SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the sudden-outbreak-of-common-sense dept.
A District Court judge in Seattle has taken a novel approach in a series of default judgments targeting alleged BitTorrent pirates. Since the defendants are accused of sharing files in the same swarm, they should also share the penalty among each other, the judge argues. According to the order, these cases are not intended to provide a windfall to filmmakers.
Many Hollywood insiders see online piracy as a major threat, but only very few are willing to target alleged file-sharers with lawsuits.
LHF Productions, one of the companies behind the blockbuster "London Has Fallen," has no problem crossing this line. Since the first pirated copies of the film appeared online last year, the company has been suing alleged downloaders in multiple courts.
[...] This week, Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled over a series of LHF cases at the Seattle District Court. The movie company requested default judgments against 28 defendants in five cases, demanding $2,500 from each defendant
[...] The filmmaker had argued that $2,500, and even more in attorney's fees and costs, is a rather modest request. However, in his order this week the Judge sees things differently
[...] Instead, the Judge places the damages amount at the statutory minimum, which is $750.
Even more interesting, and the first time we've seen this happening, is that the penalty will be split among the swarm members in each case. The filmmakers alleged that the defendants were part of the same swarm, so they are all liable for the same infringement, Judge Martinez argues.
[...] This means that in one of the cases, where there are eight defaulted defendants, each has to pay just over $93 in damages.
As for the lowered damages amount itself, the Judge clarifies that these type of cases are not intended to result in large profits. Especially not, when the rightsholders have made little effort to prove actual damage or to track down the original sharer.
Source:
Additional coverage on
fightcopyrighttrolls.com
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 20 2017, @04:50AM
People steal. Kids steal. Kids steal candy, more than anything. When a kid is caught shoplifting some chocolate, we don't cut off his hand. We don't even fine his parents tens of thousands of dollars. Usually, we scold the kid, call his parents, and his parents punish him - and it's eventually forgotten.
"Stealing" a movie? Petty bullshit. A hundred years ago, stealing a movie probably would have meant breaking into a theater, and removing a set of reels of tape. Today? You remove nothing from the rightful owner's possession - you're just duplicating some one's and zero's. Big freaking deal. No one is harmed - not even as much as the store owner who caught little Bobby stealing a chocolate bar.
A fine of ~$100? That's not terribly unreasonable. It may even be "just".
I like this judge.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anubi on Monday February 20 2017, @05:48AM
He did not even steal the chocolate bar... he just took a picture of it.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday February 20 2017, @07:09AM
In today's world, companies think they have a right to profit. Therefore anything that they do not profit from must be illegal.
One day it will become illegal to visit an online shopping site without buying anything. After all, you used the resources of the online shop, but didn't pay anything.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday February 20 2017, @06:50PM
"visit an online shopping site without buying anything. "
And the equivalent IRL will be the "breathing fee" attached to your groceries. Somebody's gotta pay for the A/C in there.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2017, @09:09AM
This is actually literally true. Copyright infringement in and of itself generally does not include trespass to chattel (denial of access to property), which is a critical component of criminal theft.
(Score: 3, Touché) by isostatic on Monday February 20 2017, @09:36AM
Downloading a movie is akin to sneaking into the movie theatre. Uploading a movie is akin to helping someone sneak in.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Monday February 20 2017, @10:47AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 20 2017, @05:02PM
First, I absolutely agree that our current U.S. copyright system is broken and needs major reform. It makes absolutely no sense within the original idea of copyright "to promote progress in the arts..." that a creator and his/her descendants should get to live off the proceeds of a work for generations. At best, we should have terms like the original copyright act of 1790 -- 14 years, then you have to make something new.
Copying any form of information is trivial and cheap. Creating original content is expensive and difficult. A business model that relies on doing the latter for free and attempting to make up the costs by charging for the former is fundamentally flawed.
Well, it seems "fundamentally flawed" NOW. Copyright systems basically worked for roughly 500 years, since they were first used in some Italian cities in the late 1400s. In the past 20 years or so, however, the decreased cost of copying digital information has made the system all blow up.
So the question is where do we go from here? What alternative "business model" do you propose?
Here's the thing with copyright, as traditionally conceived: It was a lot more democratic than previous systems of funding arts. Before copyright, artists were primarily workers -- skilled craftsmen -- and since most average folks centuries ago struggled a lot more to have basic stuff to meet their needs than today, they couldn't afford to hire artists for random jobs. Hence, most art was created for rich patrons who dictated the form of art. OR it was created by the rich folks themselves, who had the leisure time to devote to learning how to write literature or whatever, which the average Joe didn't have the time or resources to do. If you were a poor dude and wanted to create art, the best you could hope for was to find some rich guy who liked your work and might hire you -- and even then, you couldn't "create" what you wanted in most cases. Instead, you served your patron by making the kind of art HE wanted.
