Lionsgate Sues Limetorrents, Played.to, and Others Over Expendables 3 Leak 207
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.
The DHS Is On The Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:5, Funny)
DHS: "we must protect the fatherland" -- er, homeland.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:4, Interesting)
Dont joke, they have a Homeland Youth program in the school systems.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Even weirder, the kids are forced (if only through peer pressure) to swear allegiance to the flag on a daily basis.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
2 questions:
1. do they have to do the Bellamy?
2. do they get a ceremonial dagger?
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Well doing the Bellamy would fit into the current fascist direction of America and now a days it's probably a ceremonial firearm.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:4, Insightful)
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:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3)
to paraphrase a genius:
it starts with your thumb... AND THEN IT GETS FUN
in other words, baby steps.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3)
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.
Re: The DHS Is On The Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we save the rhetoric for when we need it?
By the time we "need" it, it will be too late.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3)
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.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3)
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3)
The poster has a point. Hyperbole and hysteria rarely makes things better. It often alternates the king of people that might be supportive of your view.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
The DHS is something that never should've been created.
You would prefer multiple agencies duplicating work, not coordinating operations, not sharing information, leaving gaps between organizations, etc.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
You bet. If we're to have tyranny, it's best tempered by incompetence.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Will you be among those to blame the government when a piece of information known by the FBI was not connected to another piece of information known by the CIA and another 911 happens?
The opposite could also happen. The FBI could overreact because they do not have a piece of information from another agency.
Incompetence is not a good thing.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Imagine an FBI so competent they could bust everyone for every single copyright and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violation they ever committed. And every other crime for that matter.
No, I'll take incompetence over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
You will talk a different tune when their incompetence puts you in jail.
No, I'll take incompetence over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.
Let me re-phrase that for you
No, I'll take lawlessness over competently (but not benevolently) administered tyranny.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
...and I assume your next complaint will be how inefficient government is and why the hell should you have to pay for inefficient government?!
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Which is already absolutely insane.
Are you saying theft of intellectual property should be a civil matter while theft of real property should be a criminal matter? Why should there be less protection for intellectual property that physical property. They both have monetary value.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Theft of intellectual property should be a criminal matter.
Copyright infringement should be a civil matter. Since This article is talking about a movie being copied and shared (copyright infringement), it should be strictly a civil matter. Of course, the government being the enforcement wing of large companies, the full weight and force of the Federal government will extend its infinite reach across the globe to annihilate anyone who so much as thinks about infringing on the absolute rights of the government's benevolent benefactors.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't steal intellectual property.
You can copy and use intellectual property inappropriately, sure.
But you sure as hell cannot steal it, and as such it should not be involving the DHS or Federal Government in any way. But these are the people you voted in, and the rest of us have to live with it unfortunately..
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
"intellectual property" is nothing but a propaganda term to begin with.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Of course it can be stolen.
The simplest case: you have only one manuscript and no back ups, I steal it, it is gone.
The complex case: I destroy your ability to market it, make money from it, use it as you feel fit. Your option to use your 'property' in a way you can use 'property' is gone, hence: it is stolen. And funnily it is worse than stolen, as I can not even give it back to you.
Hint: the relevant laws are around 'intellectual PROPERTY' because it is a property it can be stolen, you can be deprived from it etc. Otherwise lawmakers had realized decades ago: 'oh, it is not property ... it is something else, we need to name it different'
If it is still correct in our times to call it 'property' is something completely different.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:4, Informative)
Of course it can be stolen.
The simplest case: you have only one manuscript and no back ups, I steal it, it is gone.
Then you've stolen a piece of physical property - not intellectual property...
The complex case: I destroy your ability to market it, make money from it, use it as you feel fit. Your option to use your 'property' in a way you can use 'property' is gone, hence: it is stolen. And funnily it is worse than stolen, as I can not even give it back to you.
What you describe is not theft - it's a form of obstruction. If it were actually property - it would be perfectly possible to return it - and by your own words it isn't. Again, copyright/trademark infringement is not theft, no matter how the *AA keep repeating it.
