Hurt Locker Producers To Sue "Tens of Thousands" of Internet Pirates

Hmmm wonder how this will turn out


http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=10620723

Quote:
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive.

The producers of "The Hurt Locker" are preparing a massive lawsuit against tens of thousands of people who pirated the Oscar-winning drama online. The case could be filed as soon as Wednesday.

Voltage Pictures, the film's financier, has signed up with the U.S. Copyright Group, a Washington D.C.-based venture that has begun a litigation campaign targeting users of the BitTorrent peer-to-peer (P2P) service.

"The Hurt Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release last June, and was a hot item in P2P circles after it won six Oscars in March, including best picture and director. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.

The U.S. Copyright Group has already filed lawsuits over about 10 other films, including German filmmaker Uwe Boll's "Far Cry," "Call of the Wild 3D" and "Uncross the Stars." Reports of those suits raised alarms in some circles, whereas others joked that the movie industry was merely suing those with poor taste.


"You can guess that relative to the films we've pursued already, the order of magnitude is much higher" with "Hurt Locker," said Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm.

If the addition of "Locker" to this litigation campaign could shake things up, so too could news about cooperation by Internet Service Providers (ISP) in this escalating fight. After filing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs must subpoena ISP records in an effort to match IP addresses with illicit behavior on BitTorrent.

According to lawyers at Dunlap's firm, 75% of ISPs have cooperated fully. Those that have resisted are mostly doing so, they say, because of the amount of work involved in handing over thousands of names. But the clock may be ticking. For example, in the lawsuit over "Far Cry," Comcast has until next Wednesday to file motions to quash subpoenas. By the end of next week, thousands of Comcast subscribers could be turned over.

Nick_oliveri

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The war against movie piracy is getting downright explosive.
after it won six Oscars in March, including best picture and director. Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.

Aww, only 16 Million in the US alone? Poor Warner Bros.

Duggy747

Ha ha, P2P..........when will people learn?

How awful would it be to get sued over a Uwe Boll movie

MisterAnarchy

Its a futile move and a stupid one considering The Hurt Locker wouldnt have won any Oscars but for P2P significantly raising its profile.

Wile E. Coyote

bmbm wrote: »

"The Hurt Locker" first leaked onto the web more than five months before its U.S. release last June

Would they not be better off finding, firing and sueing whoever it was on their own production team that leaked the film to the web 5 months before it was released?

johnny_ultimate

Duggy747 wrote: »

How awful would it be to get sued over a Uwe Boll movie

Just releasing a list of names would possibly scare many off downloading for life :pac:

I don't disagree with this action though, although not sure how practical it is. It is ridiculous how many people actively brag about downloading films, and I'd be in favour of action to protect smaller film-makers in particular. This probably won't work, but producers need to find a way to effectively target pirates - although I totally agree finding the uploaders is of greater significance.

Tigger

p2p is the somalian pirates, sounds nice in the idea but soon turns out to be dirty and dangerous

Gra15

I completely agree - how much time do they have on their hands!?!

Nick_oliveri

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It is ridiculous how many people actively brag about downloading films, and I'd be in favour of action to protect smaller film-makers in particular.

Bollocks! This movie grossed 16 million in the US alone. Thats some amount of money. We seen what happened with that Paranormal Activity after it was hyped to death on P2P sites. Leaked by the filmmakers themselves supposedly.

I see from Wiki that Hurt Locker grossed $40,016,144. With a budget of 15mil. Whats the problem? How is this justified?

jaykhunter

bmbm wrote: »

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The war against....targeting users of the BitTorrent peer-to-peer (P2P) service....

Ah, grand so I hope people with the knowledge to d/l over P2P have some kinda of IP-hider. I'd be more worried about the insiders who leaked it in the first place. P2P is just an information vehicle; someone who worked for the movie GAVE IT to the internet.

But sure Hollywood only focus on the consumers, not one of their own. I love hearing stories like the length U2 went to combat their new album leaking; only for someone in U2's family to upload it to the internet. BYAH! Serves ya right!

Seriously, if they didn't want people to download movies then they wouldn't have called it something as awesome as pirating.

I can just picture thousands of people going, "nuts!" when they read that article headline.