Copyright changed a lot of that, first in the area of writing, then (sheet) music. You could be a middle-class dude (or dudette) and just try writing a book. Yes, you still had to convince a publisher to take a chance with it, but if it was successful in sales, you'd get revenue that might allow you to continue your pursuit. Particularly in the 19th century, you begin to see a lot more writers who started out as middle-class folks and rose to prominence through their writing talent. Without a copyright system, most of them probably would have had difficulty convincing anyone to fund their writing. In the 20th century, with the advent of sound recording, a lot of poor or middle-class musicians also found a way to finance the distribution of their work and get profits through sales to continue it.
I'm NOT trying to paint a too rosy picture of copyright though -- obviously publishers took advantage of writers too, and there were various abuses. But copyright did create a more democratic business model than the one it replaced.
So the question becomes: if we don't have copyright now, what do we replace it with? Your post seems to hint at financing of the creative process itself. But then you either need to find patrons (i.e., investors) or perhaps subscribers (e.g., through crowdsourcing). Subscription does have a long history in publishing projects too -- but it mostly worked for established artists/writers with reputations that could draw subscribers.
And you also encounter the problem that successful art generates less revenue to promote future art. Not every movie by the "greatest" director or set of actors or whatever is successful. (Nor is every book or song or whatever, even by great artists.) Nowadays, the market still responds a bit to revenue after the fact, which is a rough gauge of popularity. But if you remove copyright from the equation as a source of revenue, you get more gross mismatches and "see-sawing" investments in artists that don't track actual successful works. An independent movie that's a "runaway hit" doesn't make additional money for its creators. Instead, it might get some big investors to pitch in for a future big-budget film that turns into a major flop. But you've now encouraged these "one-hit wonder" idiots with oodles of cash to keep making more crap. Obviously this stuff happens today anyway, but you end up incentivizing the wrong things: creators get "big money" not when they score a major success, but only if such success convinces people to finance future projects (which may not deserve such rewards).
But perhaps most importantly, the lack of copyright discourages everyone but the real "big artists" to even bother trying. Projects that involve "less popular" or unusual creations are less likely to be attempted in the first place. A writer who thinks, "You know, I think the world really needs a book about [obscure topic X]" could write it, and see what happens... perhaps even contribute to some publishing costs. And maybe the book sells a few thousand copies, and they go home with a few thousand dollars in their pocket, which is enough to encourage them to create more stuff, while they keep their day job. But such folks are less likely to be able to convince other people to give them money for a future project with such low interest. Admittedly, Kickstarter and other crowdsourcing stuff MIGHT begin to work for such projects, but so far it seems the funding projects get through crowdsourcing is VERY unpredictable, if you can even "get the word out" about your obscure project.
Anyhow... I'm not saying there aren't other possible models. I'm saying it's really easy to say, "Meh. Copyright is a stupid business model." It's a lot harder to figure out a different way to encourage future artists to create works without either putting it mostly in the hands of rich investors again (who will dictate tastes even more than the RIAA and MPAA do) and also still allowing unknown artists to have a chance to get a little encouragement for pursuing their dreams, rather than just financing established "professionals."
It's as if Henry Ford gave away cars for free and charged for painting them, then had enough laws passed that this became an established business model and painting your own car was a criminal offence.
I'd just like to note that you chose an example to make sure a business model sound the most stupid. But there are plenty of actual business models that are based on idea of investing in stuff and only later making a profit. For example, a lot of real estate rentals (residential and commercial) depend on investors to put money into the "hard part" of building the actual buildings, but the "renting it out" is a lot cheaper... they make investments with expectation of future return. Lots of businesses depend on those sorts of investments from rich dudes to start things up, and they have the expectation of future returns. Copyright was one of the very few "democratic" systems that allowed a middle-class person to engage in that sort of speculation around his/her own creative endeavors. It's easy to dismiss it now because "INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEE!" but it's a lot harder to come up with a replacement system that encourages the same diversity in artistic creation.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday February 20 2017, @10:37PM
So the question becomes: if we don't have copyright now, what do we replace it with?
No need to get rid of copyright, we just need to fix it with someting like
the original copyright act of 1790 -- 14 years, then you have to make something new.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday February 20 2017, @10:57PM
Downloading is like sneaking in, without using a chair, breathing, blocking the view, using a seat, or even touching the carpet.
Uploading is like inviting a few million people you've never met to do the same.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday February 20 2017, @02:20PM
A fine of ~$100? That's not terribly unreasonable. It may even be "just".
