IP-Addresses of First Hurt Locker Victims Revealed

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"][QUOTE="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.

GabuEx

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.

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

[QUOTE="Deano"]

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

StopThePresses

Guess I should close out with some snarky remark. Does this suffice?

You just explained how they couldn't prove it, so you're saying they shouldn't get anything.RogueShodown

Huh? I have said earlier in this thread that it seems quite likely that one ought to be able to craft a scientific study that would establish what proportion on average of those who download something illegally would have paid for it had they not been able to download it.

I can understand that, but the people that are being sued should at least be responsible for their own illegal copy and the uploading of that illegal copy, which is probably much easier to prove.RogueShodown

If they only were sued for that one single illegal copy, that would not exactly amount for much lost revenue at all.

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

Deano

As was said, the presence of the word "theft" in the title of the act does not have any legal bearing at all. Grand and petty theft is still defined as the willful permanent deprivation of one of his property. Copyright infringement does not deprive anyone of his property; hence, it is not, legally speaking, theft. Those who are charged with criminal copyright infringement are charged with... criminal copyright infringement. Not theft.

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]You just explained how they couldn't prove it, so you're saying they shouldn't get anything.GabuEx

Huh? I have said earlier in this thread that it seems quite likely that one ought to be able to craft a scientific study that would establish what proportion on average of those who download something illegally would have paid for it had they not been able to download it.

I can understand that, but the people that are being sued should at least be responsible for their own illegal copy and the uploading of that illegal copy, which is probably much easier to prove.RogueShodown

If they only were sued for that one single illegal copy, that would not exactly amount for much lost revenue at all.

1st part: didn't know about that.

2nd part: I know that, but by what you're saying, that's all they can sue for.

I know that, but by what you're saying, that's all they can sue for.RogueShodown

By what I'm saying?

I have said repeatedly that they ought to be able to put together some sort of study to establish how many people who pirate something actually would have bought it had they not been able to pirate it, and to award compensatory damages accordingly. How exactly is this saying that they can get nothing?

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]I know that, but by what you're saying, that's all they can sue for.GabuEx

By what I'm saying?

I have said repeatedly that they ought to be able to put together some sort of study to establish how many people who pirate something actually would have bought it had they not been able to pirate it, and to award compensatory damages accordingly. How exactly is this saying that they can get nothing?

I think there are too many factors for such a study to be very meaningful in the long term.

Anyway, if there are no punitive damages beyond what the cost would have been, then there is essentially zero reason for someone to buy something instead of illegally download it, if the only factor they are concerned about is the law.

Of course, they generally go after people who are uploading files, but with BitTorrent protocol, as I'm sure you know, downloaders and uploaders tend to be one and the same.

StopThePresses

Well, a few things:

1. I said they deserved "as much lost revenue as they actually suffered, plus punitive damages" - I'm not opposed at all to extra punitive damages above and beyond lost revenue.

2. Not all uploaders are the same - some people just download stuff and then close BitTorrent, while others leave it perpetually open. Even currently, court cases have to prove that someone actually did distribute files to people; you can't just say that they own BitTorrent therefore they're a pirate who needs to cough up compensatory damages. Someone who just left BitTorrent open just long enough to download the file probably wouldn't have distributed the file to any more than a couple people, and as such, the damages that they could get from that person would probably be tiny and not even worth it.

3. If they need to keep re-doing that study, that seems fine by me. The bottom line for me is that I do not believe it is at all appropriate or justifiable in a principled manner to allow a court to effectively assume that the defendant is guilty as charged and require proof that he did not do what he is accused of doing. If the plaintiff cannot figure out how to prove that a loss of revenue occurred, then that kind of seems to me to be the plaintiff's problem.

They did this in my country for various media (mainly adult media actually) except the out of court settlement was less. From what I can gather a lot of people contacted them saying they never downloaded any such thing, problem is a lot of older people don't protect their internet connections, so who really knows who is downloading what :?. Worrying thought really, and I know we all lock our internet but a lot of grandparents for example only get it for when the kids visit.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

I think there are too many factors for such a study to be very meaningful in the long term.

Anyway, if there are no punitive damages beyond what the cost would have been, then there is essentially zero reason for someone to buy something instead of illegally download it, if the only factor they are concerned about is the law.

Of course, they generally go after people who are uploading files, but with BitTorrent protocol, as I'm sure you know, downloaders and uploaders tend to be one and the same.

