IP-Addresses of First Hurt Locker Victims Revealed

[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.

Then the blindingly obvious double standard means all the more lulz.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

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.

GabuEx

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.

If the medium was taken without compensation....I think that shows loss.LJS9502_basic

No, it shows no loss in itself whatsoever. If a person who downloads a movie would not have paid money for that movie had it not been available to download, then the amount of revenue lost on the part of the movie distributor is exactly zero. The only time when there is a loss of revenue due to such an action is when the person would have paid money for the movie had it not been available for download, but did not pay money because it was available for download. In this case, the distributor can correctly claim a delta between the world in which it was not available for download and the world in which it was, and can correctly claim that making it available for download was directly responsible for lost revenue.

As I have repeatedly said, a company cannot be awarded damages equal to lost revenue when that lost revenue is entirely imaginary and is in fact revenue that they only wished they had received. In order to claim that the actions of a person resulted in lost revenue, and therefore be able to demand compensation for that lost revenue, they must be able to show based on a preponderance of the evidence that the amount they are claiming as lost revenue is indeed revenue they would have received were it not for the actions of the defendant.

No...theaters are free to walk into the lobby and you wouldn't get arrested for doing that......unless you caused some trouble.LJS9502_basic

Of course you wouldn't get arrested for doing that, on account of the facts that you are lawfully present in the theater and that you have done nothing to cause the owners of the theater to no longer want you in their private establishment.

FOR PERSONAL USE are the keywords. Distributing them is illegalFrenzyd109

Then the blindingly obvious double standard means all the more lulz.

QuistisTrepe_

Not exactly. In order to broadcast music over the radio, the station has to pay the copyright owners money, which is compensation for allowing a lot of people have access to it. You also have to factor in that people who record it have to deal with static,as well as other things, which usually makes it of noticeably lower quality compared to buying the CD. It still gives the person reason to buy the better version, unlike if he or she was to download off of the internet or record from internet radio.

[QUOTE="Frenzyd109"] FOR PERSONAL USE are the keywords. Distributing them is illegalRogueShodown

Then the blindingly obvious double standard means all the more lulz.

QuistisTrepe_

Not exactly. In order to broadcast music over the radio, the station has to pay the copyright owners money, which is compensation for allowing a lot of people have access to it. You also have to factor in that people who record it have to deal with static,as well as other things, which usually makes it of noticeably lower quality compared to buying the CD. It still gives the person reason to buy the better version, unlike if he or she was to download off of the internet or record from internet radio.

So sound quality is the difference maker? Oh, that sure clears things up.

[QUOTE="MrLions"]

Source

More Source

Some more source!

"Little more than a week ago the makers of The Hurt Locker filed a complaint against the first 5,000 'unidentified' BitTorrent users. 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.

The D.C District Court will now have to decide whether or not the ISPs of the alleged infringers will be ordered to hand over the personal information of the users associated with the IP-addresses. If this happens, the customers who are identified will receive a settlement offer of $2,500. Through this scheme, the USCG and Hurt Lockers' makers hope to collect millions of dollars in revenue, beating their box office earnings."

I lol'd. :o

I hope your IP adress is not on there! :P

"Awww man we could have gotten like 32million dollars if it wern't for PIRATES AWW MAN SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE MORE MORE $$$$$$$$$$"

Stupid fat greedy men make me sick

Discuss :P

Thank god for Time Warner/Road Runner

Elephant_Couple

You're ignorant. You don't deserve to have media for free when the people providing it to you are spending countless hours and dollars so you will enjoy it.

You think they spend all that money just so you'll enjoy it?

You're even more ignorant than he is.

Summit is a company. Some companies (like Valve) care about their customer base, but most exist solely to make money.

No, it shows no loss in itself whatsoever. If a person who downloads a movie would not have paid money for that movie had it not been available to download, then the amount of revenue lost on the part of the movie distributor is exactly zero. The only time when there is a loss of revenue due to such an action is when the person would have paid money for the movie had it not been available for download, but did not pay money because it was available for download. In this case, the distributor can correctly claim a delta between the world in which it was not available for download and the world in which it was, and can correctly claim that making it available for download was directly responsible for lost revenue.

