IP-Addresses of First Hurt Locker Victims Revealed

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="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.

MrGeezer

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?

I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly.

If they cannot get a concrete amount of how much is lost, then no, they shouldn't get anything. Too abusable. They could say they lost billions when the estimate is unknown. Should they be compensated? Probably. Should they be able to make up how much they want with no evidence of how much was lost? No.

If my house burnt down, I'd hope my insurance company wouldn't be stupid enough to believe me when I say my 20 year old TV is worth a million dollars.

[QUOTE="Avistann"][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

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

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.

MrGeezer

Nothing more wrong? I don't agree with that; one begins with the presumption of guilt and the other begins with the presumption of innocence. The former is clearly more wrong in my view than the latter.

All that you really need is some sort of scientific study that demonstrates what proportion of those who pirate a form of media would have paid for it had they been unable to. That does not strike me as unfeasible, and if such a study were performed, then it would be easy to institute compensatory damages based on a percentage of the number of people who downloaded from a pirate rather than operating under the extreme assumption that every single one of those downloaders would have bought the product otherwise.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

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.

FFCYAN

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.

Watching a movie on TiVo does not require that one pays the amount that you would have had to pay to see it in theaters. There is still no lost revenue there. That someone would have paid $10 if they had paid for something pirated does not in itself mean that the distributor has now lost $10, if in fact the person never had any intention of paying $10 either way.

If my house burnt down, I'd hope my insurance company wouldn't be stupid enough to believe me when I say my 20 year old TV is worth a million dollars.

Pixel-Pirate

We're talking about retail price for acquired media.

No one's talking about picking an arbitrary price for the songs or movies that you distribute. But if the movie retails for $15 and you distribute 100 copies illegally, there you go.

Why should the burden be to prove something that is fundamentally unprovable (that is, that the defendent isn't lying when he says "but I never would have bought it anyway, so it's not really stealing")? The illegally distributed media has a retail value of X dollars, so make him pay X dollars plus punitive damages.

And I thought blackmail was illegal...

Oh wait thats just to the average citizen, these corperations have always been above the law.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

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.

GabuEx

Nothing more wrong? I don't agree with that; one begins with the presumption of guilt and the other begins with the presumption of innocence. The former is clearly more wrong in my view than the latter.

All that you really need is some sort of scientific study that demonstrates what proportion of those who pirate a form of media would have paid for it had they been unable to. That does not strike me as unfeasible, and if such a study were performed, then it would be easy to institute compensatory damages based on a percentage of the number of people who downloaded from a pirate rather than operating under the extreme assumption that every single one of those downloaders would have bought the product otherwise.

Ugh...what?! I'm talking about people who have been proven to illegally download or distribute art. Last I've heard, that's illegal, and so we've already established wrongdoing.

And I thought blackmail was illegal...

Oh wait thats just to the average citizen, these corperations have always been above the law.

htekemerald

this isn't any different to just stealing it off the shelf.

If I made a movie and someone pirated it I'd take them to court too.

this isn't any different to just stealing it off the shelf.

If I made a movie and someone pirated it I'd take them to court too.

Deano

You're basically Hitler Blitzkrieging poland :(

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

If my house burnt down, I'd hope my insurance company wouldn't be stupid enough to believe me when I say my 20 year old TV is worth a million dollars.

MrGeezer

We're talking about retail price for acquired media.

No one's talking about picking an arbitrary price for the songs or movies that you distribute. But if the movie retails for $15 and you distribute 100 copies illegally, there you go.

Why should the burden be to prove something that is fundamentally unprovable (that is, that the defendent isn't lying when he says "but I never would have bought it anyway, so it's not really stealing")? The illegally distributed media has a retail value of X dollars, so make him pay X dollars plus punitive damages.

Okay, so 30 bucks should do it?

You can't just say "Well all those 100 people would of bought it. There for he owes me 100x's 10!"

It basically lets them set how much money they want from the guy.