GabuEx

2. Someone who just left BitTorrent open just long enough to download the file probably wouldn't have distributed the file to any more than a couple people, and as such, the damages that they could get from that person would probably be tiny and not even worth it.

Yeah, their assumptions on the number of people the file is provided to by each user seem way out of line. I edited something about that into my post while you were typing up your reply.

3. If they need to keep re-doing that study, that seems fine by me. The bottom line for me is that I do not believe it is at all appropriate or justifiable in a principled manner to allow a court to effectively assume that the defendant is guilty as charged and require proof that he did not do what he is accused of doing. If the plaintiff cannot figure out how to prove that a loss of revenue occurred, then that kind of seems to me to be the plaintiff's problem.

GabuEx

It's hard for me to imagine how such a study would even be conducted in a way that would yield accurate results. Of course, there's not much reason for me to believe that the amounts that plaintiffs in these cases throw around currently are accurate either.

Maybe we should just give up on the internet. It seems our laws will never be equipped to adequately handle the digital age. :P

It's hard for me to imagine how such a study would even be conducted in a way that would yield accurate results. Of course, there's not much reason for me to believe that the amounts that plaintiffs in these cases throw around currently are accurate either.

StopThePresses

I don't know how a study like that would be performed, but like I said - I feel that it should be up to the plaintiffs to figure that out, and that if they cannot prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that their claimed loss of revenue actually happened, then they should not be awarded compensatory damages for it. The idea that we ought to assume guilt for the plaintiff's sake just because the plaintiff can't prove guilt strikes me as a monumentally bizarre assertion when taken to its logical conclusion.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

It's hard for me to imagine how such a study would even be conducted in a way that would yield accurate results. Of course, there's not much reason for me to believe that the amounts that plaintiffs in these cases throw around currently are accurate either.

GabuEx

I don't know how a study like that would be performed, but like I said - I feel that it should be up to the plaintiffs to figure that out, and that if they cannot prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that their claimed loss of revenue actually happened, then they should not be awarded compensatory damages for it. The idea that we ought to assume guilt for the plaintiff's sake just because the plaintiff can't prove guilt strikes me as a monumentally bizarre assertion when taken to its logical conclusion.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

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

RogueShodown

I agree with the part about not assuming that the amounts they state have any basis in reality, but if the plaintiff gets to choose the mechanism of the study, that isn't necessarily much better. StopThePresses

Granted. All I'm really saying is that it should be up to the plaintiff, without exception, to prove their claims, and that they should be awarded nothing if they fail to do so. How they go about proving their claims is their business.

I feel no sorrow for these people. If you are going to pirate movies and the like at least know how to hide your ip address.

Now all the neighbors that are on the list because their network was unsecure, well I sort of feel sorry for them.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]I agree with the part about not assuming that the amounts they state have any basis in reality, but if the plaintiff gets to choose the mechanism of the study, that isn't necessarily much better. GabuEx

Granted. All I'm really saying is that it should be up to the plaintiff, without exception, to prove their claims, and that they should be awarded nothing if they fail to do so. How they go about proving their claims is their business.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]I agree with the part about not assuming that the amounts they state have any basis in reality, but if the plaintiff gets to choose the mechanism of the study, that isn't necessarily much better. Mystic-G

Granted. All I'm really saying is that it should be up to the plaintiff, without exception, to prove their claims, and that they should be awarded nothing if they fail to do so. How they go about proving their claims is their business.

Well yes, there is that as well, which is quite frankly yet another problem, as that's pretty similar to the principle behind SLAPPs.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Granted. All I'm really saying is that it should be up to the plaintiff, without exception, to prove their claims, and that they should be awarded nothing if they fail to do so. How they go about proving their claims is their business.

GabuEx

Well yes, there is that as well, which is quite frankly yet another problem, as that's pretty similar to the principle behind SLAPPs.

[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.

And to go back to the movie theater analogy...you pay to see the movie but you haven't "TAKEN" anything physical away from it.

[QUOTE="RogueShodown"]I know that, but by what you're saying, that's all they can sue for.GabuEx

By what I'm saying?

I have said repeatedly that they ought to be able to put together some sort of study to establish how many people who pirate something actually would have bought it had they not been able to pirate it, and to award compensatory damages accordingly. How exactly is this saying that they can get nothing?