It's a civil matter.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
That is not theft, and they don't have the right to a secret. Free speech comes first, so if someone finds out their secret, too bad for them.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
I'm not sure how that is right now in Europe after all the changes in law over recent years.
However 'simple copyright infringement' is a civil case, no one except the copyright owner can sue etc.
However in this case it is by far not that simple: an original DVD was leaked, that implies it was stolen. Depending how you want to turn this it is fraud, industrial espionage or simply theft. Depending who did it, a high ranking executive or simply a guy distributing the mail taking his chance or by someone who intentionally wanted to damage his (former) employer financially, it is a complete different crime. Yes, a crime, worth being prosecuted!
The Double Standard (Score:3)
Theft of intellectual property should be a criminal matter.
Copyright infringement should be a civil matter
Perhaps it is the August heat.
But don't see any meaningful distinction here.
The geek wants to share the unlicensed movies he has downloaded with 10,000 of his closest friends on the P2P nets.
But when his own IP is threatened he will be the first to call the cops.
Re:The Double Standard (Score:3)
Theft: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
Copyright infringement: the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works.
A copyright owner has the right to control how their protected works are reproduced and distributed. When that right is violated, a civil suit is an appropriate response. When someone steals your car, a criminal investigation by government authorities is an appropriate response. In this case, theft of the movie would entail someone (or a group of someones) taking the only available copies from their rightful owner such that the original owner no longer had access.
It may not seem like an important distinction from where you're sitting, but it's important in that we shouldn't have SWAT teams busting down teenagers' doors because they shared a movie on the Internet.
Re:The Double Standard (Score:2)
t may not seem like an important distinction from where you're sitting, but it's important in that we shouldn't have SWAT teams busting down teenagers' doors because they shared a movie on the Internet.
SWAT teams are not used in every criminal matter so stop sensationalizing. There are many criminal matters that involve arrests without SWAT teams. I see nothing wrong with issuing an arrest warrant and sending a couple of cops to arrest someone violating copyright.
Re:The Double Standard (Score:2)
The geek wants to share the unlicensed movies he has downloaded with 10,000 of his closest friends on the P2P nets.
But when his own IP is threatened he will be the first to call the cops.
Uh, care to cite any cases where DHS has stepped into pursue a GPL-violation case?
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
So when an artist creates something they can be copied by any big business that wants to. The individual has no recourse because the large company will just bury them in lawyers. So in effect you are saying that anyone who does not have the resources to defend their copyrights have no copyrights.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3)
So when an artist creates something they can be copied by any big business that wants to. The individual has no recourse because the large company will just bury them in lawyers. So in effect you are saying that anyone who does not have the resources to defend their copyrights have no copyrights.
I'm saying that civil suits are the appropriate response to copyright infringement. If big companies can bury individuals with armies of lawyers such that nobody can defend themselves and their rights in court against big companies, then that's an issue with the court system; not anything specific to copyright law. If the court system is not doing its job and is effectively a place where whoever has the most money wins, that should be corrected. The process should not simply be replaced by SWAT teams.
Let's assume the same thing happens in custody cases: that whoever has the most money always wins. Is the appropriate response to then simply have government agents arbitrarily decide who should have the kid(s) and send armed agents crashing through the doors and windows of the home of the one who didn't get picked? We should have fair courts where righteousness trumps legal trickery. If we don't, that's the problem we should solve.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
The process should not simply be replaced by SWAT teams.
No the process should be augmented by the district attorney's office who has the resources to protect the public.
Is the appropriate response to then simply have government agents arbitrarily decide who should have the kid(s)
No, The appropriate response is if for the government to appoint a lawyer to advocate for the parent in court. Just the same way the district attorney advocates for victims of crime.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
It's being copied, not stolen.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
The DHS was created in large part to address the inability of other agencies to communicate and work together.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
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)
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
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.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Copyright is not only stealing, it's terrorism. Do try to keep up.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
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]
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the question is still, "WTF is a civil suit being investigated and prosecuted by the FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT!?!?!"
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Because monies.
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:2)
Re:The DHS Is On The Case (Score:3)
No, the question is still, "WTF is a civil suit being investigated and prosecuted by the FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT!?!?!"