Me too...but I wouldn't ruin someones life charging them millions of dollars over a $20 piece of "art work" I could never live with myself with suing them :(MrLions

this is multiple people though.

if say 50,000 people downloaded the movie, which is really small and probably way more pirate you can imagine how much film companies are losing.

if you only fined people $20 for DL a movie that wouldn't deter anyone.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Avistann"] It can go the other way. You can't prove that the person who was downloading the file, would not end up buying the product if the illegal download was available. I don't get the argument. People pay money to see the movies, why should down loaders have special privileges?Avistann

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

They deserve compensation.

30 dollars seems reasonable to me.

Ugh...what?! I'm talking about people who have been proven to illegally download or distribute art. Last I've heard, that's illegal, and so we've already established wrongdoing.

MrGeezer

In any trial, the presumption of innocence is equivalent to the presumption that the defendant has not done what he is accused of. In a civil trial in which someone has been sued for lost revenue, the presumption of innocence is therefore the presumption that the person's actions have not caused lost revenue. What you are saying is that we ought to allow courts in a civil lawsuit to recover lost revenue to presume without evidence that lost revenue has occurred, and to place the burden on the defendant to prove that his actions did not cause lost revenue. That is a complete overturning of everything that the American legal system stands for.

[QUOTE="MrLions"] Me too...but I wouldn't ruin someones life charging them millions of dollars over a $20 piece of "art work" I could never live with myself with suing them :(Deano

this is multiple people though.

if say 50,000 people downloaded the movie, which is really small and probably way more pirate you can imagine how much film companies are losing.

if you only fined people $20 for DL a movie that wouldn't deter anyone.

This won't deter people because statisticly the chances of being sued for illegally downloading a movie are astronomical.

this isn't any different to just stealing it off the shelf.

If I made a movie and someone pirated it I'd take them to court too.

Deano

Actually, it is very different from just stealing it off the shelf; the difference is that stealing something off of the shelf causes material loss to the store owner, whereas with pirated movies no one has lost anything at all, meaning that no theft has occurred. The two situations are so different that the legal charges involved are different.

This won't deter people because statisticly the chances of being sued for illegally downloading a movie are astronomical.

Pixel-Pirate

speeding fines don't deter people either.

doesn't mean we shouldn't punish those who do get caught.

and these fines may deter people in future from downloading movies.

Actually, it is very different from just stealing it off the shelf; the difference is that stealing something off of the shelf causes material loss to the store owner, whereas with pirated movies no one has lost anything at all, meaning that no theft has occurred. The two situations are so different that the legal charges involved are different.

GabuEx

it isn't any different, it's still lost earnings.

who loses it is irrelevant.

and anyway it's the movie companies that lose out, it costs money to make movies, people pirating it means losses for the movie production company.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

This won't deter people because statisticly the chances of being sued for illegally downloading a movie are astronomical.

Deano

speeding fines don't deter people either.

doesn't mean we shouldn't punish those who do get caught.

and these fines may deter people in future from downloading movies.

They won't. Because this isn't the first time someones been sued. And the amount is fairly small to the point someone would probably think the incredibly miniscule risk is worth it.

You have a greater chance of your drinking glass breaking and you swallowing it than you do of being sued for downloading.

Most companies would just send you a cease and desist mail. They'd lose money if they took every downloader to court. Lawyers and court fee's ain't free.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Actually, it is very different from just stealing it off the shelf; the difference is that stealing something off of the shelf causes material loss to the store owner, whereas with pirated movies no one has lost anything at all, meaning that no theft has occurred. The two situations are so different that the legal charges involved are different.

Deano

it isn't any different, it's still lost earnings.

who loses it is irrelevant.

and anyway it's the movie companies that lose out, it costs money to make movies, people pirating it means losses for the movie production company.

As already pointed out, you can't prove that every download is a lost sale, or even that the majority are.

They won't. Because this isn't the first time someones been sued. And the amount is fairly small to the point someone would probably think the incredibly miniscule risk is worth it.

