IP-Addresses of First Hurt Locker Victims Revealed

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="UbiquitousAeon"]

Anyway they are going to need hard evidence that these people pirated the movie.

LJS9502_basic

The article states that they don't really expect to collect from the people who want to challenge it, they just expect to collect from the people who are willing to settle for $2500...which a lot of people will probably do.

Yeah, and I edited something like that into my post. :P The pirates can either play it safe and pay $2500 or roll the dice.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Why should they need to prove they would have paid to watch/listen/play it? They have enjoyed the entertainment which does have a price attached.

GabuEx

Legally speaking, that is irrelevant. What one needs to prove in court is that a person's actions caused you to lose X dollars in revenue, and therefore they should have to reimburse you that amount. The problem that I see is that no one really has any clue whatsoever how much revenue piracy actually deprives distributors of. The assertion is usually leveled that every single person who downloaded a movie/song/whatever would have paid money for it had they not been able to download it, but I really doubt that this is the case, and I really wish serious studies were done to attempt to establish how much distributors actually lose in revenue due to piracy so we can be realistic about it instead of blindly accepting what is obviously the absolute maximum possible loss.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JML897"]

The article states that they don't really expect to collect from the people who want to challenge it, they just expect to collect from the people who are willing to settle for $2500...which a lot of people will probably do.

JML897

Yeah, and I edited something like that into my post. :P The pirates can either play it safe and pay $2500 or roll the dice.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Personally, although I'm ambivalent on the issue of piracy, I hate the whole "stealing a candy bar" analogy, because if you steal a candy bar then something material is now gone that you can no longer sell to a customer, whereas someone who pirates a movie has not caused material loss and has not prevented you from selling what he stole to someone else. The damage claims in these suits always tend to amount to the assertion that every single person who downloaded a pirated copy of the movie would have paid money for it had they not done so, which has always struck me as a debatable claim at best.

xaos

Moral outrage, eh?I won't tell you that you're wrong Xaos, but I feel compelled to ask you a few questions:

• Have you at any point in your life ever accepted a burned copy of an album or a movie or given one to a friend?

• Has a friend ever transmitted/migrated copyrighted files onto your portable media player? Have you done this for anyone else?

• Ever trade mixtapes with a significant other back in the 90s?

• Do you record songs off the radio or stream rip them off the internet? Have you done this for TV programs?

If you can answer "no" to all of those questions, then fine, I'll believe you. After the stance you have taken in this thread, I sure do hope you can truthfully answer "no" to all the above. I'd hate to have to break out the H-word.

That makes zero sense. Obviously if I snuck into the movie theater and watched a movie for free....I didn't pay the attached fee for doing so. This is no different. You watched something that has a price attached for free. Therefore, you beat the company out of that money. Perhaps laws need tightened up....

LJS9502_basic

No, it makes perfect sense. If someone downloaded a movie because it was free, and would not have downloaded the movie were it not available for free download, that act of having downloaded the movie cost the studio literally nothing whatsoever. Had he not downloaded it, they would have made no more money than when he did download it. In order for a company to claim X damages as a result of someone's actions, they must be able to (or at least are supposed to have to be able to) prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that those actions decreased the amount of revenue that they would have received by X amount. If your actions cannot be reasonably shown to have deprived that company of revenue, they should not be able to collect imaginary revenue that they would have never received in the first place; that would be a horrible legal precedent. And I do not believe it is reasonable to suppose (as is done today) that every single person who pirated a movie would have paid money for it had they not been able to pirate it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JML897"]

The article states that they don't really expect to collect from the people who want to challenge it, they just expect to collect from the people who are willing to settle for $2500...which a lot of people will probably do.

JML897

Yeah, and I edited something like that into my post. :P The pirates can either play it safe and pay $2500 or roll the dice.

Another question, why only 5000? There are definitely more people who downloaded it. More like 50,000Frenzyd109

This is covering those who were distributing the pirated movie, not those downloading it.

[QUOTE="Frenzyd109"]Another question, why only 5000? There are definitely more people who downloaded it. More like 50,000GabuEx

This is covering those who were distributing the pirated movie, not those downloading it.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

The material loss is the income they would have made if the thieves had not been able to download the movie for free.

Elephant_Couple

You can't claim losses from people who weren't customers in the first place.

