed out that a person stops being an artist when they sue all those people. By the definition, a person’s artistry has nothing to do with legal proceedings. If their artistry is not affected, it is inferred that their claim to the title artist is not either.
      
      “They’re seeking compensation for the profits they would like to imagine they lost. Did you not realize they’re suing for large sums money? Do you think the large sums of money are just coincidental or something? The copyright holder’s claim of infringement is profit.”
      
      No, it is a reasonable claim under current copyright law against those distributing copyrighted works (an illegal act in the USA). Now I’m certain the judge will change those numbers if the people are found guilty, but I mentioned that in my last post.
      
      “For example, if you’re acting like a fucking jerk then it’s logical to call you a fucking jerk.”
      
      It is reasonably expected based upon social norms and psychology to be called names on the internet based upon other people’s perception of you. It is not however, a logical argument.
      
      “What isn’t logical is trying to discredit somebody on the basis of their namecalling, as if that has any baring on the validity of their points. ”
      
      It has no bearing whatsoever, and I was hoping that by pointing this out some of the personal opinion would be held back to make room for legitimate logical discussion.
    - Anonymous
      
      Do this little logic sum……
      
      Customers getting ripped off at cinemas , NO refund for being conned by PR = T
      Customers sharing content is free publicity = T
      One download is NOT one lost sale = T
      Customers being degraded as criminals for sharing = T
      Digital media is Worthless (can be copied endlessly at no cost ) = T
      Copyright is a way to, and does create false scarcity = T
      Not every “IP address” that downloaded the file , viewed the content = T
      
      I could go on….. and on…….But will get to it…..
      
      SO…. If the above are all true…… Then….
      ( the only logical conclusion .. be it a huge jump in thought…even so….)
      
      Creators of Hurt Locker ……
      
      Who try to DESTROY peoples lives…….for seeing a fukin movie …. a movie ffs……
      
      THEY Are DicKs …….. = TRUE
      
      Purge required for these greedy bastard…….Stupid fuks…….
      
      25,000 Americans are gonna be pissed…… Voltage Pictures know how to make friends
    - SomeAsian
      
      I second this motion.
history repeating…

considering that some sites like tpb apparently insert fake ip addresses into the swarm it theoretically should allow a robust defence in court unless there is physical evidence to back up the studios claim.

But we all know this is about maximizing revenue with trial.
- history repeating…
  
  Oops *without trial.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TKXFIG5U7SNHL62FZWU2YXDRZE Jane Doe

Though it is true that the ultimate goal is NOT to bring these cases to court, some trolls may pursue individuals just to make an example to increase number of people who settles out of fear and uncertainty.

For instance, porn lawyer Sperlein is currently suing an individual who was dropped from a mass case due to lack of jurisdiction. He found a companion troll Randazza in Florida:

http://ia600403.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.flsd.378393/gov.uscourts.flsd.378393.1.0.pdf

More on Sperlein and his extortion scheme: fightcopyrighttrolls.wordpress.com
- I am a sausage not a hotdog
  
  That’s insane.
Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Target Record Breaking 24,583 BitTorrent Users | Torrentfreak.com
DarkSource

Glad to see my internet provider is one of the ones refusing to cooperate with these scumbags.
Anonymous

Is it the correct ip? (spoof or implanted on tracker)
Is it the correct person? (anyone in household, neighbor or stranger outside, hacker)
Are they IT people that can prove they were hacked / used?
Should they be proving they are innocent or should it be the other way around?
Did they download it all or just seed a handful of rars to keep up their ratio?
Do they own the movie and was downloading easier then making a copy for in the car? Is the amount they ask ridiculous?
Can you throw all these cases on one big pile?
And with that many IFs should there even be a case?
- Friend of the People
  
  If I understand this correctly, the courts find an ip sufficient to conclude wrongdoing. I think it works on the same principle as a traffic light camera. They may not know it is you in the car, but they can still fine you because you should have not let your property into the hands of someone who behave poorly with it. Likewise, if your ip was used by someone right outside of your house, you failed in your responsibility to secure it. If I’m wrong, someone please correct me.
  - Friend of the People
    
    Hmm. The website won’t let me put in my own pseudonym . It keeps jumping me to the name of the old e-mail address I used for this. This is problematic. Attribute this post and all others by this name to “Friend of the People”.
  - Momo
    
    I’ll correct you.
    
    They grab 24,000 ip addresses that may have downloaded something, join them together in one case and give it to a judge to force the people accused to pay a settlement or face a completely disproportional fine of up to $150,000.
    
    Imagine joining 24,000 traffic ticket disputes into one case! Is it justice to use the courts for mass punishment? What about using the courts to extort settlements out of people?
    
    Also, you say “They may not know it is you in the car, but they can still fine you because you should have not let your property into the hands of someone who behave poorly with it.” Really?? It’s your fault your car got stolen, not the fault of whoever stole it?
    - Ven
      
      Momo is correct, the entire case is going to hinge upon how those thousands of IP addresses were obtained. Was it an independent 3rd party that did the work? Did they double check the work?
      
      From there it comes down to whether or not the judge believes people should be held responsible for the traffic on their internet connection.
    - Momo
      
      Not quite. It’ll depend on whether the judge will put up with 25,000 independent cases with separate circumstances and possibly separate defenses being merged into one case to support the plaintiff’s extortion business model.
      
      There’s a high probability they’ll be asked to sever the cases if they want to go forward, and that will no longer be profitable.
      
      Of course, this is Beryl Howell so she might be all for such business models given her background..
    - Friend of the People
      
      “They may not know it is you in the car, but they can still fine you because you should have not let your property into the hands of someone who behave poorly with it.”
      
      The point I was trying to make with this is that barring proof it was stolen, they can work on the assumption it was you because you can’t offer proof it was stolen. And if this is a civil case, than yes, it is justice to join 24,000 cases together because they all harmed the plaintiff in the same way. It would not be justice in a criminal trial, but in a civil trial, it is.
  - Herbert
    
    wrong. no law that a person must have a secure connection. is advised to, but dont have to
    - Ven
      
      Their contract with the ISP may point them out as legally responsible for the traffic on the network.
    - Walker
      
      A contract may allow the ISP to pass the buck so to speak but that still does not make the end user responsible for maintaining network security. There is no legal way for the government to mandate your security practices unless you are responsible for keeping other people’s information safe, ie. hospitals, data firms, ISP’s, banks. Users can be as unsecure and stupid as they want on the internet, the likely outcome is that they’ll end up with a heavily virused computer and possible identity theft.
  - Herbert
    
    wrong. no law that a person must have a secure connection. is advised to, but dont have to
  - Herbert
    
    wrong. no law that a person must have a secure connection. is advised to, but dont have to
- Ven
  
  “Is it the correct ip? (spoof or implanted on tracker) ”
  
  Hmm… The copyright holders obtain IP addresses through a certain method. From there, the defendants would have to do one of two things:
  
  - Show that their IP address was never involved in said infringement (which I don’t see as possible); or
  - Show that there is a reasonable probability that their IP address was spoofed (i.e. showing that it is possible is not good enough).
  
  Still entirely the kind of thing that needs to be clarified for future cases.
  
  “Is it the correct person? (anyone in household, neighbor or stranger outside, hacker) ”
  
  I mentioned above that eventually the person in contract with the ISP will be held responsible for all traffic on their connection. I don’t think they will end up in jail forever for someone on the network hacking the CIA, but I do think we will see everything from forced network security to getting kicked off the internet (both of which have been seen in places worldwide).
  
  “Are they IT people that can prove they were hacked / used?”
  
  Do you mean, are they capable of presenting an adequate defense on their own? Probably not, but in the course of these things they can hire those experts and counter-claim for court costs.
  
  “Should they be proving they are innocent or should it be the other way around? ”
  
  The way current law regards IP addresses, they will have to prove their innocence or convince the judge to throw out the evidence presented against them. The IP tracking (assuming it is done properly) is considered proof that the IP is guilty.
  
  “Did they download it all or just seed a handful of rars to keep up their ratio? ”
  
  Not relevant. If they are seeding parts of copyrighted works it is distribution. Digital copyrights are protected in part and whole, regardless of how those parts are split. If this wasn’t the case then splitting a movie into 10-minute segments and throwing it on YouTube would not be infringement either. Nor would throwing a watermark onto every frame of a film.
  
  “Do they own the movie and was downloading easier then making a copy for in the car?
  
  In this case they would need to provide proof of purchase (including date of purchase). For those who do this, you should save your receipts.
  
  “Is the amount they ask ridiculous?”
  
