Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Piracy

Lionsgate Sues Limetorrents, Played.to, and Others Over Expendables 3 Leak 207

Posted by Soulskill
from the barn-doors-and-horses dept.
hypnosec writes Lionsgate, the film company in charge of distribution for Expendables 3, has filed a lawsuit against unknown individuals who shared a DVD-level copy of the movie and six file-sharing sites known to have the links through which copies of the movies are being downloaded illegally. An advance copy of Expendables 3 was leaked online in July, and it was downloaded as many as 180,000 times in just 24 hours. The movie, which is releasing on August 15, is said to have crossed two million downloads already. In addition to the lawsuit, the Dept. of Homeland Security is on the case.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lionsgate Sues Limetorrents, Played.to, and Others Over Expendables 3 Leak

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 03, 2014 @01:23AM (#47592201)
    For a civil matter relating to a MOVIE? Are you fucking kidding me? What the fuck, America?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 03, 2014 @01:30AM (#47592213)

      It might sound stupid (and it is) but the DHS is the unholy amalgamation of just about every investigative and enforcement body in the United States government. So it's not that the DHS is investigating, but one of the agencies under the DHS.

    • by NoKaOi (1415755) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @02:09AM (#47592279)

      So, the US government has pretty much taken the worst parts of the original idea of Fascism as described in the original Fascist Manifesto (corporatism) along with the worst parts of what Italian Fascism actually tried to be (totalitarianism, rule by elites).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by murdocj (543661)

        The problem with this sort of hysteria is that it makes people forget how horrible true fascism is. It conflates looking for illegal downloaders with rounding up and slaughtering millions of people. Can we save the rhetoric for when we need it?

        • by gTsiros (205624)

          to paraphrase a genius:

          it starts with your thumb... AND THEN IT GETS FUN

          in other words, baby steps.

        • Italian Fascism had very little to do with rounding up and slaughtering of millions. I think you're confusing fascist Italy with nazi Germany.

          With that said, the USA is a far cry from a totalitarian fascist state; they certainly have not taken the underlying ideology to heart. However, there certainly are some aspects that are creeping in the practice if not the ideals of US government, it seems. That was GPs point, I believe.
        • by jargonburn (1950578) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @08:52AM (#47593287)

          Can we save the rhetoric for when we need it?

          By the time we "need" it, it will be too late.

        • by Megol (3135005)

          Which Fascist government did that? What you are doing is similar of what you complain about, you conflate Fascism with the related but different National socialist a.k.a. nazi ideology.
          There are important differences and the similarities are mostly from 1) the fact that both were a reaction against decadence and the perceived weaknesses of the democratic system 2) that Adolf Hitler admired Mussolini and in many ways were inspired by the political foundations of the Fascist movement.

    • by jklovanc (1603149) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @03:43AM (#47592503)

      The reproduction and distribution of copyright material is a criminal as well as a civil matter. ICE [ice.gov] is tasked with investigating copyright infringement [iprcenter.gov] in the US. The fact that they are now under the umbrella of the DHS is just sensationalism.

    • DHS doesn't give a crap about the movie. It's the infrastructures that carry the pirated movie that they are after.

      It's a parallel argument, "Copyright infringement is un-American," (McCarthy impersonation)

    • I don't know about America but in Australia this would qualify as a criminal case. It is the same as what happened with the simpsons movie here. Basically Australia has thresholds which change the status, is the copyright infringement commercial in nature (ie are you selling the copies, is the value over $5000 and or is it BEFORE the release date.

      Because the leak occurred before the theatrical release date it would shift into criminal statue here in Aus.

    • by aybiss (876862)

      Copyright is not only stealing, it's terrorism. Do try to keep up.

    • by StikyPad (445176)

      Leaking copyrighted material before commercial release is a criminal act under 17 USC 506(a)(1)(c).

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]

  • I'll LMAO when the reveal comes that the leaked copy turns out to have little, if anything, to do with the actual movie they release

    • by mpe (36238)
      I'll LMAO when the reveal comes that the leaked copy turns out to have little, if anything, to do with the actual movie they release.

      Alternativly maybe someone should just tell them that "sitting on" a completed movie might not be the most sensible of business models in the first place.
      • by tigersha (151319) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @03:45AM (#47592509) Homepage

        Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to. Since when is it your right to tell them what to do? Do you think you will be happy if Lionsgate takes your personal documents with the argument that you should not be sitting on it for so long?

        • by Dogtanian (588974)

          Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to. Since when is it your right to tell them what to do?

          People are entitled to "tell" them what they like. (*) They don't have to like, nor follow that advice, but the OP is perfectly entitled to free speech on the matter- that doesn't infringe upon their right of ownership as you seem to think it does.

          They're free to do what they want with their intellectual property, but they're not exempt from having people be able to say that what they're doing with it is stupid. Your implication appears to be a not-so-distant relative of the ever-popular "If you don't li [slashdot.org]

        • by mpe (36238)
          Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to.

          The question isn't if they have the right to do so. It's if doing so is a sensible way to go about making money from movies. Which is ostensivly what Liongate is doing.Where rights may come into it is that courts in places such as Canada take a very dim view of suing for copyright infringement in relation to products which arn't "on sale" in the first place.
        • Or maybe someone should tell you that if they spend millions of dollars on something it is their right to sit on it as long as they want to.

