What Lawsuit? Pirates Still Sharing Hurt Locker

[skatt3rbrain]

[citation][nom]annisman[/nom]Shame on some of you for 'thumbs downing' people who suggest actually paying to watch the movie, like from cheap alternatives such as redbox or netflix. PIRATING IS STEALING. if you pirate you are a THIEF. Don't like to be called a theif ? Then don't steal from others. Some people need to come to grips with what they are doing, is wrong, and not 'cool'.[/citation]

The problem with this mentality is that everything that has ever been illegal and since legalized, from miscellaneous parts of the Bill of Rights to work unions, has been done so by way of a grassroots movement. Peer to peer filesharing is one of these grassroots movements. Later on down the road we will either still have issues with the system coming down on people who do it because it won't EVER stop now that the technology is known, or the system will redefine theft and the companies that are supposedly heavily affected by P2P will redesign their business model to profit from it.

To treat P2P like a child drawing on a wall with crayons to a good spanking is obviously not going to solve a problem. When we are provided some proverbial coloring books, the problem will be ratified.

By the way, Netflix buys so many copies of a movie and will only replace stolen/broken copies, so renting from such a company is NOT going to change a thing as far as profits for the film go.

 

[crus_russ]

The reality of the matter is, is that "going to the movies" is dying because people are more comfortable in their own home with their HTPC + big flat screen + free popcorn.

As someone above said, the MPAA needs to embrace home theatre users. I know for a fact that I, myself, hate going to the movies and would prefer to watch the show at home. I dont even mind paying for it, but I dont think we have something like Redbox in Australia.

 

[theubersmurf]

Hopefully the court will step in and say this is unprosecutable. The court's time is important, (remember, we're guaranteed an expedient trial by the constitution) and trying 200,000+ cases is detrimental to the justice system as a whole. The only way to do it is something like a class action suit, where they brought cases against all of them at once. I would like it if piracy took on the "unenforcable" type of status that copying cassettes had back in the eighties, cause this is ludicrous. I'm not an advocate of piracy, if people make something I like I buy it. If they made something worthwhile, They may deserve to get something for it. But what they're trying to do is actually a disservice to the american justice system at this point.

 

[icarusfly]

To me it is amazing how the idea of "pirate" has changed over the years. Before the FBI and other private organizations like the MPAA and the RIAA would be trying to track down people who would make copies of a movie, game, CD and then sell them to make a profit. The idea being that these "pirates" were making actual money off of the studios and artists. I have a hard time calling someone who just downloads a movie shared by others a "pirate". they are not making any money off of the studios, i.e. not ripping them off for monetary gain. Sure it is stealing or sharing based on your point of view, but at the VERY worst it is no more than shoplifting. it is sad that laws regarding identity theft are so out of proportion. Imagine being made to pay a $250, 000 fine (per stolen item) and maybe jail time for petty theft. Legally your better off taking the five finger discount than using Bit Torrent.

 

[icarusfly]

sorry I meant laws regarding intellectual property not "identity theft" in my last post.

 

[ragequit]

This is just a testimate that suing people for file sharing does nothing to stop the sharing, if anything it may increase it. I'm just waiting for Infanity Ward to sue people for downloading MW2 on PC to get a few extra bucks. No low is too low for the doe.

 

[kohvitass]

200,000 downloads/month for over a year now....
Just slap on a coca cola logo and encourage the spreading.
You will earn more with that kind of advertisement than with puny dvd sales, and more people will see your work......aaand thats usually why artists create things in the first place

 

[alphadark]

[citation][nom]annisman[/nom]Shame on some of you for 'thumbs downing' people who suggest actually paying to watch the movie, like from cheap alternatives such as redbox or netflix. PIRATING IS STEALING. if you pirate you are a THIEF. Don't like to be called a theif ? Then don't steal from others. Some people need to come to grips with what they are doing, is wrong, and not 'cool'.[/citation]

This is an argument we are not going to win my friend. They steal all this media then wonder why companies come after them. They complain that no one makes games for the PC anymore, yet still download the games for free and wonder why the small indie companies that still make PC games end up going under due to low sales.

Internet flaming in 3 2 1.

 

[Guest]

Flame on. Copyright infringement is not stealing, it's infringement as simple as that. It's not a crime as long as you do not have a monetary gain [No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act)] but you might be responsible for monetary damages.

 

[eddieroolz]

Contributing.

 

[bv90andy]

I never saw the hurt locker... and hope that I never will, even if it's a good movie.