Basq

I'd say what "hurt" 'The Hurt Locker' (bazinga!) was that a DVD Rip was available on P2P, newsgroups and my friend "Bobby Fingers" in January 2009 - which was 7 months (!!) before it got a widespread theatrical release in the US.

Yes.. it made a tidy profit but I do think that time period it was available was pretty damn damaging to it's final box office takings (although in saying that, I'd say the more casual cinema goer wouldn't have even heard of it before it's Oscar win)!

Outkast_IRE

If you want to force them to support a movie they illegally downloaded and didnt support in any other way then fine them the amount the dvd sells for plus a penalty amount . Would cost a whole lot less in costs and probably have a good number of people who do it just to avoid further action.

SugarHigh

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Its a futile move and a stupid one considering The Hurt Locker wouldnt have won any Oscars but for P2P significantly raising its profile.

Being on p2p early raised it's profile on the internet but it played no part in the movie winning an Oscar.

They should legalise torrents and charge people a fee to download them. Have a universal release date online and in cinemas and give people the choice of which they want to do! Pay to watch the movie on a small screen in your private home at a reduced fee or pay the extra amount to watch it on a cinema screen.

This is the way it should be done, but will never happen, because distributors are ruining the way movies are made and are screened.

Einhard

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Bollocks! This movie grossed 16 million in the US alone. Thats some amount of money. We seen what happened with that Paranormal Activity after it was hyped to death on P2P sites. Leaked by the filmmakers themselves supposedly.

I see from Wiki that Hurt Locker grossed $40,016,144. With a budget of 15mil. Whats the problem? How is this justified?

So it's ok to steal from somebody if you feel they've made enough profit on a product already? And the thief gets to make that decision? I'm sure it'll be an objective one...

Maybe I'll go into my nearest Harvey Norman and steal one of those new fandangled Dyson vaccum cleaners. I mean, the greedy old buzzard's already made enough $$$ from them...

Incidentally, where do you live? I might pop around later, and if I feel you're too wealthy, I might just take a few of your things. Obviously you'd have no objection, right...

Duggy747

If the internet wasn't so heavily and messily built then they could've easily capped the uploading usage of a user, that would've made a big dent in piracy.

I never understood what people got out of uploading movies, infamy? Especially with the bigger torrents as they are well watched and the ISPs are being hounded to hand over their subscriber's details.

Don't copy that floppy!! :pac:

jaykhunter

Duggy747 wrote: »

I never understood what people got out of uploading movies, infamy? Especially with the bigger torrents as they are well watched and the ISPs are being hounded to hand over their subscriber's details.

I wondered that myself. I postulate that it's altruistic; completely for the good of everyone else in the world. They have nothing really to gain and potentially thousands of dollars to lose and a jail sentence. They have it and want everyone else to have it for free.

I also wondered if representatives of the MPAA contacted people like aXXo etc with a sum of $100,000 if he never uploaded anything again and took down his torrents. It might be costly but cutting off the (let's say) 20 biggest uploading groups in the world, a couple of million isn't that much for making a huge dent in piracy.




...or maybe 100 others might take their place...

johnny_ultimate

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Bollocks! This movie grossed 16 million in the US alone. Thats some amount of money. We seen what happened with that Paranormal Activity after it was hyped to death on P2P sites. Leaked by the filmmakers themselves supposedly.

I see from Wiki that Hurt Locker grossed $40,016,144. With a budget of 15mil. Whats the problem? How is this justified?

I'm not specifically talking about the Hurt Locker in relation to small budget films, but even then earning $1 million over its budget domestically is not a particularly favourable outcome for the producers. Isn't there that old quote that a film needs to make like three times its budget to turn a profit (I can't verify that, though)? Now, I'm sure the Hurt Locker made its money back on DVD sales and the like following the Oscar exposure, but it's theatrical run was nowhere near as successful as you're suggesting.

And in any case, it isn't like the many, many people who downloaded it prior to the theatrical release could use the justification that 'it's made enough money already'. They had no way of knowing that.

Again, I'd stress I'm only using the Hurt Locker as an example because it's the one mentioned in the OP. However, I think defending piracy using a 'they've made their money' excuse is a flawed argument in any case, as has been pointed out by other posters above.

karma_

Such an awful film too, I ended up fast forwarding it to be honest, I know some raved about it but the lack of any plot for me was a major no no.

