Filmmaker Personally Tracks Down Movie Pirate

[exfileme]

One filmmaker set out to take down a pirate personally.

Filmmaker Personally Tracks Down Movie Pirate : Read more

 

[joebob2000]

oh noes, financial RUINATION! WHERE IS $15,000 USD!

/Srsly, he needs to sue for $15,000,000. No one takes a petty sum like $15k seriously. srsly!

 

[TheDuke]

moose hunting film
i wonder if that many people even downloaded it

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]joebob2000[/nom]oh noes, financial RUINATION! WHERE IS $15,000 USD!/Srsly, he needs to sue for $15,000,000. No one takes a petty sum like $15k seriously. srsly![/citation]

He's more likely to get 15k vs. 15,000,000. As the saying goes, you can't get blood from a turnip.

 

[grieve]

That guy has pirate rage, much like road rage but far less entertaining.

I see his point that he is not a millionaire and probably invested a good chunk of money into this… 15k is a lot of money if you don’t have a car or some possession to show for it. BUT! Just like all other pirating, I highly doubt this would have any ill effects on the sales of his movie. If people want it they will still go buy it.

 

[redgarl]

Seriously... I would prefer the publicity of the torrent than the actual 3$ of copyright for the dvd sold to he guy.

 

[zaznet]

He should make a new hunting film. Hunting movie pirates, showing up on their door step with the gun capable of taking down the moose from his previous film might be more entertaining at least.

 

[Guest]

"/Srsly, he needs to sue for $15,000,000. No one takes a petty sum like $15k seriously. srsly!"

Noone takes 'srsly' seriously.

This is Sweden, as a general rule fines and compensations still follow a more reasonable pattern here.

On a personal note I can't bring myself to take a fine of 15 billion seriously, 15 thousand on the other hand might be both reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances.

 

[noodlegts]

[citation]BUT! Just like all other pirating, I highly doubt this would have any ill effects on the sales of his movie. If people want it they will still go buy it.[/citation]

I hate when people say this. It's not true at all. Do you think thieves who steal things then return to the store and pay for them? If people want it, and they can get it for free, they will take it for free.

Angels and airwaves released an album online for free where you had a choice to pay or not pay. Nobody paid... Coldplay did the same thing and they got an average of like $0.02 per CD. If people can get something for free they will take it. Piracy is a crime!

It's especially bad when it happens to small movie makers, but pirating a low budget film is the same crime as pirating Avatar.

 

[thecusith]

Why was he on a torrent website in the first place? Hypocrite? I guess I could be mistaken...

 

[decepticon]

I highly doubt the torrent was removed because of the accusation. More likely nuked since no one would DL a movie about....moose....hunting.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]noodlegts[/nom][citation]BUT! Just like all other pirating, I highly doubt this would have any ill effects on the sales of his movie. If people want it they will still go buy it.[/citation]I hate when people say this. It's not true at all. Do you think thieves who steal things then return to the store and pay for them? If people want it, and they can get it for free, they will take it for free.Angels and airwaves released an album online for free where you had a choice to pay or not pay. Nobody paid... Coldplay did the same thing and they got an average of like $0.02 per CD. If people can get something for free they will take it. Piracy is a crime!It's especially bad when it happens to small movie makers, but pirating a low budget film is the same crime as pirating Avatar.[/citation]
I think in the situation this guy is getting free advertising which cleary he could not afford seeing as 15k busts him. I certainly do think pirating is theft, it is the same as stealing the DVD from a store... .yet i have 1000+ movies pirated and some 200 gigs of music (35,000 songs).

At the end of the day, no one would have known this guy made a DVD, now he is getting FREE edvertising. I honestly believe this advertising will in fact gain him more profit then if the movie hadnt been stolen in the first place.

Exhibit A - make a movie that no one knows about make X $.
Exhibit B - make a movie, get mega free advertising and many thefts = sales.

REMEMBER: not everyone knows how to torrent and many people are against it! now those people can go buy the movie because they now know it exists thanks to Mr.Pirate

 

[grieve]

Ah man... my quote is all screewed above...

I only want to say this:

At the end of the day, no one would have known this guy made a DVD, now he is getting FREE edvertising. I honestly believe this advertising will in fact gain him more profit then if the movie hadnt been stolen in the first place.

Exhibit A - make a movie that no one knows about make X $.
Exhibit B - make a movie, get mega free advertising and many thefts = sales.

REMEMBER: not everyone knows how to torrent and many people are against it! now those people can go buy the movie because they now know it exists thanks to Mr.Pirate

 

[chriskrum]

"At the end of the day, no one would have known this guy made a DVD, now he is getting FREE edvertising. I honestly believe this advertising will in fact gain him more profit then if the movie hadnt been stolen in the first place."

That's a B.S. rationale. Really, when boiled down you're saying "pirates do creators a favor by providing free advertising." It's ludicrous on its face.

This is a special interest film, people who sought it out on the torrent were motivated viewers, many of them would have paid for it if they hadn't been able to get it for free.

The guy who uploaded it destroyed the market -- he didn't do the creator a favor by advertising the film.

 

[Guest]

Thieves who steal diamonds cannot otherwise afford them. Pirates who preview moose hunting movies would not otherwise buy a movie about moose hunting, even if they could afford it. Infringement? Maybe, it depends. But damages = zero.

 

[turbolover22]

[citation]Tor Lundberg is claiming that the Pirate Bay user destroyed him on a financial level...[/citation]

IMO Tor may legitimately feel that the person who uploaded his movie destroyed his chances of making money off of it. But to blame complete financial destruction is not a legitimate complaint. If he is in financial ruins that is his own doing.

 

[turbolover22]

[citation]"It's another thing to share Madonna’s work, who is multimillionaire," he said. "Or Apple products, for example. But when you make something yourself, it's your own money you have invested in it. So the effects are much more severe for an individual."[/citation]


I'm just paraphrasing his theory a little bit:
"It's ok if you pirate from anybody else, just don't pirate my stuff"

 

[gto127]

Alot of people try & justify pirating by saying "well I wouldn't buy it anyway so they are not losing money on me" but it's just wrong. I used to copy movies for personal use but later destroyed them when I thought about "what if that was my movie" it didn't seem so harmless then. When you do wrong it always comes back on you. You reap what you sow.

 

[idisarmu]

[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]yet i have and some 200 gigs of music (35,000 songs)[/citation] Your music collection is laughable! Try 55,000 songs ...and that's on a pathetic shared 1.5 mbit connection.... my ISP must hate me.

 

[tainted_peak]

This could turn into the next hurt locker.