You have a greater chance of your drinking glass breaking and you swallowing it than you do of being sued for downloading.

Most companies would just send you a cease and desist mail. They'd lose money if they took every downloader to court. Lawyers and court fee's ain't free.

Pixel-Pirate

that's why you sue a whole bunch at once.

anyway it doesn't matter if this doesn't stop pirating, nothing will crime will always be around. But I have no problem with people being punished for doing it

do you only do the "right" thing if you know you're going to get caught, that is a poor attitude.

Glad i didn't bother downloading that overrated movie.X360PS3AMD05

it isn't any different, it's still lost earnings.

who loses it is irrelevant.

and anyway it's the movie companies that lose out, it costs money to make movies, people pirating it means losses for the movie production company.

Deano

No, it is different. The loss when someone steals something is evident - the item had a monetary worth; it was previously owned by someone; and now that person does not have it and cannot make use of it. The loss in this case is much less evident. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, if someone downloads something that they would not have bought were it not available for free, then that is categorically not lost earnings. Those are unrealized potential earnings, but they are not lost earnings. Otherwise you could sue every single person who didn't see your movie for lost earnings.

As already pointed out, you can't prove that every download is a lost sale, or even that the majority are.

Pixel-Pirate

of course it's a lost sale, because that person has downloaded a movie for free when otherwise they would have had to go to a movie theatre and pay to see it.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

They won't. Because this isn't the first time someones been sued. And the amount is fairly small to the point someone would probably think the incredibly miniscule risk is worth it.

You have a greater chance of your drinking glass breaking and you swallowing it than you do of being sued for downloading.

Most companies would just send you a cease and desist mail. They'd lose money if they took every downloader to court. Lawyers and court fee's ain't free.

Deano

that's why you sue a whole bunch at once.

anyway it doesn't matter if this doesn't stop pirating, nothing will crime will always be around. But I have no problem with people being punished for doing it

do you only do the "right" thing if you know you're going to get caught, that is a poor attitude.

Okay, so 30 bucks should do it?

You can't just say "Well all those 100 people would of bought it. There for he owes me 100x's 10!"

It basically lets them set how much money they want from the guy.

Pixel-Pirate

Sure you can. He illegally took something with a $100 value, and handed it out to ten people.

No, it is different. The loss when someone steals something is evident - the item had a monetary worth; it was previously owned by someone; and now that person does not have it and cannot make use of it. The loss in this case is much less evident. As I have said elsewhere in this thread, if someone downloads something that they would not have bought were it not available for free, then that is categorically not lost earnings. Those are unrealized potential earnings, but they are not lost earnings.

GabuEx

they are.

let's say a movie company invests 50 million to make a movie. They are paying peoples wages, production costs, etc.

then lets exaggerate and say no one goes to see it but just go and download it.

The movie company is now 50 mill. in the hole. That is theft and if it wasn't theft then it wouldn't be illegal. You have stolen from the people who worked to make that movie

anyway nice to see a mod supporting piracy.

they are.

let's say a movie company invests 50 million to make a movie. They are paying peoples wages, production costs, etc.

then lets exaggerate and say no one goes to see it but just go and download it.

The movie company is now 50 mill. in the hole. That is theft and if it wasn't theft then it wouldn't be illegal.

Deano

No, it is, legally speaking, categorically not theft. Theft is the unlawful deprivation of one from one's lawfully purchased property such that it is no longer in one's possession. Nothing material has changed hands; there is nothing owned by the production company that is now on the part of the pirate no longer in the company's possession. The lawsuits that are brought against those illegally distributing copyrighted material are civil lawsuits, tried in civil courts, in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover lost revenue along with punitive damages. This is entirely and wholly different from a trial for theft, which is a criminal offense tried in criminal court, and which seeks to bring criminal charges against the defendant rather than simply compensating the plaintiff. There is almost nothing in common between the two scenarios whatsoever.

anyway nice to see a mod supporting piracy.