 

[JOSHSKORN]

Um, yeah...here's a novel idea. Lets do something to fix the value of a dollar bill so it's worth more. Maybe, just maybe prices will be driven down and maybe people will be more inclined to pay for something. Last I heard, a movie was around $11 or so to see at night and $8.25 for a matinée. 10-15 years ago, wasn't it somewhere around the neighborhood of $7.50? A matinée of $3.75?

 

[tharkis842]

This is ridiculous, it's not stealing. First, there's no monetary gain. Not unless someone is burning them to disc, or throwing em on thumb drives and selling copies to people dumb enough to pay for it. Second, if you watch the movie or play the game and like it, your friend comes over and does the same and the enjoy the experience, they're more than likely going to go out and buy a copy for themselves. You JUST made the company a profit, they'll in turn tell their friends and so on and so forth. There's no point paying $50-$60 when the game is only 5 hours long, and has bad online play. Blu-ray may be HD but the movie itself didn't change, and neither has the disc content. Why should i pay $25-$30 for it? The market needs to adapt to the consumer, or the consumer will stop playing the game.

 

[cewhidx]

[citation][nom]annisman[/nom]Shame on some of you for 'thumbs downing' people who suggest actually paying to watch the movie, like from cheap alternatives such as redbox or netflix. PIRATING IS STEALING. if you pirate you are a THIEF. Don't like to be called a theif ? Then don't steal from others. Some people need to come to grips with what they are doing, is wrong, and not 'cool'.[/citation]

I disagree. So by your statement, I shouldnt be able to go to a buddy's house & watch a movie he bought because I didnt pay for it too? What's the difference if I go to his house & watch it, or I watch it at home from a download he shared?

 

[jamesedgeuk2000]

[citation][nom]alphadark[/nom]This is an argument we are not going to win my friend. They steal all this media then wonder why companies come after them. They complain that no one makes games for the PC anymore, yet still download the games for free and wonder why the small indie companies that still make PC games end up going under due to low sales. Internet flaming in 3 2 1.[/citation]

Its dumb opinions like this that give the music/film company's weight do you really believe they lose X million a year due to piracy?

That figure does not account for the fact that 90% of the pirates would never have bought the item from a store anyway so that's $0 lost, it also does not include money made because those people liked the music and decided to buy the next album or go to he bands show.

Guns n Roses are one of my favourite bands, I bought all their albums, some videos/shirts and have seen them live twice, all because my cousin made me a copy of appetite in 1991 (on cassette ofc)

Don't believe the record companies hype

 

[terion]

I would love to watch this or any other movie in decent quality via streaming or download. And I am ready to pay for it! Problem is that nobody offers it to me. Period. Outside of USA and few Western Europe countries most of such services are blocked:
Hulu, netflix - forget about it. Even Amazon digital download is blocked (by Amazon of course, god knows why). I think Apple store is partially blocked too. Curiosity is also that 7digital prices for Europe are 50+% higher than for USA, but I guess I will have to live with that.
And it's not third world country: I have several Mbit/s connection and really very little possibility to use it in legal way. Game developers are three steps forward, and since digital download arise I haven't played single pirated game. As for movies and TV shows, there is plethora of possibilities to get great quality material hours after release,either by streaming or download, but no or very limited possibility to get it this way without copyright violation.

 

[brianfulcher15]

wow... i never even hurt of the hurt locker, see this threads makes me want to pirate it and see what all the fuss is about.

as far as the netflix goes, many people are like me and on a 756kb connection. with netflix this means for every 5 min. of a movie I have to let it buffer becuase netflix are aholes and wont let you fully buffer the movie becuase they say you might steal it.

 

[Guest]

Why dont they just stream the movie online for free and add some adds?

 

[maydaynomore]

Hahaha. they will make more money on these lawsuits than ticket sales... finally they figured out a way to beat piracy (or just profit from it). I fully support the lawsuits and hope that someone I know gets sued. I'd laugh so hard.... I'm already laughing, but i'd laugh harder..Hope other studios do the same... this is so exciting...

 

[blueomni]

[citation][nom]cewhidx[/nom]I disagree. So by your statement, I shouldnt be able to go to a buddy's house & watch a movie he bought because I didnt pay for it too? What's the difference if I go to his house & watch it, or I watch it at home from a download he shared?[/citation]

I actually never saw it that way, but it makes sense to me. The main difference being you might not have 200.000 friends invited to your home to watch the movie with you...

IMO there should be a distintion between sharing with your friends and sharing with the world.

If I were able to share some of the games I like with my friends I might be able to better LAN parties, and probably lead my friends to buy a copy for themselves.

Now, mass distribution is not the same as the above. If I can download a movie for free with similar quality, why would I buy it? I only buy the ones I really like, but when money is short, not even those are saved!

If I don't have money... I shouldn't have vices...