  It will be in line with laws regarding illegal distribution of copyrighted works. While the judge can’t decide that those amounts are so ridiculous as to make the defendant not guilty, the judge is allowed to alter the settlement amount within certain guidelines.
  
  “Can you throw all these cases on one big pile?”
  
  It would be nice if a copyright holder could perform some kind of reverse class-action suit in which they ask for total compensation and that amount is divided and paid equally by all of the offenders found guilty. It would give the defendants better opportunity to provide themselves with a good lawyer.
  
  “And with that many IFs should there even be a case? ”
  
  Law is all about the “IFs” as you call them. It’s all about getting to the bottom of a problem, and historically courts and judges and all these rules are set in place to deal specifically with disputes that are too complicated for two parties to reach an agreement upon without help.
  - http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes
    
    Your responses throughout this page are so typically anally-retentive it’s quite clear Mommy gave you too strict a potty-training and somehow you haven’t yet grown up enough to realise that.
    
    Once you graduate to the level of adult AND are responsible enough to recognise your shit needs to be released freely without exploding and spreading it around everyone elses face, you’ll live a better life free from the accusation of copywrong troll.
    
    Until that event hits home in your mind, I suggest you educate yourself with how improvements are made to benefit people and society, and not just a profit margin.
    - Ven
      
      I’m not really interested in debating cultural benefit or profit margins. I’ve been discussing current law regarding copyright distribution, duplication, and related court proceedings. I don’t agree with all of those laws, but currently they are what we have to work with. Getting those laws changed can be done, but sitting here and hoping that the courts will randomly decide to fight them is a futile exercise.
    - Dooby
      
      I agree, and that is why I’m a member of my local Pirate Party. If more of the people out there who are being directly (or indirectly) affected by the current nonsensical laws governing copyright were to get involved in the process then we may just be able to counter the lobsided advances the copyright groups are making at the expense of our civil liberties. Come on people – time to put your mouth where your keyboard is and get active.
      
      At our current level, Pirate Parties are struggling to be capable of trying to hold back the flood of new laws that will destroy the internet as we know it. With a greater membership we may be able to stop those advance completely and hopefully one day reverse the trend and bring about more sensible laws which better reflect society as a whole.
  - Guess.
    
    Yes, but only because the enforcement of copyright law has been perverted by a bunch of corporations.
    
    I’m not required to keep my receipts.
    
    I also can’t proove that I didn’t download a particular file. I’ve started many a torrent download that didn’t or wouldn’t complete, and if my IP address shows up in some list, I have no ability to disprove the claim that I downloaded a file.
    
    You make some inane point about some eventuality where we live in a big-brother state where the “contract” holder will be liable for all traffic over the internet connection they’ve paid for. Which is the same as holding someone responsible for murder if it was planned using a phone line the payed for. Sorry, but no.
    
    My phone bill is in two names. Who will they claim was responsible? Will it just be in alphabetical order? What about a parent who has no idea what their kids are doing- should they be responsible? Why should the be forced to incriminate one particular child? How would they know which of their children did the downloading?
    
    What about my neighbour, who kindly but cluelessly provides wireless internet service to me when I’m over my quote for the month?
    
    Just how far over would be bend to help corporations fuck people?
    - Ven
      
      “Which is the same as holding someone responsible for murder if it was planned using a phone line the payed for. Sorry, but no.”
      
      Not really. The duplication and distribution is taking place on the network, not just being planned on it. I think eventually people will be held responsible for their network’s traffic, because somebody has to be and there is no better option. I’m not saying it is a good solution now, I think it will take years even decades for the technology and law to come together to a point where it would be possible to make that blanket assumption.
      
      “My phone bill is in two names. Who will they claim was responsible? ”
      
      If your name is on a contract saying you are responsible for network traffic, then both of you will be held responsible under the letter of the law. Now with reasonable evidence the judge is perfectly able to dismiss the case against you or the other guy or both of you. In absence of that evidence, the judge will often fall back to the contractual obligations made and the letter of the law.
      
      “What about a parent who has no idea what their kids are doing- should they be responsible?”
      
      While I wish parents were held responsible for the actions of their children (at least the stuff we refuse to try them as adults for), that just isn’t the way the law works now. Currently the defense lawyer would suggest that the child admit guilt in hopes of getting a bad-press case against a child thrown out (or at least get the resulting fines lowered). Historically speaking, judges in these cases will hold someone responsible.
      
      “Why should the be forced to incriminate one particular child? How would they know which of their children did the downloading?”
      
      Again, under current law ignorance is not a viable defense. As a parent the law holds you responsible for your children. A parent being unaware does not mean a crime was not committed. If a crime was committed, a judge will hold someone responsible. If the guilty child is not found, the parents will be held responsible as the judge sees fit.
      
      “What about my neighbour, who kindly but cluelessly provides wireless internet service to me when I’m over my quote for the month?”
      
      If he signed a contract saying he wouldn’t allow illegal actions to be made with his connection, he is responsible under the strict interpretation of the law. Now if the Feds find millions of CP images on your computer, they may let the guy slide for his ignorance (especially considering the damage already done to his image). A judge can slap him with weak fines, possibly even hit him with nothing but a warning to get his network under control.
      
      The laws are strict, but each individual case is taken by the courts and reasoned based on these kinds of specifics. However, the laws themselves have to give enough power to the courts to find fault in at least one person for a crime committed, which is why they are so strict.
    - Dooby
      
      “If he signed a contract saying he wouldn’t allow illegal actions to be made with his connection, he is responsible under the strict interpretation of the law. Now if the Feds find millions of CP images on your computer, they may let the guy slide for his ignorance (especially considering the damage already done to his image). A judge can slap him with weak fines, possibly even hit him with nothing but a warning to get his network under control. ”
      
      And therein lies the legal problem with these contracts. They’re not physically signed. The smallprint is supplied, if at all, after-the-fact. You can make your payment and get your installation without anything near to a signature being present, so the contract is not really legally binding. This could be a reasonable defence against any sort of liability should your network be used without your permission.
asd

Oh well, I was looking for a suggestion on something to watch anyway.
No_one

Just a thought on these cases BUT if you receive a letter couldn’t you just go out & buy the DVD & show proof that though yes you did file share the movie initially you also purchased the film because you thought it was so good (Ahem “good” said in sarcastic tone).

Therefore providing indisputable proof to the powers that be that FILE SHARERS are their customers.

Just a thought really, PLUS its better than giving them $500 to leave you alone & is better than risking the court appearance should they ever get it that far. I’d rather pay the asking price of the DVD personally (even for a film I have no desire to see again anyway).
- I am a sausage not a hotdog
  
  No one said you couldn’t rip it to your computer for your own personal use.I like your way of thinking.
- IDIOCRACY
  
  NO DONT, it is a confession, you’ll have to pay a fine or do jail for something that is legal in most of EU but not in US.
  
  Just move to a good west-EU country, healthcare is better, cheaper, higher unemployment benefits if you need, more social security, …
  But be quick, politicians are watching US and getting ideas too.
  - http://www.piratpartiet.dk/ Ole Husgaard
    
    Indeed. The “evidence” these anti-pirates use is the same the anti-pirates in Denmark used to use. Our courts have for several years carefully ruled without saying if this “evidence” could be used. Some people were freed because of open wireless, or more than one person in the household. Other people were convicted because they had admitted copyright infringement.
    
    But this year one of these cases finally reached our Supreme Court. And this time the court ruled that this “evidence” could not be used, as it did not prove anything. But the defendant in this court case had to pay anyway – because he had admitted that he ripped some music albums he legally owned and shared them for a few days.
  - http://www.piratpartiet.dk/ Ole Husgaard
    
    Indeed. The “evidence” these anti-pirates use is the same the anti-pirates in Denmark used to use. Our courts have for several years carefully ruled without saying if this “evidence” could be used. Some people were freed because of open wireless, or more than one person in the household. Other people were convicted because they had admitted copyright infringement.
    
    But this year one of these cases finally reached our Supreme Court. And this time the court ruled that this “evidence” could not be used, as it did not prove anything. But the defendant in this court case had to pay anyway – because he had admitted that he ripped some music albums he legally owned and shared them for a few days.
- Roller
  
  Yeah go ahead and try that…enjoy the pokey….lol.
- Friend of the People
  
  That may be good media proof, but according to the law, the act of piracy itself is harmful, even if it led you to purchase the dvd. The act of harm is not the loss of revenue for the industry, it is the infringement on the law and the rights of the artist. You might get media attention and even get the industry to drop the lawsuit against you, but the courts won’t care.
  