Nick_oliveri

Einhard wrote: »

So it's ok to steal from somebody if you feel they've made enough profit on a product already? And the thief gets to make that decision? I'm sure it'll be an objective one...

Its not stealing, its cloning. You wouldn't download a car.
You do make a fair point though, all I'm saying is that they have no ground to stand on pulling in that sort of money and demanding moar. Are films there to make profits, only profit or are they forms of art and inspiration? They are both, and in this case, they have Oscars and 40million to wipe their arses with.

Maybe I'll go into my nearest Harvey Norman and steal one of those new fandangled Dyson vaccum cleaners. I mean, the greedy old buzzard's already made enough $$$ from them...

As above, this point is moot, as its not stealing. Nothing physical is lost.
You cant download a dyson.

Incidentally, where do you live? I might pop around later, and if I feel you're too wealthy, I might just take a few of your things. Obviously you'd have no objection, right...

Sigh.....

karma_

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Its not stealing, its cloning. You wouldn't download a car.
You do make a fair point though, all I'm saying is that they have no ground to stand on pulling in that sort of money and demanding moar. Are films there to make profits, only profit or are they forms of art and inspiration? They are both, and in this case, they have Oscars and 40million to wipe their arses with.

As above, this point is moot, as its not stealing. Nothing physical is lost.
You cant download a dyson.

Sigh.....

Completely agree.

I don't deny anyone the right to make a shilling out of something they create, but nowadays you just have to think the line that separates art and business has been blurred somewhere.

It's no wonder we have the situation we have today, with the sheer volume of tripe produced in hollywood. I will buy a film I love on DVD or blu-ray, if the soundtrack is great I'll buy that too, but I feel cheated if I watch a shít film to be honest, some of it is not worth tuppence.

Nick_oliveri

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Again, I'd stress I'm only using the Hurt Locker as an example because it's the one mentioned in the OP. However, I think defending piracy using a 'they've made their money' excuse is a flawed argument in any case, as has been pointed out by other posters above.

But they have made their money, I think in all honesty they could have used a different movie as their case, one with seriously low revenue and massive pirating. Tbh I really don't see the problem in this case.

markfla

There's just some films I do have to go and see in the cinema for the pure cinematic spectacle (block busters etc.) and I do like the treat of the cinema experience but some movies I wouldn't bother my hole pay for as I know from the offing it's gonna be crap. Is it better for the movie makers for me to see their more than likely shíte movie for free or just plain not bother my hole pay for it as as I know it's gonna be crap? If a movie I watch for free and I am genuinely surprised that it was brilliant, surely it's no bad thing for me to be blabbing about how good it is to my mates who all wouldn't be clued in to the piracy thing. I have bought genuine copies of music/movies <snip>. With regard to ripped music, I don't think I've been to as many gigs in all my life due to the ease of hearing new stuff. I was in music myself and thought the more people who heard our music the better as you'd have potentially more people at gigs. My two cents. (sorry for dragging in the music argument too!)

johnny_ultimate

While we should definitely be discussing this topic, please don't mention downloading stuff yourself. It's far too dodgy territory. Let's try and keep the debate more general

Jako8

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Isn't there that old quote that a film needs to make like three times its budget to turn a profit

Yeah, they need to make twice their budget in order to break-even.
It has something to do with money that goes to the cinemas and stuff.

ScumLord

bmbm wrote: »

Despite the accolades, the film grossed only about $16 million in the U.S.

That I feel kind of bad about, it was a film that deserved to do well.

The U.S. Copyright Group has already filed lawsuits over about 10 other films, including German filmmaker Uwe Boll's "Far Cry,"

This one not so much it deserved to have a $16 mill fine imposed against it.

Over all these companies are profit hording, they chop the film to make it more appealing to idiots and stagger releases to get extra money out of entire continents. I don't feel bad about producers and studios losing money, the guys who make the films I do feel bad for if it means they may not be able to make another film but they may not really get they're fair share with most profits going to the faceless stockholders.

Gerty

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Its not stealing, its cloning. You wouldn't download a car.
You do make a fair point though, all I'm saying is that they have no ground to stand on pulling in that sort of money and demanding moar. Are films there to make profits, only profit or are they forms of art and inspiration? They are both, and in this case, they have Oscars and 40million to wipe their arses with.