To give the company anything more than the cost of a cinema/theatre ticket or DVD, plus proportionate legal costs, is unreasonable. From the UK I don't understand the USA legal system. Companies that are wronged in minor ways demand thousands or millions of dollars ?? - how come? Surely the civil damage and the criminal punishment should be decoupled. The company should at most get the value of the what the damage has cost them, and, separately, the perpetrator fined (or imprisoned if bad enough) by the state for the crime of theft.
Perhaps it has roots in the Wild West culture of settling everything between individuals, with the law not in sight - at gunpoint possibly. Like you stole my beer so I shall take your cattle and burn down your barn.
In the UK at least, no shopkeeper would be able to sue Bobby for thousands for stealing a chocolate bar. Bobby would be cautioned and if he persists would be made to attend some rehab sessions. Only beyond that would criminal proceedings be taken. Meanwhile he would be made to pay for the chocolate.
That way the company could not make or supplement a business out of suing people.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 20 2017, @07:27PM
Surely the civil damage and the criminal punishment should be decoupled. The company should at most get the value of the what the damage has cost them, and, separately, the perpetrator fined (or imprisoned if bad enough) by the state for the crime of theft.
I have to agree with this. Punitive damages on any tort, where they are allowed, should generally go to the state. It makes little sense that random companies (or individuals, for that matter) should get a financial windfall just because somebody else wrongs them in an illegal manner.
From the UK I don't understand the USA legal system. [...] Perhaps it has roots in the Wild West culture of settling everything between individuals, with the law not in sight - at gunpoint possibly. Like you stole my beer so I shall take your cattle and burn down your barn.
Actually, as with many horrid things that the English hate about Americans, we inherited this tradition from you. (I mean that as a joke... sort of.)
Punitive damages were formalized as a matter of English law going back the mid-18th century, though a type of punitive damages in the form of granting double or treble damages goes back well into medieval England. (This, in turn, was based on ancient Roman concepts of malicious acts by the defendant or "outrage" against the acts committed in determining penalty.) You can read a bit on the history of punitive damages here [csuohio.edu]. The difference in modern practice is due to a court ruling in mid-20th century UK, which reined in the scope of cases where punitive damages can be applied. But in the U.S., where tort law -- derived from English common law -- is a matter of tradition in individual states, the development of punitive damages continued into recent decades.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday February 21 2017, @12:10PM
You remove nothing from the rightful owner's possession - you're just duplicating some one's and zero's. Big freaking deal. No one is harmed
You're right that copyright infringement isn't the same thing as stealing. You're wrong to pretend no-one is harmed. Do I really have to spell it out to you? Do you think these movies would exist without a revenue stream?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 21 2017, @03:00PM
"Do you think these movies would exist without a revenue stream?"
Actually - yes, I think a lot of the same drivel would still exist. Hollywood has been in the business of social engineering for the past 70 years, and more. They know that they shape opinions, they know how to paint America as a Utopia, they know how to sell stuff that no one needs. Without the rivers of money that the public lavishes on Hollywood, the character of their offerings would change. Actors and actesses may not make multiple millions for an appearance. Budgets would decrease significantly. But, there are people who would send them money to sponsor this message or that. And, the drivel would continue. They might even get a stipend from the government to continue sending desirable messages to the public, and to the world.
If the "big one" ever shakes Hollywood into the Pacific, I won't miss it.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday February 21 2017, @05:35PM
I really don't care how bitter you are at Hollywood, or at wealthy actors. The fact is that no, cinema could not exist without intellectual property rights. The same applies for software, books, music. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday February 21 2017, @08:43PM
I agree with most of your post, except the last sentence.
Do you think these movies would exist without a revenue stream?
That seems to hint that the harm here was that the revenue stream was affected by downloading the movie.
There have been studies. The revenue stream (on average) tends to either not be affected or affected positively.
If deprivation of revenue is the sole basis for deciding whether or not there has been harm, then likely there was actually no harm.
Like when a kid steals a candy: just because he wouldn't have bought it anyway does NOT make it okay.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday February 22 2017, @12:06PM
Yes, those are interesting points.
It's obvious really that not all piracy means a lost sale, but one has to draw the line: if everyone pirated, there'd be zero revenue.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday February 22 2017, @03:32PM
A fine of ~$100? That's not terribly unreasonable. It may even be "just".
What I like about it, is that it's high enough that the sting is felt keenly, but not much more than that. Most folk won't get into debt or problems over this, but they will feel the burn. And probably try to avoid similar burns in the future - much cheaper to pick up the movie for $10 in half a year.
In other words: this judgment may satisfy two goals of justice in one strike: punishing wrongdoers and reduce chance of wrongdoing happening again. Better than expected.