As I have repeatedly said, a company cannot be awarded damages equal to lost revenue when that lost revenue is entirely imaginary and is in fact revenue that they only wished they had received. In order to claim that the actions of a person resulted in lost revenue, and therefore be able to demand compensation for that lost revenue, they must be able to show based on a preponderance of the evidence that the amount they are claiming as lost revenue is indeed revenue they would have received were it not for the actions of the defendant.

Of course you wouldn't get arrested for doing that, on account of the facts that you are lawfully present in the theater and that you have done nothing to cause the owners of the theater to no longer want you in their private establishment.

GabuEx

Exactly...it is only when I enter the movie without paying that I would subject myself to the legal system...which is actually my point. And it seems you've now agreed to that.

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]

[QUOTE="Frenzyd109"] That was my point; but downloading/recording music off of the internet is still illegal - even for personal use - AFAIK.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Then the blindingly obvious double standard means all the more lulz.

QuistisTrepe_

Not exactly. In order to broadcast music over the radio, the station has to pay the copyright owners money, which is compensation for allowing a lot of people have access to it. You also have to factor in that people who record it have to deal with static,as well as other things, which usually makes it of noticeably lower quality compared to buying the CD. It still gives the person reason to buy the better version, unlike if he or she was to download off of the internet or record from internet radio.

So sound quality is the difference maker? Oh, that sure clears things up.

They could always just buy a copy of The Hurt Locker and debate that it's completely legal what they did.

They could always just buy a copy of The Hurt Locker and debate that it's completely legal what they did.

Mystic-G

Well ok then...

It definitely shows the loss of what would be paid by those legally watching said movie. I don't see how you come up with it doesn't.

LJS9502_basic

OK, here's what I'm talking about. First consider this scenario:

World A: A movie is not made available for download. A person wants to see it enough to pay for it, so he does so and sees it. Total revenue for the distributor: $10

World B: A movie is made available for download. That person wants to see it, but decides to download it for free. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

Revenue delta for the distributor: $0 - $10 = $-10

Here, the distributor has lost $10 of revenue due to the availability of the movie for download, because the distributor would have made $10 more had the movie not been available for download, all else being equal.

Now consider this scenario:

World A: A movie is not made available for download. A person wants to see it, but not enough to pay for it, so he does not see it. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

World B: A movie is made available for download. That person wants to see it,but not enough to pay for it, so hedecides to download it for free. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

Revenue delta for the distributor: $0 - $0 = $0

Now we have something entirely different. When the movie was not available for download, the distributor would not have made any revenue from this person; and when the movie was available for download, the distributor still did not make any revenue from this person. The amount of lost revenue in this scenario is zero. The availability of the movie for free download did not incur any lost revenue whatsoever, because the person was never going to pay money for it in the first place, even if doing so would cause him to be unable to see the movie.

You cannot simply say, "That movie costs $10, so therefore downloading it illegally is $10 that the distributor should have received." Because nothing physical has been taken from the distributor, it is most certainly not theft in the legal sense of the word. Unless a plaintiff can prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of an individual caused a loss in revenue, such that it was revenue that they would have received were it not for the actions of that individual, then they have no case. Period. The fact that they would have really liked to receive that extra revenue is irrelevant; they must show that it is revenue that they would have received but were prevented from receiving due to the actions of the defendant.

This is just a scam because any lawyer would tear this apart by simply saying his client did not have a PW on his router and say some dude in a car was probably doing it. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, and there is no way they can prove with 100% certanity that the person who owns the IP address actually uploaded the file.

Also the Hurt Locker was a horrible movie and i felt 2 hours of my life were stolen from watcihng it.. Im gonna go ahead and file a class action lawsuit against the distributor for wasting my time. Lets make a movie about Iraq......its not like its not on the news 24/7 and people are sick of it. Movie bombed because people go to movies to escape reality not watch it on a bigger screen.