  I’ll try and put it in another way. The way modern court systems work is that violations against the law are considered harmful in both the real harm they do to the victims and the symbolic harm they do to the system of laws itself. To give an example, when we prosecute a shoplifter, we do it not just because he has harmed the shop he has stolen from, but also because he has harmed the system of laws by breaking the law. In this understanding, a pirate may have led to increased sales, but he still did harm by breaking the laws.
  
  Again, nice media stunt, but not a real defense. Hope that answers the question.
  - the wrath of maremie
    
    people dont follow it which means its a bad law, ok thats it.
- Friend of the People
  
  That may be good media proof, but according to the law, the act of piracy itself is harmful, even if it led you to purchase the dvd. The act of harm is not the loss of revenue for the industry, it is the infringement on the law and the rights of the artist. You might get media attention and even get the industry to drop the lawsuit against you, but the courts won’t care.
  
  I’ll try and put it in another way. The way modern court systems work is that violations against the law are considered harmful in both the real harm they do to the victims and the symbolic harm they do to the system of laws itself. To give an example, when we prosecute a shoplifter, we do it not just because he has harmed the shop he has stolen from, but also because he has harmed the system of laws by breaking the law. In this understanding, a pirate may have led to increased sales, but he still did harm by breaking the laws.
  
  Again, nice media stunt, but not a real defense. Hope that answers the question.
- Anon
  
  Or, have all 24,583 members sue the respective ISP’s for selling out their personal information, then lobby together to establish a government policy that protects our right to privacy, and begin a movement for actual copyright reform.
  - Ven
    
    The only thing that would change is that copyright holders would have to get that information subpoenaed by a judge. Once that happens, it would go to court where another judge would see that the initial judge thought the evidence was substantial enough to warrant the subpoena in the first place.
    
    It wouldn’t slow down large copyright holders, only hurt the small ones that can’t actually afford a big fight.
- Ven
  
  They aren’t catching downloaders, they are catching people who seed the film to others. There is no money in prosecuting people who stole a film; the big money is catching those distributing the works.
  
  Also, proof of purchase for a court case requires a receipt with a date that predates when they got your IP tagged. Judges weren’t born yesterday.
townie2

everyone refuse to pay, simple. if, and i mean if, they proceed to court, you’ll be long dead and buried before 24,000 case are gone through the court system.
Fantastic

So who wants to bet that the Expendables case was also handled by the former Big Media lobbyist turned Federal Judge? Oh so much corruption and while not “only in America” it sets the standard.
in.cog.nito

Dear members involved with Hurt Locker and it’s filming / production,

FUCK YOU.

-The Internet
- Friend of the People
  
  Good way to put it.
Whatever

I would have commented that any sane judge would look at the sheer number and throw it out of court on the basis of insanity. A case saying 25000 people stole the film and need to pay 1000 times the “value” of the movie should sound ridiculous to anyone. But then the article mentioned what judge “accidentally” got the case…. they will have no problem with this judge.

There shouldn’t be any possibility of even trying to sue until some other (pending?) courtcase(s) AGAINST the Hurt locker makers are resolved first. As long as those are not finished it is not even sure they have any rights to “their” movie. One of those is the accusation they themselves are infringing a US soldier. If found to be guilty they don’t have a case against filesharers. They might then also be bankrupt and without case or resources to persue this scam.

(But, i wasn’t following what happend to those issues so it might be all over, settled or in any other state)
- Ven
  
  It’s about upholding the principles of the law. If 25,000 people broke the law and distributed copyrighted material, then the judge will punish each offender according to the law. It has nothing to do with the value of the film nor the number of offenders.
  
  “As long as those are not finished it is not even sure they have any rights to “their” movie. ”
  
  Those rights have been challenged, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have them. In either case, if the 25,000 people end up going to court they will pay to the resulting copyright holder regardless of who it is.
  
  Be careful wishing for a legal system where one kind of battle is paused while waiting for another to finish. More red tape is only good for the lawyers.
  - Spock
    
    If its about upholding the law, then WTF happened to inocent till PROVEN guilty??
    You can keep repeating the same bullshit you’ve spouted all through this forum and it wont change a thing. The entire sytem is FUBAR and has been for some time now. You claiming this particular judge will up hold the law of the land is completely laughable…………..there is no justice here, unless youre a corporation!!
    And that btw is NOT JUSTICE!
  - Travelsonic9
    
    “If 25,000 people broke the law and distributed copyrighted material, then the judge will punish each offender according to the law. ”
    
    Oftopic maybe, but this misconception needs to die.
    
    The illegality or legality is not with sharing works that fall under copyright in of itself, but about permission or lack thereof – otherwise if you made a work and shard it for free, you’d be breaking the law because you are distributing copyrighted work – even though it is your own creation, and chose to share it for free..
Anonymous

how will they all fit in the courtroom??
Anonymous

how will they all fit in the courtroom??
- http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes
  
  lol, that’s what I was thinking too :o
  
  If any ONE of these 24,583 “J.Does” get named then actually reach a Courtroom, ALL other 24,582 should turn up for the hearing – as well as their families and children and those children’s school teachers, as well as their their elected politicians too.
  
  This is a case that requires attention simply because it involves so many unidentified people, and it also requires MASS action by all involved or who hold an interest in removing copywrong law from the legal system of the 21st Century.
  
  The MAFIAA need to modernise, or face our wrath – law or no law.
  - Whatever
    
    I would prefer the MAFIAA out of existance.
    
    What terrible state the world would be in if such an abomination would still exist by the time the world has replicators (creation of this product is not allowed by …) and starships travelling around.
Guest

I want to know how long do ISPs keep their logs. I thought they only keep logs for six months or something like that. Would they really be able to keep these records for several years?
- Fredrika
  
  > “I thought they only keep logs for six months or something like that.”
  
  If an alternative exists, you really shouldn’t be a customer of an ISP that saves data for 6 months, such irresponsible behaviour from an ISP opens you up to the risk of being sued, as you can see.
- Ven
  
  Traffic logs perhaps. User information pertaining to a paid account has to be held onto for tax purposes, up to 7 years I believe.
  - Spock
    
    BULLSHIT!
    - Ven
      
      No, they hold billing information for years (in case they get hit with an audit). Whether or not they tie that information to an IP (or simply maintain a non-traffic IP log) is the real question.
      
      Based on cases like this, I’m assuming they do.
Guest

I want to know how long do ISPs keep their logs. I thought they only keep logs for six months or something like that. Would they really be able to keep these records for several years?
DarknezzMadnezz

ehh and that is why i didnt even bother watching the movie… good luck getting money from me.
cake

Why don’t you guys accept that we all are fucking thieves? Stop trying to justify it, we are stealing. Imagine you are one of them, wouldn’t you try to stop it? Whining is nonsensical in this matter, if you are going to be a pirate keep your mouth shut.
- Gae
  
  Firt of all we are not stealing, we are sharing.
  It has already been accepted in courts that copyright infringement is NOT theft no matter what the MAFIAA and friends like to tell us.
  
  And since I am from the UK where the whole pay up or else scheme has fallen apart, I am quite happy to announce I am a pirate (although I do also spend quite a large ammount on official sources)
- Fredrika
  
  > “Why don’t you guys accept that we all are fucking thieves? ..//.. we are stealing.”
  
  Actually no, not according to either the dictionary, our judicial system or the supreme court. Why don’t you accept this indisputable fact?
  
  People copy because it creates something invaluable to them, free access to theoretically all culture that ever has existed, at no cost.
  
  It’s like a library, only a thousand times better, since there are no limitations and no operating cost.
  
  If you love culture you’ll naturally want to consume as much as possible, and copying has obviously replaced libraries as the best way to get unlimited access to as much culture as possible.
  
  The only reason it’s also called pirating is because the current legislation in some countries forbids a perfectly accepted and useful task.
  
  > “Stop trying to justify it.”
  
  Pirates are not trying to justify copying? Nor should they, because society doesn’t work in that order, that everything is forbidden, until someone gives a reasonable excuse to why he wants to perform a certain task?
  
  Society works the other way around, everything is allowed, until it is legitimately forbidden in law, and the only party who has to make excuses is the legislators, regarding why this task has to be forbidden.
  
  Citizens should never have to give excuses regarding why they don’t want a possible action forbidden in law, all burden of proof lies upon the legislators, and the prohibition in the law must uphold to certain standards to be considered a legitimate legislation, which you can expect people to follow, and that’s where the monopoly within copyright fails completely.
  
  Because when you try to motivate the restrictions that current copyright laws are based upon, a legislative fail of unprecedented proportions will occur in seven stages.
  
