Formally files suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against thousands of file-sharers to be named after their respective ISPs hand over their identities for illegally distributing copies of the Academy Award-winning movie online.
Well, it’s official. The producer of the Academy Award-winning movie “The Hurt Locker” has set his targets on at least 5,000 BitTorrent users he accuses of illegally distributing copies of the movie online.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, the lawsuit was filed earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and represents a dramatic escalation from rhetoric to action in the producer’s fight against illegal file-sharers.
Since each person connected to a swarm is an uploader as well as a downloader of pieces of the movie, his attorneys, working for the US Copyright Group, argue that each is therefore guilty of illegally transferring copyrighted material, even if it is mere piece or two.
“A Defendant’s distribution of even one unlawful copy of a motion picture can result in the nearly instantaneous worldwide distribution of that single copy to a limitless number of people,” reads the lawsuit. “The Plaintiff new seeks redress for this rampant infringement of their exclusive rights.”
And although the identities of the suspected file-sharers is yet to be known, they expect their ISPs to hand over the data at a later date and for which they will subsequently amend the lawsuit.
“The true name of the Defendants are unknown at this time,” reads the lawsuit. “Each defendant is known to the Plaintiff only by the IP address assigned to that Defendant by his or her ISP on the date and at the time at which the infringing activity of each defendant was observed.”
It’s unclear why type of out-of-court settlement he’s looking for, but if earlier efforts by the US Copyright Group are any indication $1500 will be the minimum.
Earlier this month it was made clear that “The Hurt Locker” producer had enlisted the help of the US Copyright Group to go after “tens of thousands” of BitTorrent users who illegally shared copies of the movie online, so the 5,000 targeted in this suit could be just the opening salvo in a protracted effort.
The US Copyright Group is also embroiled in plans to sue some 50,000 people accused of illegally distributing one of the independent movies “Steam Experiment,” “Far Cry,” “Uncross the Stars,” “Gray Man,” or “Call of the Wild 3D.”
So far those efforts have been stalled to a degree by ISPs like Time Warner which claims it can process no more than 28 IP addresses p/mo because of preexisting average lookup requests of 567 p/mo, virtually all coming from law enforcement.
If the US Copyright Group expects to successfully resolve matters with the 5,000 named in this latest lawsuit it had better hope that ISPs are more willing to turn over their identities. Otherwise, at a rate of 28 p/mo, it may be at least a decade or more before it’s able to name a defendant.
For those that have already been accused or fear they may in the future, stay tuned to the Electronic Frontier Foundation as it looks for attorneys willing to assist people in fighting this mass BitTorrent lawsuit.
Stay tuned.
Related Stories
- “Hurt Locker” Producers Sue 24,584 BitTorrent Users
- “Expendables” Producer Also Plans Mass BitTorrent Lawsuits
- “Hurt Locker” Producer Throws Temper Tantrum at Critic
- Star Wars’ producer: DVDs hurt Box Office, P2P will kill DVD
- Mass “Hurt Locker” Lawsuit Group to Target Settlement Holdouts
I’ve seen “Hurt Lock”… Don’t bother, it is a shitty flick.
The movie Hurt Lock is definitely not worth watching and is a waste of your time!
We feel entitled to free content on the Internet because we get it on tv, radio, and at libraries. Why should we expected it wouldn’t have eventually become the same for the Internet. It’s the entertainment companies that are screaming while hundreds of thousands or even millions of people agree that it should be available for free. This is a cultural shift, not a mass of criminals. If 40% of a society agree a behavior that was considered illegal is in fact not only legal, but may even be a right (some are starting to feel this way), then the law must change to reflect it. You cannot have laws that oppose such a huge portion of society as is represented in these legal cases. It is absurd. They are fighting a losing battle. The Entertainment industry must apply the same model they do in radio, tv, and in libraries. That is the real bottom line that it will come down to.