Deano

I'm getting the sense that you are not understanding my argument. I don't "support piracy"; I want courts to be able to compensate plaintiffs in civil lawsuits only for the amount of lost revenue that can be proven by the plaintiff to have been lost, and no further.

Are they only getting people who used BitTorrent? What about the other programs like Utorrent or Vuze? They could get more people that wayFrenzyd109

Heres a video that explains how people can be tracked by using torrents

How people are tracked using bittorent

[QUOTE="Deano"]

they are.

let's say a movie company invests 50 million to make a movie. They are paying peoples wages, production costs, etc.

then lets exaggerate and say no one goes to see it but just go and download it.

The movie company is now 50 mill. in the hole. That is theft and if it wasn't theft then it wouldn't be illegal.

GabuEx

No, it is, legally speaking, categorically not theft. Theft is the unlawful deprivation of one from one's lawfully purchased property such that it is no longer in one's possession. Nothing material has changed hands; there is nothing owned by the production company that is now out of their possession on the part of the pirate such that it is no longer in the company's possession. The lawsuits that are brought against those illegally distributing copyrighted material are civil lawsuits, tried in civil courts, in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover lost revenue along with punitive damages. This is entirely and wholly different from a trial for theft, which is a criminal offense tried in criminal court, and which seeks to bring criminal charges against the defendant rather than simply compensating the plaintiff. There is almost nothing in common between the two scenarios whatsoever.

anyway nice to see a mod supporting piracy.

Deano

I'm getting the sense that you are not understanding my argument. I don't "support piracy"; I want courts to be able to compensate plaintiffs in civil lawsuits only for the amount of lost revenue that can be proven by the plaintiff to have been lost, and no further.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

As already pointed out, you can't prove that every download is a lost sale, or even that the majority are.

Deano

of course it's a lost sale, because that person has downloaded a movie for free when otherwise they would have had to go to a movie theatre and pay to see it.

Can't prove that they will go pay to see that movie if they can't see it for free. Hence, not necessarily a lost sale.

Phew, i'm just glad it was the hurt locker guys and not the makers of some other movies...

I bought this on on Blu-Ray. I deserve a medal.

I bought this on on Blu-Ray. I deserve a medal.

Domobomb

You will be rewarded by not being sued :P

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

If my house burnt down, I'd hope my insurance company wouldn't be stupid enough to believe me when I say my 20 year old TV is worth a million dollars.

Pixel-Pirate

We're talking about retail price for acquired media.

No one's talking about picking an arbitrary price for the songs or movies that you distribute. But if the movie retails for $15 and you distribute 100 copies illegally, there you go.

Why should the burden be to prove something that is fundamentally unprovable (that is, that the defendent isn't lying when he says "but I never would have bought it anyway, so it's not really stealing")? The illegally distributed media has a retail value of X dollars, so make him pay X dollars plus punitive damages.

Okay, so 30 bucks should do it?

You can't just say "Well all those 100 people would of bought it. There for he owes me 100x's 10!"

It basically lets them set how much money they want from the guy.

No, it is, legally speaking, categorically not theft. Theft is the unlawful deprivation of one from one's lawfully purchased property such that it is no longer in one's possession. Nothing material has changed hands; there is nothing owned by the production company that is now on the part of the pirate no longer in the company's possession. The lawsuits that are brought against those illegally distributing copyrighted material are civil lawsuits, tried in civil courts, in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover lost revenue along with punitive damages. This is entirely and wholly different from a trial for theft, which is a criminal offense tried in criminal court, and which seeks to bring criminal charges against the defendant rather than simply compensating the plaintiff. There is almost nothing in common between the two scenarios whatsoever.

GabuEx

no it's theft, and the courts see it that way to, so you aren't correct no matter how you try and spin it.