It's basic public safety in this case. No sane person would want to watch "Expendables 3" in the first place. Evidence leading to 2 million people who are clearly dangers to themselves and others. I can see the federal police following that up. Much like that social experiment "Transformers 4" to catalog people who will watch any goddamned thing in the world as long at there are quickly moving CGI images and explosions (planned to replace Selective Service registration to get a list of names for the draft).
But even mad science experiments can't explain recent Adam Sandler movies (Though when you see a $100 M budget for a film that probably cost $3 M to make, and was widely regarded as worst film of all time, well, someone saw The Producers).
Methinks the maiden protesteth too much (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much (Score:2)
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.
Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much (Score:3)
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 like it, you don't have to buy it, so you have no right to criticise it" fallacy [slashdot.org].
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?
No, I think Lionsgate would be entitled to tell him what they liked, and he'd be entitled to ignore their advice and tell them to p**s off if he so wished.
(*) Not, realistically, that they're likely to even notice- let alone care- about what a random person on a geek website is advising them, but that's beside the point here.
Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much (Score:2)
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.
Copyresponsibility (Score:2)
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"?
Re:Copyresponsibility (Score:2)
The Expendables is hardly art and definitely not science
Re:Copyresponsibility (Score:2)
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 make money off of them and there is every incentive to hit the ground running.
Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much (Score:2)
Releasing all the "summer blockbusters" at the same time is an even worse business model...
Re:Methinks the maiden protesteth too much (Score:2)
Why would they spend a bunch of money creating a "fake" movie that they can leak to torrent sites?
He didn't actually claim that they would. Quite likely he meant that it could well have been one of those cases where an early version of the movie was heavily reworked before release (including being re-edited, having scenes dropped or reshot and/or entirely new ones added) for various reasons.
Glad to Know (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Glad to Know (Score:2)
Maybe the movie reveals how someone can sneak across the border without getting caught. That's a DHS concern.
Re:Glad to Know (Score:3)
Aww isn't that cute, you actually believe the administration is telling you the truth. When the Obama administration has started dumping illegals all over the US.
Re:Glad to Know (Score:2)
A marketing plot to promote another movie (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2)
It is irrelevant. He is just continuing the work of others. Also, US citizens regularly overestimate the importance and power of their president massively.
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you were an author who wrote a book... with said book being pirated before it even was released, only to be downloaded a couple million times. How would that make you feel?
Assuming that by piracy you mean "shared for free" and not taking over of oil tankers off the coast of Somalia, I'd be laughing all the way to the bank because...
a) a book downloaded million times even before it's out would also be sold in millions of copies because it is clearly a most wanted book;
b) all those prizes for literature I'd rake in - again, cause it is such a fantastic book;
c) future contracts for my other books based on being "one of the most sought after and most read authors of our time";
d) FUCK YOU SHAKESPEARE!
e) movie rights;
f) merch;
g) "More people read this book than the Bible - find out why" sells;
Also, every single book by Stephen King is out there in a scanned and OCR-ed form, yet people still keep buying his books, old and new, while publishers keep paying him millions of dollars on a promise of writing a new book.
And last I checked Metallica still keeps on making and selling albums despite Napster forcing them to sell both their kidneys, lungs, livers, testicles and feet to pay for piratizing costs they had to face.
It's free publicity.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2)
shhhh stop making sense. you know its not allowed around here.
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2)
That would also be a good thing if you were a new or relativly unknown author. Since for these people the biggest problem can be getting their books published in the first place. Something which "self publishing" can help with.
Though in such a situation you don't know how many of those people would have bought the book. You can't even know if it would have been so popular as a free ebook in the Amazon Kindle store.
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2)
While I don't necessarily disagree with you in regards to the benefits of free downloads, if I wrote the book, shouldn't I be the one who decides how it is going to be distributed and marketed? Or at the very least, someone that I have decided will have that responsibility (i.e., a publisher)?
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2)
if I wrote the book, shouldn't I be the one who decides how it is going to be distributed and marketed? Or at the very least, someone that I have decided will have that responsibility (i.e., a publisher)?