Why, yes...yes you can. Intellectual property is very explicitly protected by United States law. They're customers who didn't pay for the product they took and used.

What does that have to do with intellectual property?:?

[QUOTE="Frenzyd109"]Another question, why only 5000? There are definitely more people who downloaded it. More like 50,000GabuEx

This is covering those who were distributing the pirated movie, not those downloading it.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

The material loss is the income they would have made if the thieves had not been able to download the movie for free.

xaos

You can't claim losses from people who weren't customers in the first place.

Stealing is stealing, file sharing is file sharing.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Frenzyd109"]Another question, why only 5000? There are definitely more people who downloaded it. More like 50,000UbiquitousAeon

This is covering those who were distributing the pirated movie, not those downloading it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Frenzyd109"]Another question, why only 5000? There are definitely more people who downloaded it. More like 50,000Frenzyd109

This is covering those who were distributing the pirated movie, not those downloading it.

No. If you torrent something, you're also distributing it.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Frenzyd109"]Another question, why only 5000? There are definitely more people who downloaded it. More like 50,000Frenzyd109

This is covering those who were distributing the pirated movie, not those downloading it.

Well, not so much "getting caught" as much as "targeted". Studios know very well that if they go after someone who downloaded a movie but did not upload it, there is no way in hell they can claim they lost any more revenue from that person's actions than the price of the movie in the theater. On the other hand, if they go after someone distributing it, they can claim that they lost that amount of revenue for every single person who downloaded it off of that distributor. There are just way too many downloaders to track down, and they could get way too little money from each of them to bother, so they go after distributors instead.

Hey, Some of the people on there used my Internet Provider :evil:

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Personally, although I'm ambivalent on the issue of piracy, I hate the whole "stealing a candy bar" analogy, because if you steal a candy bar then something material is now gone that you can no longer sell to a customer, whereas someone who pirates a movie has not caused material loss and has not prevented you from selling what he stole to someone else. The damage claims in these suits always tend to amount to the assertion that every single person who downloaded a pirated copy of the movie would have paid money for it had they not done so, which has always struck me as a debatable claim at best.

QuistisTrepe_

Moral outrage, eh?I won't tell you that you're wrong Xaos, but I feel compelled to ask you a few questions:

• Have you at any point in your life ever accepted a burned copy of an album or a movie or given one to a friend?

• Has a friend ever transmitted/migrated copyrighted files onto your portable media player? Have you done this for anyone else?

• Ever trade mixtapes with a significant other back in the 90s?

• Do you record songs off the radio or stream rip them off the internet? Have you done this for TV programs?

If you can answer "no" to all of those questions, then fine, I'll believe you. After the stance you have taken in this thread, I sure do hope you can truthfully answer "no" to all the above. I'd hate to have to break out the H-word.

I'm pretty sure recording off of the radio is legal. It wouldn't be a feature on a lot of MP3 players if it wasn't. Besides, I highly doubt that most people who downloaded this movie didn't download at least 5 more.

That's a hefty price to pay for a whole one copy. Unless they're targeting uploaders in which I doubt.

I think twice the price of the DVD is a fair way to go about it. $2,500 is overkill for one person as it's the price of 125 copies priced at $20 each.

No. If you torrent something, you're also distributing it.

JML897

Only for the duration that you have BitTorrent open. I'm sure the people they're going after here are the ones who downloaded it and then left it open for permanent seeding, since they're the ones against whom they can claim in court they lost a significant amount of revenue.

That's a hefty price to pay for a whole one copy. Unless they're targeting uploaders in which I doubt.

I think twice the price of the DVD is a fair way to go about it. $2,500 is overkill for one person as it's the price of 125 copies priced at $20 each.

Mystic-G

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] Yeah, I think I am driven more by moral outrage. To me, it is stupefying that I've seen game pirates justify illegally downloading games because "I wouldn't pay for it". I understand that legally, actual damages are generally the primary concern, but I still regard this absolutely as theft and ethically repugnant. Edit: That was why I mentioned "punitive" above RogueShodown

Moral outrage, eh?I won't tell you that you're wrong Xaos, but I feel compelled to ask you a few questions:

• Have you at any point in your life ever accepted a burned copy of an album or a movie or given one to a friend?

• Has a friend ever transmitted/migrated copyrighted files onto your portable media player? Have you done this for anyone else?