A friend of mine, Rick Gauger, science fiction author, had told me on more than one occasion that he was upset that the libraries can buy a book of his and lend it to everyone. So he only got paid for one purchase of his novel when in fact thousands read that copy. He also complained about the used bookstores reselling his novel and not giving him due royalties for these sales. Now you may be saying that is stupid, but it is the same thing that’s happening here. Some people do not know how to adjust to a cultural shift and they hang onto a literal and rigid view that is meant to support their private interests. Meanwhile everyone else has moved on.
Btw, you really should buy Mr. Gauger’s book and read it. He deserves every penny. He works so hard at his craft.
first of all check bill clint policy about shareing on the internet .bw
There is a scary sense of entitlement among internet users these days. Why do people believe it is their right to have unlimited, free content?
Who thinks it’s a right?
Probably a crappy movie. But now I have got to download it to see what all the fuss is about.
New Zeropaid Article:
“Hurt Lock” loses 5,000 viewers
The defendants, if they don’t live in D.C., should file a Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In order to have a claim brought against each defendant, the court must have jurisdiction over each person. The defendants should argue that merely sharing video files does not constitute sufficient contacts with the D.C. circuit to justify them having jurisdiction.
It is just a mere war-themed film, hence the fact that I never heard of it outside its mentioning associated with its award and the second time on this site. According to Wikipedia,
“The Hurt Locker is an American war film about a United States Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team during the Iraq War.”
This clearly identifies what the target audience is: war freaks and people with general interest in what the film was based on. Recognizing this, I believe that only a small demographic has watched this film. As well, because inaccuracies and stereotypical depictions are inevitable in this genre of film, I argue that at least of 40% of this small audience were disappointed from watching this film. This would lead to whatever is the reverse of spreading word of this film, and consequently the resultant grossing.
Now regarding the current issue, nobody has heard of thousands of cases against a single entity, so where is the appropriateness in thousands of cases against a collective entity? It is no more than folly.
At the moment I am not going to target the technological obliviousness of the pro-copyright side yet again, but two things are for certain: first, an Internet access account is not formally associated with any IP address, and secondly, the user accessing the Internet through that account does not need to have the exact name registered on the account. Thus, there is no certainty that name is that of an ‘illegal file-sharer’.
The whole part of the article about them trying to say they are legally liable for uploading the movie by only uploading parts of the movie is total BS since it isn’t true. You have to have certain specific parts of a video file for it to even be viewable and with certain popular file formats you need nearly the entire thing to even view it. If you only have parts of a video file then you pretty much just have randoms bits of data and nothing copyright infringing. If it is a dvd rip or iso then it is even worse since there pretty much is no way to use it without having the entire thing. Oh and the part about the video being instantaneously available is BS since it first has to be downloaded by someone and if it isn’t then it was like it wasn’t even available.
Well, i was going to buy it but now ill just have to download it instead. This shit just can’t be allowed to go on!
Kicked out of the Oscars, kicked off the set of the Hurt Locker, is tis guy trying to be kicked out of the country next?
Nicolas Chartier is trying to turn the one and only movie to ever come out of his production company, Voltage Pictures, into a cash-cow. Granted, Ive never made a movie that even garnered a late night scy-fy channel broadcast but, then again, Ive never made a movie. Nick is making a power grab for the cash, banking on the technological stupidity of the courts, claiming that they’ve been denied whats rightfully theirs and never apologizing in the least for the dreadful crap that isnt worth the celluloid, metaphorically speaking, it is printed on. The companies website cites a litany of movies that IMDB don’t even credit as legitimate films….and THEY EVEN CITE GNFOS!!!*
Give it up Nick. You didn’t even write this movie, you simply bought a script. Nothing you “created” has ever garnered the publicity Hurt Locker has and pissing off an audience base in which your primary demographic is the same tech savvy user base you are attacking so vociferously is dumb beyond belief. The RIAA lacked a mascot for the population to rally against….don’t turn yourself into the Jar Jar Binks of the MPAA.
* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274518/
If the 5000 people are being sued based on the logic that their collective group action was infringing, should this not be prosecuted as one case with only a single pay out to be divided amongst the 5000? Might not be cheaper for the defendants in the long run, but I’m sure it would allow them to better afford a lawyer as a group, and would lower the maximum damage which can be claimed per person.