They arn't doing this to defend their rights or make up lost revenue (as thats very debateable) or for justice. They're doing this to make money for little to no effort, even if it means ruining people in the process.

This is why I do not like capitalism.

They arn't doing this to defend their rights or make up lost revenue (as thats very debateable) or for justice. They're doing this to make money for little to no effort, even if it means ruining people in the process.

This is why I do not like capitalism.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

It definitely shows the loss of what would be paid by those legally watching said movie. I don't see how you come up with it doesn't.

GabuEx

OK, here's what I'm talking about. First consider this scenario:

World A: A movie is not made available for download. A person wants to see it enough to pay for it, so he does so and sees it. Total revenue for the distributor: $10

World B: A movie is made available for download. That person wants to see it, but decides to download it for free. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

Revenue delta for the distributor: $0 - $10 = $-10

Here, the distributor has lost $10 of revenue due to the availability of the movie for download, because the distributor would have made $10 more had the movie not been available for download, all else being equal.

Now consider this scenario:

World A: A movie is not made available for download. A person wants to see it, but not enough to pay for it, so he does not see it. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

World B: A movie is made available for download. That person wants to see it,but not enough to pay for it, so hedecides to download it for free. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

Revenue delta for the distributor: $0 - $0 = $0

Now we have something entirely different. When the movie was not available for download, the distributor would not have made any revenue from this person; and when the movie was available for download, the distributor still did not make any revenue from this person. The amount of lost revenue in this scenario is zero. The availability of the movie for free download did not incur any lost revenue whatsoever, because the person was never going to pay money for it in the first place, even if doing so would cause him to be unable to see the movie.

You cannot simply say, "That movie costs $10, so therefore downloading it illegally is $10 that the distributor should have received." Because nothing physical has been taken from the distributor, it is most certainly not theft in the legal sense of the word. Unless a plaintiff can prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of an individual caused a loss in revenue, such that it was revenue that they would have received were it not for the actions of that individual, then they have no case. Period. The fact that they would have really liked to receive that extra revenue is irrelevant; they must show that it is revenue that they would have received but were prevented from receiving due to the actions of the defendant.

So you are saying that if I wasnt going to go see the movie then they didnt make any money. But then if I download it then they still dont make any money.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

It definitely shows the loss of what would be paid by those legally watching said movie. I don't see how you come up with it doesn't.

akbar13

OK, here's what I'm talking about. First consider this scenario:

World A: A movie is not made available for download. A person wants to see it enough to pay for it, so he does so and sees it. Total revenue for the distributor: $10

World B: A movie is made available for download. That person wants to see it, but decides to download it for free. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

Revenue delta for the distributor: $0 - $10 = $-10

Here, the distributor has lost $10 of revenue due to the availability of the movie for download, because the distributor would have made $10 more had the movie not been available for download, all else being equal.

Now consider this scenario:

World A: A movie is not made available for download. A person wants to see it, but not enough to pay for it, so he does not see it. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

World B: A movie is made available for download. That person wants to see it,but not enough to pay for it, so hedecides to download it for free. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

Revenue delta for the distributor: $0 - $0 = $0

Now we have something entirely different. When the movie was not available for download, the distributor would not have made any revenue from this person; and when the movie was available for download, the distributor still did not make any revenue from this person. The amount of lost revenue in this scenario is zero. The availability of the movie for free download did not incur any lost revenue whatsoever, because the person was never going to pay money for it in the first place, even if doing so would cause him to be unable to see the movie.

You cannot simply say, "That movie costs $10, so therefore downloading it illegally is $10 that the distributor should have received." Because nothing physical has been taken from the distributor, it is most certainly not theft in the legal sense of the word. Unless a plaintiff can prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of an individual caused a loss in revenue, such that it was revenue that they would have received were it not for the actions of that individual, then they have no case. Period. The fact that they would have really liked to receive that extra revenue is irrelevant; they must show that it is revenue that they would have received but were prevented from receiving due to the actions of the defendant.