  There is very little to none evidence to support the claim that the current format of copyright is needed in this day and age, to protect intellectual works for the current long term in time, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that copyright needs to interfere with what the public does for non-profit purposes, for the true goal of copyright to occur, to maximise the public’s access to creative works.
  
  Presented evidence that some business models, among many, might fail, is in no way any sorts of evidence that the true goal of copyright no longer will occur, to maximise the public’s access to creative works, with the help of other currently available, or future, business models.
  
  The fact that several other business models already exists, works, and function, to give that effect, is already clear and proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
  
  The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, to guarantee that some business models, among many, should work forever, when the public no longer demands them.
  
  The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, that creators or right holders should be able do dictate which business models the public must use and pay for, to gain access to creative works.
  
  The purpose of copyright is not, and has never been, that creators and rights holders out of principle should have anything close to complete control over their works, and how the public access these works.
  
  There simply doesn’t exist any copyright related problem today, at least not in the direction that anti-pirates and rights holders claim, that copyright laws need to address.
  
  That’s fail #1. A problem that needs to be legislatively addressed does not exist.
  
  The current and suggested copyright laws, does not work in any way, in the manner that they are intended to. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite, that current copyright laws is an actual obstacle for the true goal of copyright to occur.
  
  That’s fail #2. Current copyright laws do not work, or create the effect they intend to.
  
  Instead, current copyright laws is an obstacle for the true goal of copyright to occur, they create the direct opposite of the effect that is desired.
  
  That’s fail #3. Current copyright laws definitely do not work, or create the effect they intend to.
  
  The non-profit monopoly in current copyright laws are in no way obeyed by the public, and it does in no manner stop the public from doing what they want do to, in terms of sharing and distributing creative works for non-profit use.
  
  The public doesn’t see it as anything they need to or should obey, so every time legislators try to strengthen copyright laws in conflict with this public’s opinion, the public will simply use technology to find a new way around copyright laws.
  
  Technology always beat legislation, if motivation exists to create that technology, and after over 40 years of home copying, and almost 15 years of filesharing, it is abundantly clear that that motivation does indeed exist among the public, and there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it can be stopped legislatively.
  
  That’s fail #4. Current copyright laws definitely schmefinatly does not work.
  
  Current copyright laws in no way reflect the public’s opinion on what control creators and rights holders should be privileged with, to interfere with the public’s own physical property. Instead the non-profit parts of current copyright laws is considered a joke, and that decreases the public’s acceptance for the very concept of copyright specifically, and the legislative process and laws in general.
  
  Current copyright laws hurt the public’s acceptance for the basic concept of copyright.
  
  That’s fail #5. Current copyright laws still doesn’t work, instead they create a new problem. They hurt copyright.
  
  As a result of that the current copyright laws are unacceptable among the public, and the legislative process that has taken place around them over the last 10 years, this hurts the public’s acceptance for the legislative process and laws in general.
  
  That’s fail #6. Current copyright laws still definitely do not work, instead they create a really dangerous problem for society.
  
  Current copyright laws are because of the six above mentioned fails in no way proportionate, or cost effective for society or the public. They give nothing positive in return that wouldn’t occur anyway, but instead they create a large economical cost for society, on several different levels.
  
  That’s fail #7. Current copyright laws are disproportionate and in no way cost effective.
  
  Since legitimate legislation must live up to three rules..
  
  (the legislation must be needed to solve an actual documented problem, #1 above
  ..the legislative tools in the law must work, #2 through #4 above
  ..and the legislation must be proportionate and cost effective, #5 through #7 above)
  
  ..which these seven fails point out that copyright laws fails miserably with, this leads to the crystal clear conclusion that current copyright laws has no legitimacy in this day and age. They are a complete legislative failure from beginning to end.
  
  There exists no legitimate prohibition against copying.
  
  Therefore copying is a completely legitimate task, that no one needs to make excuses for performing, and that is something that hundreds of millions of filesharers have already figured out.
  
  People copy because it’s something good. Some people call it pirating, and the only reason they can do that is because legislators in some countries aren’t doing their job at producing legitimate legislation, that reflect reality and the legal consciousness among it citizens.
  
  > “if you are going to be a pirate keep your mouth shut”
  
  I guess the copyright lobbyist would like that, so that no exposed that everything they say is a lie, and that they have no basis for their claims?
  
  But no, as you can see, their war on filesharing is dangerous to society, and must be stopped by educating the public and politicians on what copyright actually is, how the legislative process works, and the fact that filesharing is a completely accepted and very useful task, that in no way is forbidden through legitimate legislation.
  - Anon
    
    Fredrika, your ideas are lovely, utopian rubbish and I suspect you know that. Property, in fact, is the basis of all commerce and culture is commerce to every man, woman, child and organization who invests their time to earn their livings. It never mattered whether they business models will fail, might fail or will find other ways to survive, the laws are clear and I suspect you know that too. Offering your opinion on how legislation *should* work is meaningful only to you. Others who prefer to avoid legal entanglement for infringement tend to work within how legislation actually DOES work.
    
    Reality, y’know.
    
    I would agree that pirates can disrespect and disregard the access rules to “culture” in the form of products and merchandise for sale as long as the creators and their agents who intended to sell it all along can continue to exercise their legal rights to screw you to the wall for copying it.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Property, in fact, is the basis of all commerce and culture is commerce to every man, woman, child and organization who invests their time to earn their livings.”
      
      That is actually an argument against copyright, since copyright only can exist trough an intrusion into other peoples property right. You are aware of the legislative fact that copyright isn’t property, its a monopoly that forbids others to do as they wish with their property.
      
      > “It never mattered whether they business models will fail, might fail or will find other ways to survive, the laws are clear and I suspect you know that too.”
      
      First of all laws can change. Second of all, as i explained, altghough you didn’t seem to understand it, the parts of the current copyright laws that privilege the copyright holder with control over non-profit copying and distribution, is clearly illegitimate, and it’s is therefore something that the public couldn’t care less about.
      
      > “Offering your opinion on how legislation *should* work is meaningful only to you. Others who prefer to avoid legal entanglement for infringement tend to work within how legislation actually DOES work.”
      
      I have not offered any opinions on how actual judicial legislation works? Maybe you should read what i wrote again, until you see that? I explained how the creation of legitimate legislation works. Those are two different things.
    - Anon
      
      “I have not offered any opinions on how actual judicial legislation works?”
      
      Actually Fredrika, I know you mean well but you are very confused. “Judicial legislation” is a misnomer. There is no such thing, they are two very separate things. The Legislative branch in our various forms of government write the laws, they “legislate”. The Judiciary is a separate branch that interprets those laws, they “judge”, then hand down ruling and sets precedent for future interpretation. “Actual judicial legislation” has no validity or meaning.
      
      But it’s encouraging that you feel entitled to explain how all this actually *should* work. :-)
      
      Apparently 24,583 others might enjoy having you explain to them, too. Now there’s a reality for ya.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “”Judicial legislation” is a misnomer. There is no such thing, they are two very separate things.”
      
      Well, even if i did use the phrase out of place in my reply, there are those who would argue that the phrase is indeed a legitimate description of something. Google it if you don’t believe me.
      
      But that’s irrelevant in this case, since i was trying to explain to you that i was in no way conducting in what you claimed i was, “Offering your opinion on how legislation *should* work”. I was discussing which rules the creation of legitimate legislation must uphold to, and pointing out the the current copyright legislation in no way obey those rules, which is why current copyright laws doesn’t constitutes legitimate legislation, which it why it isn’t obeyed by those hundred of millions of filesharers all over the world.
      
      > “Apparently 24,583 others might enjoy having you explain to them, too.”
      
      Those defendants are subject to current legislation. I have not in any way discussed how current legislation should be interpreted or what it says.
    - Anon
      
      ” I have not in any way discussed how current legislation should be interpreted or what it says.”
      
      really.
      
      “…the current copyright laws that privilege the copyright holder with control over non-profit copying and distribution, is clearly illegitimate…”
      
      ‘Nite, Fredrika.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “really.
      
      Precisely. I did not discuss what the current legislation says, i discussed whether or not it can be considered legitimate legislation, according to the rules for which the crafting of legislation must obey.
      
      You are confusing what the legislation currently says(which is what the courts rule after, and which is what these defendants cases are tried according to, which i’m not arguing), with if the crafting of that legislation was legitimate. These are two separate things.
      
      The fact that i claim that some parts the copyright legislation isn’t legitimate, does change the fact that it is what the courts must rule under.
      
