SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Original URL: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-illegal-movie-downloaders-unprofitable.html
It has been a bad week for companies wanting to build businesses around make money from illegal movie downloaders. Last Friday saw an Australian judge refuse Voltage Pictures the rigth to send downloaders of Dallas Buyers Club a letter demanding an undisclosed payment. Justice Nye Perram decided that Voltage and its lawyers, were engaging in "speculative invoicing", a practice that is a form of legal blackmail: "pay us a large enough sum so that we don't take you to court where you will possibly face an even larger but unspecified fine".
Although this has effectively shut down an avenue of chasing money from downloaders in Australia through threatening letters, the practice continues unabated elsewhere. Alleged downloaders of the movie in Singapore have received letters ending in a settlement demand of around $5,000 Singapore. The letters sent threaten extremely large potential punishment, including prison sentences.
Law firms rushing to handle this work on behalf of Voltage Pictures should look to the case of Rightscorp in the US. Rightscorp is a company whose entire business is based on chasing alleged downloaders of movies and TV shows. They also engage in the practice of speculative invoicing, but so far, have found the business to be far from profitable. In 2014, Rightscorp reported a loss of $3.4 million, and so far this year have lost nearly a $1million in the first quarter alone.
Rightscorp ask for relatively small payments of US $20 and so either they will need to find more downloaders, or ask for more money. The problem with asking for more money is that if the stakes get too high, people might call their bluff and then Rightscorp would be faced with the expensive option of taking them to court.
Rightscorp is also finding that the process of unmasking downloaders is getting harder. In the US this week, a Judge denied an appeal that would have forced ISP Birch Communications to reveal the identities of their customers accused of downloading movies. In this case, Rightscorp has been using the practice of a "DMCA subpoena" to get the identities of downloaders from ISPs, even though this had been previously ruled inappropriate in a previous case involving the Recording Industry Association of America and Verizon in 2002.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:16AM
Because its simple to download a torrent, its blindingly fast, you have the file on your hard drive so you can watch it anywhere, there's guaranteed no buffering lag, you could modify the video if you wanted... Those are just a few reasons right offhand. The anonymous coward in the comment saying because its l33t must be too stupid to download a fucking torrent.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @09:36AM
You forgot the downside of a torrent: while you download, you also upload, which exposes you to liability because you are literally distributing copyright infringing content.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @11:37AM
It's extremely improbable that they will actually go after you, especially if you wait before downloading the latest stuff. Furthermore, lawsuits where these companies sue thousands of people at once are beginning to be looked down on by the courts, as far as I've heard. Extortion letters can generally be ignored. The only issue might be the "three strikes" nonsense, as I have no clue how those can be challenged, or if they can.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @01:57PM
It's extremely improbable that they will actually go after you
I think it comes down to who your ISP is.
Some are willing to give up the goods. Others not so much. I personally rip my movies because I want the best quality I can get my hands on. But an old friend had TB of movies he had got from torrent. One ISP not a peep for 10+ years. Moves to a new city. Different ISP. They gave him up with 3 strikes so far within a month.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2015, @06:02PM
It's extremely improbable that they will actually go after you,
So you deliberately engage in risky behavior, hoping that you will be one of the elite who does not suffer any consequences. The troll above is correct. It's elitism. You must think you're so edgy for being such a badass.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 25 2015, @07:25PM
So you deliberately engage in risky behavior
Where did I say or imply that I engage in such behavior?
And are you saying that you should never engage in an activity merely because it holds with it some risk, even if that risk is microscopic? If so, you're rather illogical. Do you think you're a badass whenever you get into a car because there's a chance of a car accident? Is that your mentality? People have simply decided that the risk of something bad happening isn't a big enough deal to outweigh the benefits of engaging in the activity.
hoping that you will be one of the elite who does not suffer any consequences.
The elite? Did I not just say that the risk is extremely improbable? Can you even read?
It's elitism.
You're an elitist for ever leaving your house. Don't you know you could get hurt that way? Damn, you're so edgy.