So you are saying that if I wasnt going to go see the movie then they didnt make any money. But then if I download it then they still dont make any money.

So you are saying that if I wasnt going to go see the movie then they didnt make any money. But then if I download it then they still dont make any money.

akbar13

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. For them to pursue compensation from a defendant in a lawsuit in which they claim the defendant's actions lead to lost revenue, they must prove that that revenue actually was lost, rather than simply imagined and/or desired. The job of a court of law in such a case - nothing more, nothing less - is to establish the existence of lost revenue and to reimburse the plaintiff the revenue that was lost (along with appropriate punitive compensation, if necessary) if indeed the defendant's actions did lead to lost revenue. If the defendant's actions did not lead to lost revenue, which is to say that the amount of revenue the plaintiff would have received would have been the same even if the defendant had not done anything, then the plaintiff has no case. The court cannot rule that the defendant has to pay anyway just out of some nebulous concept of what people "should have" paid; it may only rule on whether or not the defendant's actions led to lost revenue for the plaintiff.

Hahahaha...haha....I guess that's what those people deserve for THEFT, hm?

Good thing I don't torrent anything.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

They arn't doing this to defend their rights or make up lost revenue (as thats very debateable) or for justice. They're doing this to make money for little to no effort, even if it means ruining people in the process.

This is why I do not like capitalism.

UbiquitousAeon

I actually agree in this regard. I was more talking about the record industry that likes to sue 6 year olds for 50 grand.

Hahahaha...haha....I guess that's what those people deserve for THEFT, hm?

Atheos-Arkhaios

Most independent film makers tend to embrace piracy as it spreads the word, leading to increased DVD sales. Though I suppose this proves that the movie has to actually be good in order for that to happen. Instead of making examples of a few people with absurd fines, movie companies should attempt to fix the problem at the source. In other words, they should re-examine how they run things.

Good thing I don't torrent anything.

WiiMan21

What good does a mere IP address do them if multiple people use it? Are they actually going to have authorities go around and confiscate all of the computers? What about people that use wireless routers that aren't password protected (or ones that have their security breached, for that matter)?

This is why I do not like capitalism.

Pixel-Pirate

This has nothing to do with capitalism.:roll:This is merely a predatory law firm misrepresenting who and what they are (U.S. Copyright Group, catchy name btw) looking for a new revenue stream. These tactics aren't even endorsed by the MPAA.

[QUOTE="WiiMan21"]

Good thing I don't torrent anything.

UbiquitousAeon

The actual chances of being one of the 5000 or so who get sued is....well lets just say it's lottery winner thin.

You'd have alot more to worry about from viruses. Which Is why I don't torrent. Viruses are a far more real threat.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

This is why I do not like capitalism.

QuistisTrepe_

This has nothing to do with capitalism.:roll:This is merely a predatory law firm misrepresenting who and what they are (U.S. Copyright Group, catchy name btw) looking for a new revenue stream. These tactics aren't even endorsed by the MPAA.

People using immoral means to make money with no effort and the hell with the little guy?

Sounds like capitalism to me. Or atleast an offspring of capitalism.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

This is why I do not like capitalism.

Pixel-Pirate

This has nothing to do with capitalism.:roll:This is merely a predatory law firm misrepresenting who and what they are (U.S. Copyright Group, catchy name btw) looking for a new revenue stream. These tactics aren't even endorsed by the MPAA.

People using immoral means to make money with no effort and the hell with the little guy?

Sounds like capitalism to me. Or atleast an offspring of capitalism.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Uh, no. This is more of a case for tort reform than anything.

People using immoral means to make money with no effort and the hell with the little guy?

Sounds like capitalism to me. Or atleast an offspring of capitalism.