As above, this point is moot, as its not stealing. Nothing physical is lost.
You cant download a dyson.

Sigh.....

Its cloning? Are you serious? They made their product. They deserve to get as much money as they possibly could. And at the end of the illegal downloading is reducing their profit. Be it through the potential cinema ticket sales they lost, or dvd's.

I may be wrong, but do they have $40 million? You've gotta deduct the budget from that? Maybe i'm wrong.

Either way we don't know the in's and out's of hollywood. How much money they possibly need to get to finance their other movies or commitments to financiers?

But the argument about about something physical being lost? Let you come up with an invention, invest time, money and thought into it and even though you have a patent i'll start cloning it and giving it away for free, sure if you've made a little profit already from it you'll be grand.

karma_

Gerty wrote: »

Its cloning? Are you serious? They made their product. They deserve to get as much money as they possibly could. And at the end of the illegal downloading is reducing their profit. Be it through the potential cinema ticket sales they lost, or dvd's.

I may be wrong, but do they have $40 million? You've gotta deduct the budget from that? Maybe i'm wrong.

Either way we don't know the in's and out's of hollywood. How much money they possibly need to get to finance their other movies or commitments to financiers?

But the argument about about something physical being lost? Let you come up with an invention, invest time, money and thought into it and even though you have a patent i'll start cloning it and giving it away for free, sure if you've made a little profit already from it you'll be grand.

Not everyone who downloaded it would have went to the cinema or bought it on DVD etc. were it not freely available.

And yes it is cloning or copying, nothing is physically taken.

Galvasean

karma_ wrote: »

And yes it is cloning or copying, nothing is physically taken.

Yeah, that's not gonna hold up in court so it's not gonna hold up in this forum either. Isn't it considerd 'intellectual property theft' - as in the same as stealing someone's idea?

Valmont

I hope they are all hit with hefty fines. Theft is theft, plain and simple.

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

I hope they are all hit with hefty fines. Theft is theft, plain and simple.

Must be nice, up there in your ivory tower.

Stercus Accidit

Valmont wrote: »

I hope they are all hit with hefty fines. Theft is theft, plain and simple.

Few hundred thousand dollars sound fair?

Or are you just trolling?

johnny_ultimate

*sigh* Thought this could have been a decent discussion, but seems to have run it's course already. Why is the 'high horse' insult always thrown out there when someone expresses an anti-download opinion? There are arguments for both sides, but sarcasm and insults aren't the best way to get them across. I agree that people who downloaded should be fined, but probably not a couple of hundred thousand dollars, just enough to worry those who are doing it. Yeah, uploaders should be the one dealt with first, but those downloading the material are hardly innocent either.

ScumLord

Galvasean wrote: »

Yeah, that's not gonna hold up in court so it's not gonna hold up in this forum either. Isn't it considerd 'intellectual property theft' - as in the same as stealing someone's idea?

My problem with the hollywood movie industry is they go on about being artists when they're far from it. They're just abusing the stories, the actors and the art form in general for profiteering. They're just creaming off the top of talented people and we're paying for they're lavish lifestyle when all they do is get in the way of what cinema should be all about. I hate corporate greed corrupting influence over movies and that's why I shed no tears over their loss. If something was done to cut them out I think the film industry would have a much easier time taking the moral high ground.

Galvasean

ScumLord wrote: »

My problem with the hollywood movie industry is they go on about being artists when they're far from it. They're just abusing the stories, the actors and the art form in general for profiteering. They're just creaming off the top of talented people and we're paying for they're lavish lifestyle when all they do is get in the way of what cinema should be all about. I hate corporate greed corrupting influence over movies and that's why I shed no tears over their loss. If something was done to cut them out I think the film industry would have a much easier time taking the moral high ground.

We can hate it if we want, but the movie business is a business, and like any business they will protect their income, fiercely if need be. Just because something does not meet your definitions of high art does not give anyone the right to steal it as they see fit.
We can say the Hollywood moguls deserve it, but in the end the law is the law and anyone knowingly breaking the law should be prepared for the possibility of facing punishment. It doesn't matter who you're stealing from, whether it be Uwé Boll or Salvador Dali, it's still a crime.

Renn

I heard about a guy who downloads quite a lot of material and ever since he began downloading this material he has spent more money than before on dvds and cinema.