• Ever trade mixtapes with a significant other back in the 90s?

• Do you record songs off the radio or stream rip them off the internet? Have you done this for TV programs?

If you can answer "no" to all of those questions, then fine, I'll believe you. After the stance you have taken in this thread, I sure do hope you can truthfully answer "no" to all the above. I'd hate to have to break out the H-word.

I'm pretty sure recording off of the radio is legal. It wouldn't be a feature on a lot of MP3 players if it wasn't. Besides, I highly doubt that most people who downloaded this movie didn't do it for at least 5 more.

No it isn't legal. That still comprises the illegal, unauthorized copying, redistribution, and transmission of copyrighted material. What I find so laughably disingenuous is how recording things off TV and radio is seen as so benign, but if you do it over an internet connection, you're a thief. Curious and curiouser.

Boy I sure was one hardcore federal criminal as a kid when I tape recorded songs off the radio.

This will change nothing.weezyfb

All it will do is it might scare some pirates into using other methods that aren't easy to trace.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

No. If you torrent something, you're also distributing it.

GabuEx

Only for the duration that you have BitTorrent open. I'm sure the people they're going after here are the ones who downloaded it and then left it open for permanent seeding, since they're the ones against whom they can claim in court they lost a significant amount of revenue.

That's a hefty price to pay for a whole one copy. Unless they're targeting uploaders in which I doubt.

I think twice the price of the DVD is a fair way to go about it. $2,500 is overkill for one person as it's the price of 125 copies priced at $20 each.

Mystic-G

You doubt something explicitly mentioned in the opening post?

"Helped by the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG), the film makers are requesting the personal details connected to the IP-addresses that allegedly shared the film on BitTorrent." (emph. added)

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

That's a hefty price to pay for a whole one copy. Unless they're targeting uploaders in which I doubt.

I think twice the price of the DVD is a fair way to go about it. $2,500 is overkill for one person as it's the price of 125 copies priced at $20 each.

GabuEx

You doubt something explicitly mentioned in the opening post?

"Helped by the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG), the film makers are requesting the personal details connected to the IP-addresses that allegedly shared the film on BitTorrent." (emph. added)

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]

No. If you torrent something, you're also distributing it.

Teenaged

Only for the duration that you have BitTorrent open. I'm sure the people they're going after here are the ones who downloaded it and then left it open for permanent seeding, since they're the ones against whom they can claim in court they lost a significant amount of revenue.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Only for the duration that you have BitTorrent open. I'm sure the people they're going after here are the ones who downloaded it and then left it open for permanent seeding, since they're the ones against whom they can claim in court they lost a significant amount of revenue.

MrLions

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

That's a hefty price to pay for a whole one copy. Unless they're targeting uploaders in which I doubt.

I think twice the price of the DVD is a fair way to go about it. $2,500 is overkill for one person as it's the price of 125 copies priced at $20 each.

RogueShodown

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]This will change nothing.JML897

All it will do is it might scare some pirates into using other methods that aren't easy to trace.

Only people who aren't internet savvy are getting caught doing this and even then, you have a better shot at winning the lottery than receiving a DMCA letter from your ISP. An ISP receives thousands of inquires a month. Most of them are just tossed out.

[QUOTE="MrLions"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]And I am sure those programs have an option to disable upload.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Moral outrage, eh?I won't tell you that you're wrong Xaos, but I feel compelled to ask you a few questions:

• Have you at any point in your life ever accepted a burned copy of an album or a movie or given one to a friend?

• Has a friend ever transmitted/migrated copyrighted files onto your portable media player? Have you done this for anyone else?

• Ever trade mixtapes with a significant other back in the 90s?

• Do you record songs off the radio or stream rip them off the internet? Have you done this for TV programs?

If you can answer "no" to all of those questions, then fine, I'll believe you. After the stance you have taken in this thread, I sure do hope you can truthfully answer "no" to all the above. I'd hate to have to break out the H-word.

QuistisTrepe_

I'm pretty sure recording off of the radio is legal. It wouldn't be a feature on a lot of MP3 players if it wasn't. Besides, I highly doubt that most people who downloaded this movie didn't do it for at least 5 more.

No it isn't legal. That still comprises the illegal, unauthorized copying, redistribution, and transmission of copyrighted material. What I find so laughably disingenuous is how recording things off TV and radio is seen as so benign, but if you do it over an internet connection, you're a thief. Curious and curiouser.