The NET act was ammended for civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission even if it did not result in personal financial gain

It would be really nice if for once a court would force these companies to back up their ridiculous damage claims.gameguy6700

this is my main gripe as well

I fail to see how 2500 is not cruel and unusual. Thats a lot of money for a pirating a 15-dollar movie

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]It would be really nice if for once a court would force these companies to back up their ridiculous damage claims.mrbojangles25

this is my main gripe as well

I fail to see how 2500 is not cruel and unusual. Thats a lot of money for a pirating a 15-dollar movie

no it's theft, and the courts see it that way to, so you aren't correct no matter how you try and spin it.

The NET act was ammended for civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission even if it did not result in personal financial gain

Deano

Except that it's not theft, and I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of dialog when it is so clearly not theft in any legal sense. Any criminal penalties that may arise from the unlawful copying of copyrighted works will be an entirely different criminal change from theft. And this is a civil lawsuit aimed at recouping lost revenue. It is not a criminal prosecution.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]It would be really nice if for once a court would force these companies to back up their ridiculous damage claims.RogueShodown

this is my main gripe as well

I fail to see how 2500 is not cruel and unusual. Thats a lot of money for a pirating a 15-dollar movie

I love it when my legal system is used for profit :?

[QUOTE="Deano"]

no it's theft, and the courts see it that way to, so you aren't correct no matter how you try and spin it.

The NET act was ammended for civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission even if it did not result in personal financial gain

GabuEx

Except that it's not theft, and I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of dialog when it is so clearly not theft in any legal sense. Any criminal penalties that may arise from the unlawful copying of copyrighted works will be an entirely different criminal change from theft. And this is a civil lawsuit aimed at recouping lost revenue. It is not a criminal prosecution.

Except that it's not theft, and I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of dialog when it is so clearly not theft in any legal sense. Any criminal penalties that may arise from the unlawful copying of copyrighted works will be an entirely different criminal change from theft. And this is a civil lawsuit aimed at recouping lost revenue. It is not a criminal prosecution.

GabuEx

it is theft, that is why they are being charged

otherwise if they had done nothing wrong there would be no case.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Deano"]

no it's theft, and the courts see it that way to, so you aren't correct no matter how you try and spin it.

The NET act was ammended for civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission even if it did not result in personal financial gain

RogueShodown

Except that it's not theft, and I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of dialog when it is so clearly not theft in any legal sense. Any criminal penalties that may arise from the unlawful copying of copyrighted works will be an entirely different criminal change from theft. And this is a civil lawsuit aimed at recouping lost revenue. It is not a criminal prosecution.

They should get as much lost revenue as they actually suffered, plus punitive damages, and the onus should be on them to prove based on a preponderance of the evidence how much revenue they really lost.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]It would be really nice if for once a court would force these companies to back up their ridiculous damage claims.mrbojangles25

this is my main gripe as well

I fail to see how 2500 is not cruel and unusual. Thats a lot of money for a pirating a 15-dollar movie

it is theft, that is why they are being charged

otherwise if they had done nothing wrong there would be no case.

Deano

Except they're not being charged; they are being sued. There is a huge legal difference there. And even if they were being charged, there are other criminal charges than theft. If someone attempted to prosecute a person illegally distributing copyrighted works for theft in a criminal court, they would be told to go away and stop wasting the court's time, on account of the fact that the illegal distribution of copyrighted works does not even remotely satisfy the legal definition of theft.

no it's theft, and the courts see it that way to, so you aren't correct no matter how you try and spin it.

The NET act was ammended for civil and criminal prosecution of persons allegedly engaged in copying of copyrighted works without permission even if it did not result in personal financial gain

Deano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_%281985%29

Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions. From Justice Blackmun's majority opinion:

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," 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.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]It would be really nice if for once a court would force these companies to back up their ridiculous damage claims.mrbojangles25

this is my main gripe as well

I fail to see how 2500 is not cruel and unusual. Thats a lot of money for a pirating a 15-dollar movie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States

StopThePresses

yes and that case was in 1985

the NET act was ammended in 1997 to get around the problem of copying and distribution even with no profit , the year now is 2010

try again, it's even called copyright theft