      Am i clear enough?
    - Anonymous
      
      @Anon
      
      Judicial legislation means new legal rules made by judges. It means the power of the judicature to make rules for the regulation of their own procedure by adopting their delegated legislative powers.
      
      http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judicial-legislation/
    - Ven
      
      I think you are misunderstanding each other. In the United States there is a huge legal difference between downloading copyrighted material (not an offense) and the uploading of copyrighted material (distribution without permission, a hefty crime).
      
      “Second of all, as i explained, altghough you didn’t seem to understand it, the parts of the current copyright laws that privilege the copyright holder with control over non-profit copying and distribution, is clearly illegitimate, and it’s is therefore something that the public couldn’t care less about.”
      
      I just wanted to point out that Fair Use has been reviewed by our government over the course of the last 15 years to make sure it falls in line with digital copyright, and it will defend all NP copying and distribution that is legal. Unfortunately, this does not cover all NP distribution as music and film are defined by law as luxuries and not as utilities, meaning any arguments relating to the protection of culture will be trumped by the distribution rights of the copyright holder.
      
      At least under our current legal frame for digital copyright.
    - Elyrutherford
      
      With all due respect Ven, you’re simply wrong on the point that downloading copyrighted material is not an offense.
      
      In addition to the distribution right, copyright holders also have a reproduction right. When you download copyrighted material, you are causing a reproduction of that material, and therefore are infringing on the copyright holder’s rights to control reproductions of their material. The Supreme Court acknowledged this in the Grokster case, citing the 9th Circuit’s Napster decision. That’s why Grokster, Napster and others like them were found liable for secondary infringement – because they assisted the direct infringement of the downloaders.
      
      It’s irresponsible to spread these inaccuracies about the law, when you clearly don’t know the law.
    - Ven
      
      I misspoke. What I meant is that, there is not now (and likely to never be) court cases against downloaders. It isn’t worth the time or money. It is petty theft, and even if you went all the way before a judge the end result would be you paying the retail price for the stolen goods. Since there is no way they will ever track your IP 200,000 times as you mass download music, there will never be a good reason for the RIAA to come after you. This also has to do with how difficult it is to prove that someone downloaded something (as opposed to proving someone is seeding a file).
      
      Distribution on the other hand is a felony (the laws regarding distribution of copyrighted material are decades old and punish offenders severely). The laws against illegal distribution were written to deal with VHS/DVD/Cassette/CD factories that are actively working to turn their own profit. As a result, distribution cases against teenagers and state-supported seniors blow up in the RIAA/MPAA’s face usually as these distributors are a far cry from hardened thieves.
    - the wrath of maremie
      
      troll get out. people can do what they want provided they arent making money of it.
    - Anon
      
      Ven, that’s technically true but in a swarm you can be and often are on both sides of the equation at various points in time. If you want to be in compliance with the law and avoid this sort of legal annoyance, best to just pay for whatever you take or completely do without. They can’t lay a finger on you for refusing to buy. Right?
      
      It’s that pesky “it’s all crap AND I want FREE copies of every bit of it!” that gets in the way. lol
      
      The entertaining part of all this is Fredrika’s absolute straight-faced certainty that she has the right to determine copyright law “is clearly illegitimate” but the legislators, the rights holders, the law enforcers, the artists, the judiciary, anyone and everyone with a legal or financial stake in the outcome of this issue do not have that same right. Only Pirates apparently do. Now THAT’s entertainment.
    - Anonymous
      
      I like how the anti-filesharing shills are now working together in a pack, hoping to influence public opinion in these matters. Nice try, but you really are in the wrong place, you’d have more luck trying to sell sand to the Arabs. I know you’re only doing your job and you got mouths to feed and all, but if you could only see yourselves as we see you…
    - Anonymous
      
      I like how the anti-filesharing shills are now working together in a pack, hoping to influence public opinion in these matters. Nice try, but you really are in the wrong place, you’d have more luck trying to sell sand to the Arabs. I know you’re only doing your job and you got mouths to feed and all, but if you could only see yourselves as we see you…
    - Ven
      
      “Ven, that’s technically true but in a swarm you can be and often are on both sides of the equation at various points in time. If you want to be in compliance with the law and avoid this sort of legal annoyance, best to just pay for whatever you take or completely do without. They can’t lay a finger on you for refusing to buy. Right?”
      
      It comes down to being aware of what you are doing. Most people who get hit with distribution lawsuits don’t even realize they are doing it. Honestly, there is so much ignorance every which way you look… It makes it difficult for me to decide which side of the fence I’m on.
      
      “It’s that pesky “it’s all crap AND I want FREE copies of every bit of it!” that gets in the way. lol”
      
      I disagree. I believe there are a large group of legitimate “try before I buy” file sharers, but at the same time I believe that copyright holders do have distribution and duplication rights. I try my best to stay away from duplication arguments because the shitstorm that ensues always gives me a headache. I think it is a huge mistake for either side of the arguments to not give consideration to the other.
      
      “The entertaining part of all this is Fredrika’s absolute straight-faced certainty that she has the right to determine copyright law “is clearly illegitimate” but the legislators, the rights holders, the law enforcers, the artists, the judiciary, anyone and everyone with a legal or financial stake in the outcome of this issue do not have that same right. Only Pirates apparently do. Now THAT’s entertainment.”
      
      And it used to be that only some (not all but some) women thought that they should be allowed to vote. Or blacks who thought they shouldn’t have to be slaves. Or the Catholic church deciding that Galileo should be imprisoned for life because his so-called simple geometry proved that the Earth wasn’t the center of the solar system. History gives us countless examples of straightforward ideas being shunned out of blind loyalty to tradition. It is a losing battle, but I don’t want my time remembered the same way.
      
      I’m not saying Fredrika is right. And I personally don’t think change is going to come any time soon. Our economic stability is at risk when we talk about changing copyright law, and in the name of stability I think the ongoing discussion will get trailed along for a good many years. I think some of the pro-copyright political crowd hopes that stalling will give the tech industry time to produce better DRM that can effectively combat the large-scale illicit sharing (so they don’t actually have to make a decision).
    - Momo
      
      Don’t abuse the word “reality”. Here’s the real reality: Industry (manufacturing and selling of goods) accounts for a mere 22% of the US economy, while services (sale of talent and time) account for 77%.
      
      As long as art was tied to a tangible form, the sale of copies as property made sense and was the most efficient distribution method available. Unfortunately, effortless digital copying turned that on its head. It’s now extremely inefficient to sell copies as pseudo-property, so new business models are needed.
      
      What does that mean?
      
      Artists should sell themselves as sources of new art (i.e. art creation is a service) and move away from a business model that requires middlemen to manufacture copies and sell them as fake property using legalised monopolies.
      
      It’s as simple as that. In the digital age, art will be a service, not a product.
      
      Problem is, that makes the copy-manufacturers redundant and annoys a small but influential number of established artists who had expected to receive royalties until the end of time under the old system — the former will be out of a job, while the latter will have to work again if they want bread on their table.
      
      For how long can those people hold back progress, do you think?
    - Ven
      
      I have questions for you Momo, and I mean it with the sincerest curiosity:
      
      Seventy years ago, was the copyrighted audio (recorded to vinyl) something you would also consider the “fake property” you mentioned above?
    - Momo
      
      Seventy years ago it didn’t matter. The laws were enforced against corporations, not people. Like I said, physical copies used to be the most efficient way to sell art, so fake property was actually indistinguishable from real property.
      
      Now the fake property is no longer limited to physical copies, so enforcing copying laws in the digital domain is inefficient and has a huge overhead, and acts as a limitation on people’s physical property rights (a very bad thing).
    - Ven
      
      Interesting… I’ve been assuming lately that the industry will eventually happen upon a hardware DRM method that will essentially keep all of their art in physical copy form. Either that or our government will actually find a way to enforce their copyright laws they hold so dear. Either way, I don’t see the change coming without a great deal of frustration.
      
      Thank you for answering my question.
    - the wrath of maremie
      
      no…thats not a good idea. copyright law needs to change 15 years maximum then it becomes public domain. innovate or die.
- Anonymous
  
  “Why don’t you guys accept that we all are fucking thieves?”
  
  How about because we fucking aren’t, and you’re a complete moron?
  
  Please go crack open a dictionary and read the entries for “stealing” and “copying” until you comprehend that one is not like the other.
  
  the cake is a lie.
- Trespass
  
  Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) concluded that copyright infringement is not theft or stealing, even for profit.
  
  God Bless Wikipedia
  - Ven
    
    “Dowling was convicted of one count of conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce, eight counts of interstate transportation of stolen property, nine counts of copyright infringement, and three counts of mail fraud.”
    