          How, pray tell, does giving an author this right "promote the progress of science and useful arts"?

          • by tigersha (151319)

            The Expendables is hardly art and definitely not science

            • by Rich0 (548339)

              The Expendables is hardly art and definitely not science

              Well, you're basically arguing that it shouldn't be copyrightable at all then. That is the purpose of copyright - the promotion of science and the useful arts.

              Art is whatever people thing it is. I have no problem with movies being copyrightable. Maybe if the copyright term wasn't infinite companies might try to release things a bit faster so as to recoup the maximum profit during the period it was copyrighted? You don't see drug companies just sitting on new drugs - they usually have only a decade to ma

      • Releasing all the "summer blockbusters" at the same time is an even worse business model...

  • by hduff (570443) <hoytduffNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday August 03, 2014 @01:52AM (#47592247) Homepage Journal

    I'm glad to know that DHS has solved all the critical security issues of our nation so that they can devote their resources to Expendables 3.

    I feel safe and secure now.

    • Maybe the movie reveals how someone can sneak across the border without getting caught. That's a DHS concern.

    • But don't you know that piracy promotes terrorism? Or maybe the DHS got the wrong definition of piracy, you know, the one where people actually get raped and killed.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Meh. A marketing plot of Lionsgate to promote another movie. At the same time that they victimize themselves while criminalizing their clients.

    Don't mind that those dreaded pirates helps them to rake so much money from people's pockets.

  • And surely these evil scum will get what they deserve when they and all their loved ones are killed in a justifiable drone-strike!

    Seriously, this is what a police-state looks like, there is no way to deny it anymore.

    • And surely these evil scum will get what they deserve when they and all their loved ones are killed in a justifiable drone-strike!

      Seriously, this is what a police-state looks like, there is no way to deny it anymore.

      A police state run for more than half a decade by Barack Obama. Right?

      For some reason, there's a taboo about connecting that dot.

      • by gweihir (88907)

        It is irrelevant. He is just continuing the work of others. Also, US citizens regularly overestimate the importance and power of their president massively.

  • This is the DHS keeping us safe at its finest. After they got this licked they just need to prevent the theatrical release, DVD, and Netflix copies, and then through the writers and directors of Expendables 3 in to Gitmo.

  • Steven Seagal, crime fighter, will destroy the houses of the offenders with a tank.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/er... [forbes.com]

  • by jolyonr (560227) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @04:44AM (#47592601) Homepage

    Thank you slashdot!

  • by dltaylor (7510) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @04:52AM (#47592623)

    Wanna sue the gov't for something meaningful? Sue to get ALL of it (DHS, FBI, local cops, whatever) away from filling the welfare trough for the studio scum.

    The Blu-Ray for "Under the Skin" has 11 MINUTES of uninterruptible BS before the menu (but, yes, she IS that hot). The torrent is a better product; "let the marketplace decide".

  • by vlad30 (44644) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @06:31AM (#47592819)
    A movie not released yet only available to those who have a stake in it is released seems to me someone doesn't believe its worth it or doesn't like their boss BTW I believe a movie ticket DVD or blu-ray is over priced
  • The greater insult (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @08:04AM (#47593083)
    While this has probably lost them some money, I have always felt that one of the reasons that the movie industry hates torrents is that it gives people such a wide choice that crappy films don't end up being downloaded. How insulting must it be when your precious darling of a film is so undesired that people won't even take it for free.

    Not to mention that movies that aren't being "professionally" distributed suddenly have some traction.
    • by ihtoit (3393327)

      if you believe their frankly shoddy bookkeeping, Hollywood has been losing money hand over fist since it was founded. Maybe they're in the wrong fucking business, should get back to pure racketeering, Mr. Meyer??

  • This site also makes torrents available. You can get the Expendables torrent here [google.com]
  • will be sought out and charged with copyright infringement?

    Why not use this in advertising. This moves was so anticipated it was seen by 180,000 downloaders in the first 24 hours.

    • by Kagato (116051)

      If it was a review copy most likely it contains a uniquie hidden watermark. There are several firms in Hollywood that specialize in pressing watermarked screening DVDs. I would guess they would have already been questioned.

  • by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Sunday August 03, 2014 @10:45AM (#47593843)

    That's like suing the contractor that built a freeway because the freeway was used to transport drugs. Even if, by some absurd chance, you win, there are a thousand other torrent sites out there and your movie was on them within hours. Knocking out a couple of those sites will have absolutely no effect on piracy. If you want to stop leaks go after the leaker. If you've got any sense at all, each of your DVD screeners has unique watermarks and can be traced to the person to whom it was issued. Fire that person, sue that person, and blacklist them. That at least would have a chance of reducing future leaks.

  • If they had applied a unique digital watermark to each of the DVDs they could track down the person who uploaded their copy and prosecute him. Applied consistently, this policy would be far more effective in stamping out unauthorized release of screeners.

  • Well deserved.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    The movie is full of post-talent douchebags for the most part, and Lionsgate is truly a 'lion' when it comes to going after people for the smallest and often unintentional cases of copyright infringement...they once paid out my friend 5k for a 3D gun model he had owned that was used in a DVD cover they produced (through a 3rd party mind you) without consent. Seems they don't give a shit about their own copyright violations and pay/pressure people into tiny settlements, but when it comes to downloading their

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...