Boy I sure was one hardcore federal criminal as a kid when I tape recorded songs off the radio.

These things they're trying will never work...

[QUOTE="MrLions"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]And I am sure those programs have an option to disable upload.

Teenaged

As the name of the protocol implies: P2P, peer to peer. You're uploading as your downloading, trading pieces of files you have for the ones you don't have. You can only affect the rates at which you're doing it.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="MrLions"] Nope. can only have upload rate go down to 5k/bsQuistisTrepe_

As the name of the protocol implies: P2P, peer to peer. You're uploading as your downloading, trading pieces of files you have for the ones you don't have. You can only affect the rates at which you're doing it.

It could as well mean that it just gives you the potential to both receive and send, not that you are restricted to do both.

As the name of the protocol implies: P2P, peer to peer. You're uploading as your downloading, trading pieces of files you have for the ones you don't have. You can only affect the rates at which you're doing it.

QuistisTrepe_

Well, there are P2P applications that allow you to turn uploading off; that's not an necessary aspect of P2P in general.

These things they're trying will never work...

RobboElRobbo

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]

I'm pretty sure recording off of the radio is legal. It wouldn't be a feature on a lot of MP3 players if it wasn't. Besides, I highly doubt that most people who downloaded this movie didn't do it for at least 5 more.

Theokhoth

No it isn't legal. That still comprises the illegal, unauthorized copying, redistribution, and transmission of copyrighted material. What I find so laughably disingenuous is how recording things off TV and radio is seen as so benign, but if you do it over an internet connection, you're a thief. Curious and curiouser.

Boy I sure was one hardcore federal criminal as a kid when I tape recorded songs off the radio.

I support property rights Theo, I just don't believe in the current state of copyright laws in the U.S. and copyright holders have no right to infringe on civil rights and abuse our court system to punish average people with ruinous fines. It's not the government's job to uphold antiquated business models.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

That makes zero sense. Obviously if I snuck into the movie theater and watched a movie for free....I didn't pay the attached fee for doing so. This is no different. You watched something that has a price attached for free. Therefore, you beat the company out of that money. Perhaps laws need tightened up....

GabuEx

No, it makes perfect sense. If someone downloaded a movie because it was free, and would not have downloaded the movie were it not available for free download, that act of having downloaded the movie cost the studio literally nothing whatsoever. Had he not downloaded it, they would have made no more money than when he did download it. In order for a company to claim X damages as a result of someone's actions, they must be able to (or at least are supposed to have to be able to) prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that those actions decreased the amount of revenue that they would have received by X amount. If your actions cannot be reasonably shown to have deprived that company of revenue, they should not be able to collect imaginary revenue that they would have never received in the first place; that would be a horrible legal precedent. And I do not believe it is reasonable to suppose (as is done today) that every single person who pirated a movie would have paid money for it had they not been able to pirate it.

I thought you were an Ayn Rand fan? The woman would have a veritable aneurysm if she lived to see the day when people could take the intellectual products of people for free without the permission of those people.

Theokhoth

Well, personally, this is why I wish studies were done to investigate seriously how much revenue actually is lost on average due to piracy. If it actually is as much as they claim, then have at it; if it's close to zero, then not so much. I don't support companies being able to sue for reimbursement of imaginary revenue.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

You can't claim losses from people who weren't customers in the first place.

QuistisTrepe_

Stealing is stealing, file sharing is file sharing.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

As the name of the protocol implies: P2P, peer to peer. You're uploading as your downloading, trading pieces of files you have for the ones you don't have. You can only affect the rates at which you're doing it.

GabuEx

Well, there are P2P applications that allow you to turn uploading off; that's not an necessary aspect of P2P in general.

I was just trying to put things in plain English.:P

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] So if people who never buy anything at my store break in and steal things, they are free and clear?LJS9502_basic

Stealing is stealing, file sharing is file sharing.

You can't steal IP, you can illegal reproduce or transmit an IP. I hope you keep that in mind the next time a friend of yours burns an album for you.;)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Stealing is stealing, file sharing is file sharing.

QuistisTrepe_

You can't steal IP, you can illegal reproduce or transmit an IP. I hope you keep that in mind the next time a friend of yours burns an album for you.;)

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Moral outrage, eh?I won't tell you that you're wrong Xaos, but I feel compelled to ask you a few questions:

• Have you at any point in your life ever accepted a burned copy of an album or a movie or given one to a friend?