Pixel-Pirate

Well if the actions of pirates has in fact lead to lost revenue for the distributors, then how is it immoral for them to basically ask for that money that they would have received were it not for the actions of the pirates? Surely you wouldn't claim that a functional society is one in which people can with no repercussions cause others to involuntarily lose money that would have otherwise been theirs.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

People using immoral means to make money with no effort and the hell with the little guy?

Sounds like capitalism to me. Or atleast an offspring of capitalism.

GabuEx

Well if the actions of pirates has in fact lead to lost revenue for the distributors, then how is it immoral for them to basically ask for that money that they would have received were it not for the actions of the pirates? Surely you wouldn't claim that a functional society is one in which people can with no repercussions cause others to involuntarily lose money that would have otherwise been theirs.

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

Pixel-Pirate

I don't deny that there are those who download things that they weren't going to buy, but I also know for a fact that there are those who can afford something and really want it but pirate it anyway just because they're a cheap douche. :P The bottom line is that piracy is the cause of at least some lost revenue, though how much precisely I don't know, and I don't see why it's immoral for a company to want to be reimbursed for that lost revenue, if we could theoretically determine how much revenue piracy actually loses a company.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

People using immoral means to make money with no effort and the hell with the little guy?

Sounds like capitalism to me. Or atleast an offspring of capitalism.

Pixel-Pirate

Well if the actions of pirates has in fact lead to lost revenue for the distributors, then how is it immoral for them to basically ask for that money that they would have received were it not for the actions of the pirates? Surely you wouldn't claim that a functional society is one in which people can with no repercussions cause others to involuntarily lose money that would have otherwise been theirs.

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

Pixel-Pirate

I think it's equally naive to think that NO ONE who pirated the movie would have otherwise paid for it if free downloads weren't available. Surely SOME money was lost as a result of piracy, though the amount is uncertain.

I actually have no problem with ASSUMING that a download equals a lost sale. That may not be entirely realistic, but there's really no way that you can determine that a person WOULDN'T have bought it otherwise. Treat it as a lost sale, and people can avoid punishment by just not pirating.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

People using immoral means to make money with no effort and the hell with the little guy?

Sounds like capitalism to me. Or atleast an offspring of capitalism.

Pixel-Pirate

Well if the actions of pirates has in fact lead to lost revenue for the distributors, then how is it immoral for them to basically ask for that money that they would have received were it not for the actions of the pirates? Surely you wouldn't claim that a functional society is one in which people can with no repercussions cause others to involuntarily lose money that would have otherwise been theirs.

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

MrGeezer

I think it's equally naive to think that NO ONE who pirated the movie would have otherwise paid for it if free downloads weren't available. Surely SOME money was lost as a result of piracy, though the amount is uncertain.

I actually have no problem with ASSUMING that a download equals a lost sale. That may not be entirely realistic, but there's really no way that you can determine that a person WOULDN'T have bought it otherwise. Treat it as a lost sale, and people can avoid punishment by just not pirating.

Yeah, but here's the thing: they aren't suing downloaders, but uploaders. And they're suing the uploaders on the basis that every single person who downloaded from them would have otherwise bought the product, which is how they justify usually suing for such huge amounts. If they were suing on the basis of just one download, whose downloader obviously can only be in one of the two binary states of would buy/would not buy the product, that'd be one thing. However, given that they're suing uploaders, it seems to me that it would be prudent to study the question of precisely how many people on average who download a pirated copy of something actually would have bought it, in order to ensure that the compensatory damages sought in the lawsuit actually do represent real lost revenue.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

GabuEx

I don't deny that there are those who download things that they weren't going to buy, but I also know for a fact that there are those who can afford something and really want it but pirate it anyway just because they're a cheap douche. :P The bottom line is that piracy is the cause of at least some lost revenue, though how much precisely I don't know, and I don't see why it's immoral for a company to want to be reimbursed for that lost revenue, if we could theoretically determine how much revenue piracy actually loses a company.