Shock horror!

Galvasean

Renn wrote: »

I heard about a guy who downloads quite a lot of material and ever since he began downloading this material he has spent more money than before on dvds and cinema.

Shock horror!

Did he realise that downloasding movies onto a laptop is a really crummy way of enjoying the latest blockbusters?

Anyway, I can just imagine a downloader's defence in court if he were to go by that logic, "I only steal some stuff your honour. It's not like I steal all of my movies."

Renn

Afaik, the person just gets things that are no longer in the cinema. And he thinks most blockbusters are crummy anyway.

Galvasean

Renn wrote: »

Afaik, the person just gets things that are no longer in the cinema.

Can they not wait for the DVD? Cake/eat it.

And he thinks most blockbusters are crummy anyway.

I think the service at Argos is pretty crummy. I don't steal from them though.

Renn

Hey, all I'm saying is that the person I mentioned is giving a lot more money to the industry than before. Can't argue with that.

If they want people to stop downloading movies for free then stop Hollywood from churning out crap like Dear John, Remember Me, Last Song, Clash of the Titans, Furry Vengeance, The Back Up Plan. I chose those films because that's what is playing in my local cinema.

jaykhunter

with regards to downloading etc, everyone here has their views and justifications, which are set in stone. I've never seen anyone change their mind or even ease up on their stance with this debate.

But I think if you really enjoyed the film, you should buy it. (even just wait until it's a tenner)

On a different note, imagine the shame of being fined for downloading Uwe Boll's collection....

Also, I wouldn't be as angry at someone who pirated something for free from a film that has done really well (say, AVATAR; >2,600 million in the box office) than a less profitable film (eg Hurt Locker; >40 million)

Actually, if someone's already paid to see a film in the cinema, would you still begrudge them for downloading it when it's out on the internet? Since they've already given money to the film? I'm just wondering how boardsies feel about that.

karma_

I agree with that.

I have a fairly decent sized DVD collection, but I got burned badly, I used to buy literally everything and 90% of the time I would be disappointed with what I had just paid for. Now I only buy DVD of movies I absolutely love and my aim is to build a quality collection. Hell, I even have some twice, once on VHS and some on DVD so I literally hate being looked down upon for my views on the rights and wrongs of Piracy, imho it's a necessary evil and helps force studios to create quality product.

I will never pay another penny for a Michael Bay film for example, whereas I would pay double to see a Ridley Scott one. That doesn't mean every Ridley one is great in fairness, and I would still be open to giving Bay another chance on teh off chance he might have redeemed himself.

I'm just shopping with my feet.

Valmont

karma_ wrote: »

Must be nice, up there in your ivory tower.

I don't know, how is your parasitic hole? I respect musicians and filmakers. As such, I make sure to pay for my music and films. It isn't a hard thing to do. They aren't that expensive. Taking something without paying for it is stealing; end of story.

karma_ wrote: »

I'm just shopping with my feet.

Or stealing with your fingers.

karma_

Valmont wrote: »

Or stealing with your fingers.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

Fysh

Valmont wrote: »

I don't know, how is your parasitic hole? I respect musicians and filmakers. As such, I make sure to pay for my music and films. It isn't a hard thing to do. They aren't that expensive. Taking something without paying for it is stealing; end of story.

Actually - theft is depriving someone else of access/usage of something without permission or recompense.

This is where the piracy/downloading issue gets complicated - the studios and creative forces involved understandably view it as stealing, because they view the physical object (DVD/CD) or service (access to a cinema/concert) as inseparable from their product (the content itself). Thus someone accessing their product without without paying for a product or service is, in their way, getting at the product without recompense.

But that's not what the law says. Ripping a DVD or CD to a digital copy doesn't destroy the original. Distributing copies of it has no impact on the original owner's ability to enjoy it.

So what's actually happening is that downloaders are breaching copyright. Even more confusing - downloading a file itself is not explicitly comparable to walking out of a shop without paying for it, because the internet is built from billions of machines routinely exchanging files. An analogy might be going to a shop, finding a product that for some reason has been priced at €0.00, getting a receipt at the till for it, and walking out with it. It's unlikely to be deliberately available like that, but at the same time just accessing it when it's available isn't in and of itself a crime.