• Has a friend ever transmitted/migrated copyrighted files onto your portable media player? Have you done this for anyone else?

• Ever trade mixtapes with a significant other back in the 90s?

• Do you record songs off the radio or stream rip them off the internet? Have you done this for TV programs?

If you can answer "no" to all of those questions, then fine, I'll believe you. After the stance you have taken in this thread, I sure do hope you can truthfully answer "no" to all the above. I'd hate to have to break out the H-word.

QuistisTrepe_

I'm pretty sure recording off of the radio is legal. It wouldn't be a feature on a lot of MP3 players if it wasn't. Besides, I highly doubt that most people who downloaded this movie didn't do it for at least 5 more.

No it isn't legal. That still comprises the illegal, unauthorized copying, redistribution, and transmission of copyrighted material. What I find so laughably disingenuous is how recording things off TV and radio is seen as so benign, but if you do it over an internet connection, you're a thief. Curious and curiouser.

Boy I sure was one hardcore federal criminal as a kid when I tape recorded songs off the radio.

Do you have proof of this? I would believe you, but I remember reading somewhere that it was legal to record both TV and radio for personal use. There are big differences from recording off of the internet and recording off of TV and radio. You can get the DVD/CD-quality version of a TV show/movie/song when download/record things off of the internet.

No. They downloaded a movie that DOES have a cost applied. Has nothing to do with what would have happened if they hadn't downloaded it. Again...with the movie theater analogy....I would be arrested for sneaking into the movie without buying a ticket. However, the theater owner would not have made that money anyway if I had not snuck in. That does not mean it's legal...or right...that someone would do so. It's not like the movie downloaded does NOT have a price attached. Watching it without purchase is basically stealing. Preponderance of the evidence? I can assure you were I on a jury....I'd bust the pirate. And since juries decide cases.....and have opinions...one cannot say without doubt that it's entirely decided that one gets away with it.

LJS9502_basic

As I said, the onus is (or should be) on the one claiming lost revenue to show that that revenue actually was lost, by showing, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that revenue was indeed lost - that is, that those who pirated the movie would have paid money for it had it not been available for free download. This is the case in every case in which a suit is brought to court alleging lost revenue due to the someone's actions. If a company cannot prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that revenue was actually lost, then they cannot be awarded damages equal to imaginary revenue that they were never going to get either way.

As for your example of sneaking into a theater, a theater is a private establishment, and unlawfully being present in a private establishment that the owners do not want you to be in is trespassing, which is an entirely different offense that is unrelated to the fact that you watched a movie without paying for it.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I thought you were an Ayn Rand fan? The woman would have a veritable aneurysm if she lived to see the day when people could take the intellectual products of people for free without the permission of those people.

GabuEx

Well, personally, this is why I wish studies were done to investigate seriously how much revenue actually is lost on average due to piracy. If it actually is as much as they claim, then have at it; if it's close to zero, then not so much. I don't support companies being able to sue for reimbursement of imaginary revenue.

The studies that have been done are total BS. It's funny how album sales are rising (even in Sweden, the former home of The Pirate Bay) and the recording industry is enjoying a renaissance all the while the lawsuits are going away. Hollywood is enjoying bigger box office receipts than they ever have so I'm not sure about that bit about Big Content losing billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people being thrown out of work.

It just isn't happening.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]

I'm pretty sure recording off of the radio is legal. It wouldn't be a feature on a lot of MP3 players if it wasn't. Besides, I highly doubt that most people who downloaded this movie didn't do it for at least 5 more.

RogueShodown

No it isn't legal. That still comprises the illegal, unauthorized copying, redistribution, and transmission of copyrighted material. What I find so laughably disingenuous is how recording things off TV and radio is seen as so benign, but if you do it over an internet connection, you're a thief. Curious and curiouser.

Boy I sure was one hardcore federal criminal as a kid when I tape recorded songs off the radio.

Do you have proof of this? I would believe you, but I remember reading somewhere that it was legal to record both TV and radio for personal use. There are big differences from recording off of the internet and recording off of TV and radio. You can get the DVD/CD-quality version of a TV show/movie/song when download/record things off of the internet.