    He didn’t even fight the copyright infringement. What he fought (and won in the Supreme Court) was the the interstate transportation statute that they tried to convict him under, arguing that the goods he was distributing were not “stolen, converted or taken by fraud.” The court ruled in his favor based upon the wording of that specific statute.
    
    He was not convicted under that statute, but Wikipedia has the resulting statement from the court that says, “…interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.”
    
    Note that it does not make the statement that infringement is not theft, conversion, or fraud, nor does it say copyright infringement is legal. It merely says the law should consider each separately as they are two different beasts.
    - Trespass
      
      In other words COPYRIGHT iNFRINGEMENT DOES NOT EQUAL THEFT OF STEALING! That was the point of my comment. Your editorial really was not needed…
    - Ven
      
      But that isn’t what it said. It says they should be treated separately by the courts, not that they are not equal. They leave the door open to interpreting copyright infringement as a more complex form of theft, conversion, and/or fraud.
    - Trespass
      
      Let me read it again and maybe look at another source, but that is not how I interpreted the wiki piece.
  - http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes
    
    Good one :)
    
    Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case that discussed whether copies of copyrighted works could be regarded as stolen property for the purposes of a law which criminalized the interstate transportation of property that had been “stolen, converted or taken by fraud” and holding that they could not be so regarded under that law.
    
    More here -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)
- http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes
  
  In addition to the excellent comments you’ve already attracted, I should simply add “Rob8urcake”.
  
  Oh, and fuck off troll-face (though I do like those pointed ears) lol.
- the wrath of maremie
  
  why don’t you shut the hell up and stop spreading fud, go troll somewhere else. and its not theft,
  
  the cake is a lie and so are you.
- Anonymous
  
  obvious troll is obvious
Guest

not even a good movie
Elyrutherford

24k in a single suit would cripple the judicial system of any district. Imagine just half of those individuals filing motions to quash the ISP subpoenas, motions for protective orders, motions to dismiss based on improper joinder and lack of personal jurisdiction, etc. I doubt any judge would be able or willing to entertain this through the entirety of litigation.

My guess is that the U.S. Copyright Group knows this, and is simply hoping to get through the ISP subpoena stage so that they can begin their mass shakedown. The court will probably eventually require the USCG to sever the lawsuit and sue people in separate suits, as well as in different districts.
Anon

Boycott all Voltage releases and encourage all you know to do the same.
http://www.facebook.com/jordan.kratz Jordan Kratz

Voltage Pictures I will never support your flicks in any way.Go ahead and make your living off suing folks who may or maynot be guilty.I boycott your scumbag company.
I say that your company can all take turns sucking my dog’s dick.He would love to have you over any time.
FUCK YOU !!!
Anonymous

I sure hope people were smart enough to mask their real IP address lol.
privacy-online.us.tc
- stop spamming your VPN service
  
  IP address != person
http://twitter.com/drivingmecrazyr arg related

is this why they tried so hard to buy this movie an oscar, because they know winning an oscar will get you downloaded more than just about anything?
Guest

Gonna download and seed it just for the lulz!

I hope you do it too.
http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

I wouldn’t even watch this movie for free. So I guess I’m in the clear.
- Xult
  
  I was one of the unfortunate buggers who downloaded this movie.
  Due to the Oscar win.
  I’m bloody happy I didn’t waste my time going to the cinema.
  But still wasted valuable time watching this dire piece of crap.
  - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
    
    Yeah, I’d like to say that I heard it was bad, but ultimately I think I
    didn’t watch it just because it has a stupid title. And then when it won
    Best Director over Cameron, well, that’s just ridiculous. If you don’t win
    a best director award after single-handedly revolutionizing the trade,
    something is very, very wrong.
- http://disqus.com/ Rob8urcakes
  
  What’s the name of it? Fuck Hokker? Duck Plonker? Hunt Looker? ….
- Anonymous
  
  I would never watch a movie with the word “hurt” in the title. Considering all it seems a good policy.
Haxor

funny isn’t it all these movies they sue over i haven’t even tried to download why cause everyone tells me and trusted people that is THEY suck. AVATAR i dled and watched about 30 mins before i deled it. ISNT it nice whuile people starve and die of disease and famine that we have lawyers that sue people over a 1.5 hrs piece a shit movie?

Lawyers = economic terrorists.
- Anon
  
  You say that as if people have some obligation to help others with their disease or famine.
Iseemtobelost

The Hurt Locker is where you wind up if you were unfortunate enough to have to watch this crap. And I am pretty easily amused.

J.
The-third-eye

They need the money too…
I am a sausage not hotdog

So very true!!
Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Target Record Breaking 24,583 BitTorrent Users – There Goes America
Vainglorious

For those who have seen this very average film, recall two main characters (the bomb tech and the Iraqi kid) meet when the bomb tech violates copyright by knowingly purchasing a bootleg copy from the Iraqi kid.
Vainglorious

For those who have seen this very average film, recall two main characters (the bomb tech and the Iraqi kid) meet when the bomb tech violates copyright by knowingly purchasing a bootleg copy from the Iraqi kid.
Anonymous

Oh my. The RIAA’s own judge, ruling on an issue where the RIAA has a pronounced opinion. GOLLY GOSH, I WONDER WHAT SORT OF RULING SHE’LL GIVE???

Eh, maybe a miracle will happen. Howell might spontaneously become self-aware, and subsequently realize that she just MIGHT be biased on the issue, and more importantly that everyone thinks she DEFINITELY is, and that she’d be much better off if she recused herself and let another judge handle the case.
Probably not gonna happen, though.
Joeytanker

I downloaded it too.. and quit watching it 20 min into it.. what a lame flick. clearly this is the only way (in their lame ass movie making mindset) for them to squeeze another 20 million or so out of a sub par movie, that it seems they stole the idea for anyway. I hope they waste 2-5 million on lawyers and the whole deal gets thrown out.
Coward of the County

The should be constant pressure until the Judge recuses herself for a conflict of interest, having lobbied on behalf of the entertainment industry in infringement areas. Plain & simple. In the past most of the US judges were kicking these cases on the basis of jurisdictional standing.
Coward of the County

The should be constant pressure until the Judge recuses herself for a conflict of interest, having lobbied on behalf of the entertainment industry in infringement areas. Plain & simple. In the past most of the US judges were kicking these cases on the basis of jurisdictional standing.
Bill

Anuria-34510: “The US has very high standards of judicial integrity. ”
Rodney King nuff said
- Jimmy
  
  “The US has very high standards of judicial integrity. ”
  
  O.J. Simpson Trial – real judicial integrity there.
Amit

They can’t do anything to ppl outside the US.. And they can’t do anything to ppl who distributed the movie to their frnds on pen drives and cd/dvd after downloading.. So they are taking out their frustration on some bittorrent users on the basis of an IP address which is not even a solid proof against some person. Losers.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YYCFXMUY3QJUWHYNQYSCLBF43Q Brian Ward

It seems to me that their damages are a copy of the movie on DVD at most. Although the bit-torrent folks distributed the movies, they distributed to other bit-torrent people who are theoretically also identifiable and can be named in the lawsuit. I also don’t understand how anyone can claim a specific financial loss at all. I mean, if a move is free it seems like a lot more people will be willing to watch it than if they had to pay $20 or whatever. Given that so few people went to see The Hurt Locker in the theaters, it seems unlikely that every single person who pirated the movie would have otherwise bought it if they couldn’t pirate it making actual damages something much smaller… like $1 per person that shared the movie? (total guess).

I don’t use bit-torrent and am not at risk of this lawsuit. I also am strongly against pirating other people’s hard work – but I am also against going overboard.
- Anonymous
  
  Public rights and copyright control are currently in an arms race and open warfare where this Hurt Locker case is like dropping bombs on a city center.
  
  They are wrong to fine people $1000 for a movie. The value awarded should relate to the damages caused which for a single movie is more around $10. Keep in mind that this is no education lesson when it is all about money and control. They will try to avoid court cases that would point out the flaws in their scheme and simply go with speculative invoicing and see how people many pay up.
  
  So if you are not a BT file-sharer or even part of this lawsuit then what is your interest and reason for reading and posting here?
  
  I do believe in “pirating other people’s hard work” namely because I am well aware of the restriction and abuse that copyright provides. I am happy to see people free to achieve their goals and the innovation involved and I am directly aware that file-sharing is not nearly as harmful as they claim and can in many ways be helpful.
  