Existing copyright law can serve to specifically prosecute anyone who has uploaded a film, however, because that's a violation of copyright. (That said, copyright violation is usually a civil offence - ie unlawful - rather than a criminal one - ie illegal. This where bittorrent makes lawyer's lives easier - since torrents are built around uploading and downloading at the same time, it's very unlikely that someone has only downloaded something without uploading.

Why am I banging on about this? Because it's important to try and understand the specifics if we're going to argue about what's right, wrong, theft, illegal or otherwise.

There's a sizeable amount of research out there that suggests a significant fraction of those who download NaughtyWare copies of films, music and games go on to spend more money on those things than folks who do not download NaughtWare copies. It's complicated by the existence of a subset who download loads of NaughtyWare material and never pay for any of it. The idea of downloading as a preview/sample has grown sufficiently, though, that it won't easily be dismissed.

When it comes to movies, proper Netflix-like digital distribution is the way to address a lot of piracy. I know plenty of folks who download movies that aren't either out in the cinema or that they're not sure they want to watch and who then happily pay for them on DVD if they're any good. If you say to someone with a decent broadband connection that for the price of a pint they can pay for a time limited streaming-based playback of a film, chances are that anyone willing to pay at all for their films will at least do that. If they like it they might then buy it on DVD. If they didn't, well...how bad does a film have to be to not be worth the price of a pint?

I understand there are issues yet to be addressed regarding film distribution online, but if Netflix works (and it seems to work well in the States), I can't see why it's not the way forward. Heck, speaking personally, I can say that my tastes in music and film have been expanded and shaped primarily by extensive access to what we shall coyly refer to as "variably legitimate copies" of loads of stuff back in my college days. Now that I'm earning reasonable money I consistently spend money on music and films, and actively look out for stuff that I would never have heard of or been interested in were it not for that initial exposure (and that initial exposure simply wouldn't have happened if I'd had to pay the full cost of all the films/albums involved up front).

I appreciate that piracy harms the entertainment industry a lot, and make every effort to pay money for anything that I've enjoyed. At the same time, the industry has a lot to answer for by trying to hold onto the reselling-you-your-media-library-in-new-formats-every-decade-or-so well into the digital age and failing to offer an alternative.

People never see the positive to piracy and how it can in fact give new life to previous forgotten titles. There are thousands of films unavailable on DVD and many more which are only available albeit without English subs or audio. It is the fans of these films who go to the effort to rip their old VHS copy, clean up the audio, take audio from a VHS release and add it to an Italian DVD, make subs, retime, etc, etc who are preserving these films.

I trade in rare and hard to find films and over the past few years have amassed a collection of truly great cinema which were it not for fans like myself would be forgotten about. I have cleaned up VHS copies of fans long oop and on one occasion sent a copy to the director whom responded with praise and encouraged me to keep doing it.

I've spent that past few weeks working on cleaning up the picture quality of Slipstream, a film largely forgotten which has one of the worst DVD transfers I have ever seen.

johnny_ultimate

Fysh wrote: »

When it comes to movies, proper Netflix-like digital distribution is the way to address a lot of piracy. I know plenty of folks who download movies that aren't either out in the cinema or that they're not sure they want to watch and who then happily pay for them on DVD if they're any good. If you say to someone with a decent broadband connection that for the price of a pint they can pay for a time limited streaming-based playback of a film, chances are that anyone willing to pay at all for their films will at least do that. If they like it they might then buy it on DVD. If they didn't, well...how bad does a film have to be to not be worth the price of a pint?

I understand there are issues yet to be addressed regarding film distribution online, but if Netflix works (and it seems to work well in the States), I can't see why it's not the way forward. Heck, speaking personally, I can say that my tastes in music and film have been expanded and shaped primarily by extensive access to what we shall coyly refer to as "variably legitimate copies" of loads of stuff back in my college days. Now that I'm earning reasonable money I consistently spend money on music and films, and actively look out for stuff that I would never have heard of or been interested in were it not for that initial exposure (and that initial exposure simply wouldn't have happened if I'd had to pay the full cost of all the films/albums involved up front).

I appreciate that piracy harms the entertainment industry a lot, and make every effort to pay money for anything that I've enjoyed. At the same time, the industry has a lot to answer for by trying to hold onto the reselling-you-your-media-library-in-new-formats-every-decade-or-so well into the digital age and failing to offer an alternative.