But that's the thing...we sort of can't. I don't see how there's any way to tell who never would have paid for it anyway, and who is merely a "cheap douche". And if we accept that SOME revenue is lost through piracy and that we can't just allow everyone to do it on the basis that we can't prove an ACTUAL loss of revenue, then the best thing to do is to merely TREAT each case as a loss of revenue, and don't "allow" anyone to do it.

Might suck for some people, but it's not like they had a right to the material just because they were never willing to pay for it. And it's not as if anyone is actually STOPPING them from going right ahead and pirating media anyway. It's just that...they need to realize that if they do it, there's a small risk of getting sued for damages. If they're fine with those risks, they can keep on pirating music/movies/games. If they're not fine with that risk, then piracy is something that it's very easy to simply not do.

Yeah, but here's the thing: they aren't suing downloaders, but uploaders. And they're suing the uploaders on the basis that every single person who downloaded from them would have otherwise bought the product, which is how they justify usually suing for such huge amounts. If they were suing on the basis of just one download, whose downloader obviously can only be in one of the two binary states of would buy/would not buy the product, that'd be one thing. However, given that they're suing uploaders, it seems to me that it would be prudent to study the question of precisely how many people on average who download a pirated copy of something actually would have bought it, in order to ensure that the compensatory damages sought in the lawsuit actually do represent real lost revenue.

GabuEx

The thing about uploaders is that I don't have any sympathy for them. Downloaders, while morally in the wrong, I can at least sort of turn the other way since that's merely one case of a potential loss of sale, with the person using the media for his own use.

With uploaders, sure not everyone who downloads from them would have bought it. But the uploader doesn't know this, and is still fine with distributing the media so that it's easier for people to have access to it WITHOUT providing compensation.

I prefer to think of this the way I think about crack. Crack is illegal. If one dude wants to buy crack for himself, then that sucks, but what can you do? In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big of a deal. But it is a big deal if someone buys some crack and then starts distributing it around the neighborhood.

In theory I have no problem going after every single downloader, but that's impossible and would ultimately be sort of pointless. I have far less problem with seriously going after DISTRIBUTORS, since they are the ones allowing piracy to exist. If distributors think that the punishments are excessive, then boo freaking hoo.

The thing about uploaders is that I don't have any sympathy for them. Downloaders, while morally in the wrong, I can at least sort of turn the other way since that's merely one case of a potential loss of sale, with the person using the media for his own use.

With uploaders, sure not everyone who downloads from them would have bought it. But the uploader doesn't know this, and is still fine with distributing the media so that it's easier for people to have access to it WITHOUT providing compensation.

I prefer to think of this the way I think about crack. Crack is illegal. If one dude wants to buy crack for himself, then that sucks, but what can you do? In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big of a deal. But it is a big deal if someone buys some crack and then starts distributing it around the neighborhood.

In theory I have no problem going after every single downloader, but that's impossible and would ultimately be sort of pointless. I have far less problem with seriously going after DISTRIBUTORS, since they are the ones allowing piracy to exist. If distributors think that the punishments are excessive, then boo freaking hoo.

MrGeezer

This isn't about sympathy; this is about a court awarding a lawsuit's plaintiff compensatory damages without really requiring the plaintiff to prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed loss in revenue actually occurred. You don't see anything wrong with that?

World A: A movie is not made available for download. A person wants to see it, but not enough to pay for it, so he does not see it. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

World B: A movie is made available for download. That person wants to see it,but not enough to pay for it, so hedecides to download it for free. Total revenue for the distributor: $0

Revenue delta for the distributor: $0 - $0 = $0

Now we have something entirely different. When the movie was not available for download, the distributor would not have made any revenue from this person; and when the movie was available for download, the distributor still did not make any revenue from this person. The amount of lost revenue in this scenario is zero.

GabuEx

Then, if the only other way is to download it for free online or buy it, I'd say that IS a loss of revenue, because there were only two choices to be made.