  Good sales can only happen by the demand of popularity. File-sharing makes for good advertisement and exposure. Honest people (and I have faith in society) will still pay for what they enjoy. It is true to say that these days if you’re not pirated you are nobody.
  
  Some media artists/owners are enlightened. For example Lady Gaga does not mind her fans pirating her stuff. It is all about fandom and entertainment and you can rest assured that she suffers no shortage in profit from all her concerts and appearances.
  
  You may also notice that the Cinema system is having great time and ticket sales reached a record breaking $30 billion last year. It may be true to say that piracy led them to innovate to stay ahead and we now have 3D and more. My point is people seeing a good movie they copied would often desire to see this movie on the big screen taking along their family and friends for the experience. So one free screening can lead to multiple extra sales when they can always win on quality and the experience.
  
  So when discussing “hard work” you may want to look into what happens to it. Your view like many is that they should have large control but they lost control when they released it and all else is then screwing with public rights.
  - Ven
    
    “So if you are not a BT file-sharer or even part of this lawsuit then what is your interest and reason for reading and posting here?”
    
    I know a good many people here hate me, so I figured I would answer this one. I’m not a file-sharer, and I don’t plan on suing or getting sued over copyright infringement any time soon.
    
    However, this world is full of moronic, fat, lazy slobs who surround themselves with people who think just like them. They all agree on something and then go out to tell the world that ‘everybody else agrees with me, what is wrong with you?’
    
    So I guess I post here because the people here don’t agree with me, and that is the best way for me to learn. Lord knows I will never learn anything plugging into the MPAA/RIAA marketing sludge.
People hate the truth

Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time, and holds the record for US and worldwide box office sales. Giving it an Oscar as well would have been overkill, besides, James Cameron was the one that said “I don’t need any awards to tell me i made a good movie”… I completely agree with him as well, fuck the critics and fuck opinions, in the end the only thing that matters is what you think, not what others think, and I think that Avatar was a great movie with a positive message, and i also think that The Hurt Locker was a piece of garbage. If you disagree with me, that is your problem, keep it to yourself because i’m not interested in hearing what you have to say, and if you feel the same way about my opinions, then you understand what i’m trying to say and you have smartened up. Life is too short to waste time arguing about what is better or whatever it is people love to argue about these days.
- Anonymous
  
  Feel better after that rant? :-)
Covenist5

Here is one thing I am personally struggling to understand. if Comcast cable tv costs $45/mo, and Comcast internet costs $45/mo, the same amount of money to the same company, why is it ok to watch something on demand, or better yet record it with a DVR, but not via thier internet service. anyone can record and redistribute it ( if those are that individuals intentions ) via cable tv, more easily than via the internet. can anyone explain the rationale of this. same price, same movie, same ability to be “legal” or not, (it takes longer to search and download then watch) but one is considered legal, and one is considered illegal. it’s just a poor excuse for these pricks to whine for more money.
markie

Voltage Pictures can go and stick their movies up their arse. If companies like this want to sue their own customers then i hope they chock and nobody buys their movies.
Pingback: Boot up: Hurt Locker makers target 24,000 BitTorrent users, Samsung ordered in Apple patent battle, and more | Software BF1
Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Target Record Breaking 24,583 BitTorrent Users (Ernesto/TorrentFreak) | Price Gadget Reviews
AnarchyNow

Who would be stupid enough to pay $2000 for such a shitty worse than nazi U$ army 2c propaganda movie?
Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Target Record Breaking 24,583 BitTorrent Users (Ernesto/TorrentFreak) | Money News Link - Sharing real information to help you make real money.
Pingback: Demanda récord contra 25.000 usuarios por descargas P2P | ReadWriteWeb España
Tspbaysvkscokk

Probably doing this exactly for the revenue the movie didn’t make…..these ppl don’t scare me at all neither do the cops, the feds, jail all that shit bring it on. I’ll make the sentence longer and the world will less 2…..Just don’t be an organ donor cause that’s the body part you won’t have!!!! PROMISE.
Pingback: Demanda récord contra 25.000 usuarios por descargas P2P |
Cujo

you know ,, those axxholes keep on coming after us for sharing ,, you know what we should all do
same as this guy is doing

http://www.holymoly.com/celebrity-news/mike-tysons-tattoo-artist-trying-sue-warner-brothers-over-ed-helms-hangover-2-ink5587

come on you guys ,, think ,, use your head
Pingback: Boot up: Hurt Locker makers target 24000 BitTorrent users, Samsung ordered in …
Pingback: Hurt Locker “supera” a Stallone y presenta la mayor demanda de BitTorrent en la historia contra 24.583 usuarios — Bitelia
Pingback: Report: 20,000 users added to ‘Hurt Locker’ suit
Pingback: Report: 20,000 users added to ‘Hurt Locker’ suit | Get News, Articles and other Informations
Pingback: Hurt Locker “supera” a Stallone y presenta la mayor demanda de BitTorrent en la historia contra 24.583 usuarios |
Voltagesux

Good luck faggots. I am downloading every voltage picture ever released and I am not buying one of your movies. Pricks
Pingback: Intellectual Property Law » Boot up: Hurt Locker makers target 24000 BitTorrent users, Samsung ordered in …
Pingback: Hurt Locker “supera” a Stallone y presenta la mayor demanda de BitTorrent en la historia contra 24.583 usuarios | BytNews
Bammalamma

Thankless, a88holes. I mean you… Shitorrent twerps who don’t want to pay for your music and films. You justify it by making up a villain and saying you’re just sticking it to the man. You destroyed the livelihoods of tens of thousands of creative people and you think you just wiped out some villain in a video game. F**ck You. Grow up. It’s the economy stupid. Yours. Mine. You’re f8cking Freeloaders. Live with that, delusional ingrates.
- Anonymous
  
  stop trolling and read the facts.
  Most of those people who sue are people who make horribly bad films. And porn, but I hate those.
  
  1: Avatar is a great movie; was anyone sued because of downloading that? No.
  2: The Hurt Locker sucked as a movie: was anyone sued: Yes.
  
  Hollywood makes lots of suckish films these days while indie films are actually destroying Hollywood, because they are much much much much much much better.
  
  So shut the fuck up. How much did they pay you? Did Mitch Baker give you a BJ?
- Anonymous
  
  stop trolling and read the facts.
  Most of those people who sue are people who make horribly bad films. And porn, but I hate those.
  
  1: Avatar is a great movie; was anyone sued because of downloading that? No.
  2: The Hurt Locker sucked as a movie: was anyone sued: Yes.
  
  Hollywood makes lots of suckish films these days while indie films are actually destroying Hollywood, because they are much much much much much much better.
  
  So shut the fuck up. How much did they pay you? Did Mitch Baker give you a BJ?
- jeremie
  
  shut the fuck up you idiot. me and everyone else will keep file sharing, you are out *slams door in idiots face*
- Trespass
  
  Know anyone personally who has been affected by filesharing? Didn’t think so. It’s all propaganda. There are no shortage of movies being released and there is no evidence to support one pointless remark you have made. Anyone needs to GROW UP it is you….. Have any numbers to support your claims or are you just repeating verbatim what the man with the kool-aid is telling you?
Pingback: Video News Blog » Hurt Locker producers launch record-breaking copyright lawsuit – Telegraph.co.uk
Plop

How much money did Hurt Locker lose anyway? I thought it MADE a shit load!
Pingback: Report: 20,000 users added to ‘Hurt Locker’ suit « Web-Apps « Christian Media Cross
http://ARMdevices.net/ Charbax

Hurt Locker made over $50 Million in revenues, with a production budget of $15 Million, that’s $35 Million in profits. It took a bunch of Oscars. All that, because it was leaked on the web. If it wasn’t leaked on BiTorrent, they probably wouldn’t have gotten any Oscars, half or less revenues.

Those studios are suing downloaders because they are scared of the positive impact BitTorrent does to the industry. They hate to have such examples showing that BitTorrent improves all aspects of revenues, buzz and appreciation around the release of a movie.