That is a whole different argument.
OP was not commenting on the ways of distribution and marketing but was instead parroting the fallacy that sharing for free is stealing.
As for distribution and marketing... no... you don't get to decide that if you want to make money from your book.
You specifically sell or lease your rights to the publisher/distributor.
Should they be the ones to decide how it is distributed and marketed?
That's a whole ANOTHER argument.
Which involves at this moment completely hypothetical relationships between them and you, as well as hypothetical issues such as are you being exploited in the deal, and very real issues such as is the present and future audience being exploited through lobbying for stricter and longer copyright regulations...
And they are all completely IRRELEVANT because - it is not an issue of distribution or marketing but of free publicity.
And unless you have a problem with your books being popular... in which case you can try the Salinger approach - sorry, but you have as little say today on the free sharing of your book as someone back a hundred years ago had on someone quoting, reading to others or summarizing the story in their books.
Lament the change or embrace it. Either way, the world moved on.
Progress didn't outright kill the old business model, it just made it less profitable with some particular strategies.
In return, now the market is global, instantaneous and distribution and marketing costs are ZERO.
Have you thought about releasing your works in episodes and through subscription?
It worked great for Charles Dickens.
On a side note... I never heard of anyone getting their pirated PDF copy signed by the author.
Re: Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously don't work on anything creative or else you might think differently.
You claim to speak for all people who work on anything "creative"? And what does what he works on have to do with the validity of his arguments? It's always funny to me to see people say that the people directly involved in the situation are more right than anyone else. Have you ever heard of something called "bias"? Of course people who stand to gain from a policy are going to support it in most cases! They're not any more incorrect, either, because people's arguments stand on their own merits.
Just because you don't want to pay for content does not mean you have the right to obtain it for free because the creator is not missing out on selling it to you.
I do have a right to free speech and my own private property. People voluntarily send me data (free speech) using their own private property (private property rights); the person or people who originally organized the data are almost never involved in this process, and at most, they simply do not gain; that is not the same as losing something.
Yet, some people think it's okay to have the 'right' to have government-enforced monopolies over ideas that infringe upon free speech and private property rights. I'd prefer to let the free market handle things; if you can't figure out a way to profit in the Age of Information, then you're going to fail, and that's really how it should be.
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:3)
You seriously want to put this to jail time?
Two million people jailed a year for downloading Expendables 3? Who's going to man these jails? Who's going to pay for them.
Let's be fucking realistic please. Make it 10 times the retail cost of the copyright infringed item plus court costs and call it a day. But the person sueing has to prove that you're the one that infringed copyright. Not just a blind IP address.
Re:Yes! Copyright terrorism must be stopped! (Score:2)
Of course for something which isn't released the "retail cost" is zero. With the "plus court costs" bit probably not being applicable with vexatious litigation either.
DHS keeping us safe. (Score:2)
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.
Nice (Score:2)
Steven Seagal, crime fighter, will destroy the houses of the offenders with a tank.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/er... [forbes.com]
Cool! I didn't know Expendables 3 was available. (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you slashdot!
corporate welfare for the scum of the Earth (Score:3)
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".
So (Score:3)
The greater insult (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention that movies that aren't being "professionally" distributed suddenly have some traction.
Re:The greater insult (Score:2)
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??
Don't forget to sue this site ... (Score:2)
So ther person that released it (Score:2)
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.
Re:So ther person that released it (Score:2)
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.
Silly, you can't win that. (Score:3)
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.
Watermark your DVDs Lionsgate (Score:2)
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 gear, they go over the top.