This is definitely one of the key issues. Unfortunately in Ireland anyway getting your hands on stuff digitally, legally is far harder than it is across the sea. Netflix is an amazing service, films directly to your Wii, PS3 or Xbox, and by extent, your TV. Hulu gives you instant access to up to the minute TV shows, all for free. These services work, and must make some money otherwise they'd have been cancelled long ago.

Over here, the situation is alas quite different. Now, we are getting there. Services like 4 on Demand, Sky Player or RTE Player go some of the way towards addressing the balance, but hell stuff is still often six months behind the US. ITunes has finally started offering movies, and the 360 has a dedicated film store, but cost, selection and bandwidth issues (with the 360 especially) make them a weak alternative to the flat fees of Netflix. In these situations, is it really surprising that many turn to downloading? Why wait months for a very limited release over here, which applies to TV shows especially.

I know there are rights issues and the like, but we really are missing the unified services they enjoy in the States. However, I also think there are plenty of people who, even when the material is readily available, will still turn to downloading. I find it hard to reason why so, so many people download Lost when the gap between the US and Irish showing (and inclusion in the RTE player) is less than 48 hours. We also get Iron Man 2 a few weeks before the US, and I know friends who've watched it on their laptops (which, incidentally, is a whole other argument about viewing habits). Perhaps if there was a truly strong infrastructure to get people watching what they want, when they want it, piracy would be cut down by a considerable percentage. Alas, I know a few people who pirate on the logic that "why pay when I can get it for free", even with stuff they genuinely enjoy. They are the people who much less willing to consider alternatives, and approach downloading with much more difficult to breach motivations. When people say they pirated something they couldn't find elsewhere, or is unavailable over here, I genuinely can't argue with them, there's little you can say to valid reasoning. It's the people who will download everything and anything, regardless of alternatives available, who don't seem to understand the dangers of piracy.

Renn

Ha, a guy I know downloaded The Brothers Bloom and watched it a couple of times. In doing so he felt a tad bit guilty about the whole thing and emailed the director to see if he could pay for it. His response was:

Thanks first of all for the very kind words, I'm very happy you connected with both films. And thanks also for your honesty - between the two of us I'm frustrated as hell that Bloom has not opened in the UK yet, and I'm happy you've found a way to watch it. So please, don't worry about it. Bloom is coming out in the UK in May, take a few friends to it in the theater and we'll be more than even. But I greatly appreciate the generous sentiment.

Looper is coming along nicely, I've been working on the script for the past year and I'm very proud of it. Now we're just in that terrible phase of raising financing and finding actors, but if all goes relatively well we'll be shooting next year. Fingers crossed.

Thanks again man, and all the best
Rian

Fysh

the_monkey wrote: »

What about using SSL and newsgroups (metaphorically speaking of course) in theory that would be safe wouldn't it ? - just to download ?

If by "safe" you mean "less likely to identify me individually as someone whose arse can be successfully sued off me in court using charges that may or may not match my intent and/or the technical means I availed of in order to enjoy media which I had not procured through a retail channel" then the answer's "maybe".

It's possible that in those circumstances your net usage would be protected from the kind of snooping/legal persecution that would be required to prove you did it - but I wouldn't particularly count on it. With rising interest in Deep Packet Inspection, encryption is going to be required to even try to have any plausible deniability. (Furthermore, it's not easy to explain your entirely innocent requirement to have a net flow of several DVDs worth of encrypted data from whatever source you connect to onto your machine...). And even at that, the UK already has laws whereby refusing to hand over the key to an encrypted or password-protected system, when asked by police with the corresponding warrant, is a punishable offence with a weighty sentence attached - and claims of having forgotten the password are viewed as a refusal to provide it. Other countries are likely to follow suit, and I think the EU is currently working on legal measures to strengthen copyright and the measures that can be taken to combat it.

An important thing to remember is that, to date, a lot of defences against the kind of investigation that leads to people being identified as copyright violators have been based on comparisons to the same investigations leading to political repression (eg if you investigate someone's private email you could use that knowledge to stifle political dissent). That's not going to remain the case forever, and you would be wrong to think that anyone in power (be it commercial or political or legal) is looking to defend the currently-widely-available ability to download NaughtyWare versions of intellectual property.