Better even, we should find a way to get rid of all the intermediaries, let’s remove the film studios and the labels, let the artists get their money directly from a global licence (everyone pays $10/month for unlimited downloads), the artists can get paid directly.
Worker and Parasite

not stealing never was, this is to all those trollpacks on these comments. you can whine and complain about this but the simple fact is unless you are making money ITS NOT A CRIME, PERIOD, okay?.
Alex

Sued for hurt locker? The users should get payed to download and view that shit of a movie, that ripped the oscar off avatar, precious, up or up in the air, all of them much better movies.
It wasn’t enough to unfair lobby for the best picture/director oscars, the morons aka producers now want to pull another fast one on the viewers.
Hollywood at it’s best.
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ Lawsuit Targets 24583 BitTorrent Users
http://twitter.com/Maddox01a Maddox01a

Man I sure they have a good firewall. I smell a hack attack coming. It’s not good to piss geeks off.
Pingback: [Caduti del Warez] 25.000 utenti denunciati per aver scaricato “The Hurt Locker” « DiarioNascosto v3.0
Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Sue 20,000 More Alleged Pirates | dblogz
Pingback: Hurt Locker Makers Sue 20,000 More Alleged Pirates : Test Drive
Pingback: Voltage Pictures Threatening To Sue 25,000 BitTorrent Users Over ‘The Hurt Locker’ Piracy
Pingback: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker | Geek News and Musings
Pingback: DGW adds 24,000 new John Does to Voltage Pictures case « Rational Law LLC | Steve Glista | Attorney
Pingback: Hurt Locker BitTorrent Lawsuit Breaks Record | Popular Events
Pingback: Hurt Locker BitTorrent Lawsuit Breaks Record | Programming Blog
Pingback: "Hurt Locker" Producers Sue 24,584 BitTorrent Users
Pingback: 24.583 usuarios de BitTorrent serán demandados por descargar The Hurt Locker
Pingback: I produttori di The Hurt Locker denunciano 24.583 utenti torrent. Se pagano incassano più che dal cinema | wiBlog
Pingback: 24,583 more sued for downloading “The Hurt Locker” | MyCE – My Consumer Electronics
Pingback: Intellectual Property Law » “Hurt Locker” Producers Sue 24584 BitTorrent Users
Pingback: Hurt Locker producers sue record 24,583 BitTorrent downloa | Yoctomy
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets record-breaking 24,583 BitTorrent users
Pingback: 24,000 BitTorrent Users Sued For Allegedly Pirating ‘The Hurt Locker’ | Technology News
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets record-breaking 24583 BitTorrent users
Pingback: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker | Price Gadget Reviews
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets record-breaking 24,583 BitTorrent users (Digital Trends)
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets record-breaking 24,583 BitTorrent users (Digital Trends) | searchnews.us
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets record-breaking 24,583 BitTorrent users (Digital Trends) | NewsInformed.com
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets record-breaking 24,583 BitTorrent users | A51Tech.com
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets record-breaking 24,583 BitTorrent users (Digital Trends) | World Bulletins
Pingback: Ouch: 24583 People Sued for Downloading ‘The Hurt Locker’
Pingback: Hide your IP while downloading BitTorrent: OneSwarm | Love For Tech
Yfdafda

I say we all stop watching movies produce by this company
Mongo_but_a_pawn

One thing I haven’t seen discussed is whether or not the copyright holders waive their rights to claim infringement because they haven’t diligently tried to protect their copy rights. The US Copyright Group monitored download activity for almost a year before taking action. They knew what trackers were involved (because they were monitoring them). Yet, they did nothing to try to prevent anybody from downloading. So they knowingly condoned copyright violations while they were gathering IP addresses. Can a copyright holder who knows his rights are being violated sit by and not take any action to protect his rights, then come along a year later and cry, “foul”? I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this fits the legal definition of entrapment, but it surely does seem that the US Copyright Group was more interested in suing a large number of people than they were in preventing people from downloading these movies.
Mongo_but_a_pawn

One thing I haven’t seen discussed is whether or not the copyright holders waive their rights to claim infringement because they haven’t diligently tried to protect their copy rights. The US Copyright Group monitored download activity for almost a year before taking action. They knew what trackers were involved (because they were monitoring them). Yet, they did nothing to try to prevent anybody from downloading. So they knowingly condoned copyright violations while they were gathering IP addresses. Can a copyright holder who knows his rights are being violated sit by and not take any action to protect his rights, then come along a year later and cry, “foul”? I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this fits the legal definition of entrapment, but it surely does seem that the US Copyright Group was more interested in suing a large number of people than they were in preventing people from downloading these movies.
Pingback: «??????? ????» ???? $ 49 ???. ?? «??????» ? ?????????
Pingback: ‘Hurt Locker’ lawsuit targets 24583 BitTorrent users for illegal downloads
Pingback: BitTorrent feels the sting from The Hurt Locker - Latest technologies , gadets , reviews - Technology geeks : All you need to know about gadgets and technology news
Revolution

someone needs to begin assassinating corporates. NOW. Get on that shit. Time to murder these psychos. MURDER THE RICH.
Pingback: The Drill Down 186 - On the Bubble? | The Drill Down
Pingback: 24000 BitTorrent Users Sued For Allegedly Pirating ‘The Hurt Locker’
Pingback: biggest bittorrent lawsuit in history - Page 7 - Fires of Heaven Guild Message Board
Pingback: Hell Hath No Fury Like A Film Company Scorned | Derangedshaman
Pingback: 24.583 usuarios de BitTorrent serán demandados por descargar The Hurt Locker | ideasweb.info | Noticias, Software y novedades. Las mejores aplicaciones web, con los trucos más útiles y toda la información es nuestro blog.
Pingback: ITbende » Post Topic » ITbende podcast nr. 104: Google Wallet
Pingback: The Hurt Locker: Bei 24 000 Filmpiraten wird abkassiert by Klein Consulting
Pingback: Productora de "The Hurt Locker" quiere demandar a 24583 usuarios de BitTorrent - FayerWayer
Pingback: Productora de “The Hurt Locker” quiere demandar a 24583 usuarios de BitTorrent |
Pingback: Productora de “The Hurt Locker” quiere demandar a 24583 usuarios de BitTorrent | News of today world news every day
Pingback: Productora de “The Hurt Locker” quiere demandar a 24583 usuarios de BitTorrent | probando esta vaina
Pingback: Productora de "The Hurt Locker" quiere demandar a 24583 usuarios de BitTorrent | Ventiao | El mundo cambia, todo cambia, entérate
Pingback: Productora de “The Hurt Locker” quiere demandar a 24583 usuarios de BitTorrent |
Pingback: ?????????????????????????IP????2?4583???? - DNA
Anonymous

Finally (48 hours) time limit to buy.

LV Muffler $ 5.99
LV Bags $ 19.9
LV Wallet $ 6.55
Armani Glasses $ 5.99
LV Belt $ 6.9

Buy addresses-
— tntn.us
Tips (48 hours after the special product is invalid)

/’/…/…./…../?
……..(‘(…?…?….?~ /’)
……………………..’../
………………………./
……………………..(
…….
Anonymous

Finally (48 hours) time limit to buy.

LV Muffler $ 5.99
LV Bags $ 19.9
LV Wallet $ 6.55
Armani Glasses $ 5.99
LV Belt $ 6.9

Buy addresses-
— tntn.us
Tips (48 hours after the special product is invalid)

/’/…/…./…../?
……..(‘(…?…?….?~ /’)
……………………..’../
………………………./
……………………..(
…….
Pingback: Weekly BitTorrent Lawsuit Update – 1756 Does Sued
Pingback: German Rights Holders Go After 300000 P2P Users Per Month
Pingback: German Rights Holders Go After 300,000 P2P Users Per Month | Welcome To My Mind
Pingback: German Rights Holders Go After 300,000 P2P Users Per Month | GameBooze - Bottoms up! Aggregated gaming news, guides, cheats and fixes to quench your gaming needs.
Pingback: Anti-Piracy Groups Send 3.6 Million File-Sharing Cash Demands | TorrentFreak
Pingback: FUNimation Sues 1400 Torrent Downloaders
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2RFP2VQQD3BVHICPJNWAKAT3MQ lishu Zheng

____??_??__??_??________??
____??___??__??
___?___________?
__?_____________?
_?____0_____0____?
_?_______@_______?
_?_______________?
___?_____v_____?
_____??

Google in the input: = tntn.us ==you can find many brand names, even more surprising is that he will sell you the unexpected o(?_?)o
Pingback: 24,583 Hurt Locker pirates to be sued by Voltage Pictures | SociableNews.com
Pingback: Good News for 23,322 Alleged Expendables Downloaders | TorrentFreak
Pingback: 133,242 BitTorrent Users Sued In the U.S. | TorrentFreak
Pingback: 133,242 BitTorrent Users Sued In the U.S. - P2P NewZ
Pingback: Is it bad to have too many seeds?
Pingback: Xirvik.com

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Hurt Locker Makers Target Record Breaking 24,583 BitTorrent Users

The Status Report

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Search TorrentFreak

The Status Report

Related Posts

NewsBits

MostDiscussed

CopyQuote

PopularArticles