This isn't about sympathy; this is about a court awarding a lawsuit's plaintiff compensatory damages without really requiring the plaintiff to prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed loss in revenue actually occurred. You don't see anything wrong with that?

GabuEx

Nothing more wrong than refusing to award any damages on the basis that it's impossible to determine that any revenue was lost.

I mean, how are you going to prove an actual amount of damage lost? How would it be possible to EVER look at a distributor and determine that they haven't caused ANY lost revenue? If that then means that there can be NO damages awarded, then that basically means that everyone can pirate as much as they like and there will be no consequences whatsoever.

If companies wanted to regain lost revenue from piracy, wouldnt it be more cost worthy and ethical to just record all ip addresses of piraters and charge all of them the cost of the intellectual property pirated and add the cost of legal fees? Why go beyond punishment and charge piraters 2,500$ for only a fraction of the downloader/sharers? What about the people who pirated the Hurt Locker but were not charged, how fair is that? If they charged all piraters of the movie a fee of maybe $50 each they could certainly fulfill whatever cost of lost revenue they projected without absurd compensation.

Theres a lot of contradiction involved with this as well. Im sure a fraction of those IP address are of war veterans, maybe even EOD techs. So the directors are going to make a film honoring soldiers and then turn around and sue them for thousands? Even in court, for a theft of a dvd they would probably give the convicted community service, and that is even if the store owner decides to file charges which in many cases for a $20 item they would use moral discretion and tell the officers to let the person go free and reclaim the stolen item.

[QUOTE="MrLions"][QUOTE="xaos"]"Victims"? Is that what we're calling thieves these days?xaos

Also this is for sharing the film I believe, I doubt anybody will ever get charged for downloading something, far as I know they go after the people who ripped and shared the film, not the folk who d/led it.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

MrGeezer

I think it's equally naive to think that NO ONE who pirated the movie would have otherwise paid for it if free downloads weren't available. Surely SOME money was lost as a result of piracy, though the amount is uncertain.

I actually have no problem with ASSUMING that a download equals a lost sale. That may not be entirely realistic, but there's really no way that you can determine that a person WOULDN'T have bought it otherwise. Treat it as a lost sale, and people can avoid punishment by just not pirating.

Likely some were lost sales, but you cannot say how many. There for I do not find it right to sue someone for "millions of lost sales" when theres millions of downloads. We do not know how many were potential buyers. We do not know if one download=one lost sale, or if 1 million downloads=one lost sale.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well if the actions of pirates has in fact lead to lost revenue for the distributors, then how is it immoral for them to basically ask for that money that they would have received were it not for the actions of the pirates? Surely you wouldn't claim that a functional society is one in which people can with no repercussions cause others to involuntarily lose money that would have otherwise been theirs.

Avistann

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

Burden is on the prosecution to prove that all those downloads were lost sales and that they should be punished for those.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

You can't prove that it cost them anything, though. You cannot prove that a download=lost sale. If person A. downloads something for free, it does not mean they would of paid you 10 dollars for it.

Pixel-Pirate

I think it's equally naive to think that NO ONE who pirated the movie would have otherwise paid for it if free downloads weren't available. Surely SOME money was lost as a result of piracy, though the amount is uncertain.

I actually have no problem with ASSUMING that a download equals a lost sale. That may not be entirely realistic, but there's really no way that you can determine that a person WOULDN'T have bought it otherwise. Treat it as a lost sale, and people can avoid punishment by just not pirating.

Likely some were lost sales, but you cannot say how many. There for I do not find it right to sue someone for "millions of lost sales" when theres millions of downloads. We do not know how many were potential buyers. We do not know if one download=one lost sale, or if 1 million downloads=one lost sale.

And on the other hand, we have owners of intellectual property who ARE wrongly deprived of sales. Should there be absolutely NO way for them to be compensated, simply because an illegal distributor can't be tied to a specific number of dollars lost?

Should the system be set up in such a way that the people making art are basically FORCED to give it away for free simply because they CAN'T be compensated if people decide to "steal" it?