Here is the type of line that lets me know the movie is a piece of shit, and deserves *downloading* rather than paying way too much to see at a theatre: "Willis was offered $3 million for four days of shooting in Bulgaria, but Willis wanted $4 million". If the movie were anything other than a cash grab to rape box-office-groupies of their hard earned money, actors would _seek_ roles in the film rather than demand an extra million for *4 DAYS OF WORK*.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:4, Insightful)
Their biggest loss will be the revenue lost from all the people that will get to see ahead of time what a turd this will be - BEFORE the Hollywood Bullshit Mega-Hype Machine has a chance to launch the hypnotic media assault that will try to trick the masses into thinking it's a good movie.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:2)
Well, we enjoyed the first two. But I will wait for the DVD, just as I did with the first two.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:2)
I won't even buy the DVD. for 90% of the movies i watch I wait for the $3.99 video on demand in standard definition. I have a nice HD TV but since most movies don't make use of it why should I bother paying more for something that should be standard by now.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:2)
With the irony being that tame reviewers and those who nominate for industry awards are often able to see the thing in advance anyway.
Re:Problem solved! (Score:2)
Wow. Just wow. I have to wonder how much money they stuffed up that guy's ass to write that "review". My God, there wasn't that much gushing at Spindletop!
Kind of makes you wonder if the "leak" wasn't deliberate. It would be hysterically ironic if the DHS investigation proved THAT out...
Re:homeland (Score:2)
Yeah. Damn tourists.
Region coding (Score:2)
Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll (Score:3)
Do you think spending Federal Dollars on law enforcement to make sure you keep the stuff in your home from criminal gangs is a good idea? Because they are preventing you from profiting from your work too.
Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll (Score:3)
Because they are preventing you from profiting from your work too.
Copyright infringement, at most, causes you to not gain something (other people's money, which they chose not to give you); it does not cause you to lose anything tangible.
If you honestly think that the government should waste money trying to stop people from voluntarily copying movies and such using their own private property, then I think you may be a bit mentally unstable. Copyright is anti-free market, anti-free speech, and anti-real private property.
Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll (Score:2)
How much tax does said corporation pay anyway?
Re:A good, and proper, use of our Federal tax doll (Score:2)
Re:There's a "Has-Bens 3"? (Score:2)
That's probably why they have leaked it.
Now they use the court case to both play innocent and maintain presence in the news.
It's a win-win for them.
Re:People have to be paid (Score:3)
How easy it is to ignore the fact the that the people who created this movie need to be paid.
They're paid for services rendered at the time of completion.
Not only the actors, writers, directors but the hairdressers, electricians and even the computer special effect workers.
All these people are paid just like you would pay any other contractor. They do the work, you cut them a check. They all work for a set, specified rate, not for any cut in the profits. Those who do earn based off ticket sales are usually A-listers with enough clout to negotiate for a cut of the gross, not the net. So no matter how poorly it does in the box office, these people still get a cut of whatever it brings in.
And God forbid that investors who fronted the money in the hope of a return on their investment should realize a profit.
ANY investment prospectus will tell you that "All investment carries some degree of risk." This means that when you invest in something, yes, you expect a profit. But you also have to accept the possibility that the money you put in will go up in smoke. By your logic, I should be able to sue whoever I invest with if my mutual fund doesn't give me a 500% ROI. They decided to invest in something, they knew it was a risk. Lets not forget that the investors are going to be the LEAST damaged by any of this, since one film is simply a line-item in their ledger.
That being said, downloading films in this manner IS ethically questionable. Mass downloading can make a studio earn a reduced profit. But reduced profit is not a monetary loss. The real loss is that if the profit reduction is large enough, they have less incentive to produce any more films that require actual effort. The more this happens, the more you get dreck that caters to the lowest common denominator (such as The Expendables whose mass downloading furthers the cycle), and filmmaking is reduced to an exercise in formulaic cinematography to maximize monetization and merchandising paradigms (and other such buzzword-y bullshit). THIS is the real cost of mass copyright infringement - an art form reduced to a paint-by-numbers affair where no one dares to make anything truly unique. And to me, this cost is far, FAR worse than any perceived monetary loss.
At least the Capitalists who wish to to profit from the labor of others paid for that privilege unlike simple thieves.
How many times does it need to be said that COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT?. Theft is the taking of something tangible which deprives the individual owner of its use. Downloading a copy of some bits does not deprive the original owner of said bits. They still have them, and can still use them for their intended purpose.
Re:Merriam-Webster (Score:2)
Dear EzinKy,
THANK YOU!
Sincerely,
A Content Creator.