It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Your movie was a commercial failure?(30 posts)(30 posts)
(30 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 10, 2011
avatar
emusan: I don't know if it holds up in court, but I've heard you can say you were infected with a botnet that did it all, but you have since wiped it from your drives... but there are really tons of excuses you could give that they can't prove are false...
avatar
Kingoftherings: This is what I was referring to, but I was being too lazy to find it for my first post :P
http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/
interesting... I'll have to keep that one in mind...
Posted May 10, 2011
avatar
TVs_Frank: I wanna know why our laws are capable of punishing individual people who make $0-50k a year $150,000, but the best penalty they can slam on a company making billions annually is like a $2 million fine?
Well that's not entirely true.
Fines and damages tend to be significantly bigger in the US overall, because unlike the EU, the US allows punitive and multiple damages.
Posted May 10, 2011
avatar
orcishgamer: The suit by the gay porn company just got thrown out for a mass subpoena just like this. I wouldn't worry too much about this, the movie industry has tried this before with some terrible war movie and I think it didn't yield much either. I think they just really want some headlines to maybe scare a few of the gullible folks off.

And Titanic and Spiderman both lost money, all movies do. They call it Hollywood Accounting for a reason.
That was a porn studio.

This one is backed by "reputable" "movie studios".
Posted May 10, 2011
@lukipela
I believe certain countries peg the fine to the offender's income so that they will feel the "pinch" so to speak.

eg.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/record-speeding-fine-dents-swiss-bank-account/
Post edited May 10, 2011 by wy4786
Posted May 10, 2011
avatar
lukipela: Why should someone's income have anything to do with the penalty for breaking a law?
Because we don't want to live in a world where you can either "afford" to break the law or you can't? (Just throwin' that out there, I definitely don't want to argue about this!)
Posted May 10, 2011
avatar
TVs_Frank: I wanna know why our laws are capable of punishing individual people who make $0-50k a year $150,000, but the best penalty they can slam on a company making billions annually is like a $2 million fine?
avatar
lukipela: Why should someone's income have anything to do with the penalty for breaking a law?
Because repeatedly violating a law nets a corporation a single fine when finally caught.

They can hit these people for $150,000 PER ITEM.
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
lukipela: Why should someone's income have anything to do with the penalty for breaking a law?
avatar
TVs_Frank: Because repeatedly violating a law nets a corporation a single fine when finally caught.

They can hit these people for $150,000 PER ITEM.
Though that is the maximum fine, no judge has ever supported anything remotely close to that. Usually the fines for multiple violations are in the $5-7K range, which is substantially more reasonable.

There was a thread here a while back about how the RIAA was suing Limewire for damages of $75 TRILLION, which is more than the GDP of the whole planet, and more than the music industry has made in its entirety since the creation of the phonograph. The judge then wrote a 13-page ruling about how that was absurd.

Just because some media industry mogul decides to try something ridiculous in court doesn't mean it will actually work.
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
hedwards: The problem though is that the US Copyright Group doesn't actually have any evidence that any of those people actually infringed upon the copyright, as the seeder was authorized by the USCG to seed and any downloads by authorized parties cannot be counted as infringement.
avatar
KavazovAngel: Sounds like a deliberate bait.
That would be entrapment, but in this case entrapment wouldn't apply as the individuals weren't induced to download the film, and I'm not sure if entrapment applies to civil litigation.

But, the making available theory was thrown out on the grounds that you have to prove that an unauthorized party downloaded in order for it to be infringement, which is why I suspect that this won't fly. But even more likely is this being tossed on technical grounds. In the US you can't do this sort of reverse class action suit and judges tend to get really grumpy when they get treated like this.
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
TVs_Frank: Because repeatedly violating a law nets a corporation a single fine when finally caught.

They can hit these people for $150,000 PER ITEM.
avatar
bevinator: Though that is the maximum fine, no judge has ever supported anything remotely close to that. Usually the fines for multiple violations are in the $5-7K range, which is substantially more reasonable.
Sigh, but this is a single person where a single person's liability CAN BE much higher than that of a corporation that in all likelyhood did something far worse economically.

Our fines are nothing comparatively.

If our fines were like our ridiculous copyright infringement damages then maybe you wouldn't see companies like Goldman Sachs blatantly violating the rules to make $10 billion while only eating a paltry $5 million fine for it.

See where I'm going with this?

And lukipela, shut up if that's all yer capable of adding.
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
tejozaszaszas: A low-budget movie called Nude Nuns with Big Guns,
avatar
ViolatorX: Question is how many kids d/l'ed that thinking it was porn?
Huh? It was NOT?

* stop downloading... *

Just kidding! :-)
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
ViolatorX: Question is how many kids d/l'ed that thinking it was porn?
avatar
tarangwydion: Huh? It was NOT?

* stop downloading... *

Just kidding! :-)
It was probably hermaphrodites with a name like that....
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
TVs_Frank: I wanna know why our laws are capable of punishing individual people who make $0-50k a year $150,000, but the best penalty they can slam on a company making billions annually is like a $2 million fine?
avatar
lukipela: Why should someone's income have anything to do with the penalty for breaking a law?
150000 bucks? Sorry, the penalty must be proportionate to the crime committed.
Posted May 11, 2011
The point was the copyright case scales on a much grander scale than those levied against those who can make and cause the loss of billions.

Which is completely out of whack.
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
tejozaszaszas:
avatar
ViolatorX: Question is how many kids d/l'ed that thinking it was porn?
From here:
http://www.nudenunswithbigguns.com/

"Upon taking her vows to become a nun, Sister Sarah is abused, brainwashed and drugged into submission by the corrupt clergy"

Ah, fantasies.
Post edited May 11, 2011 by tejozaszaszas
Posted May 11, 2011
avatar
TVs_Frank: I wanna know why our laws are capable of punishing individual people who make $0-50k a year $150,000, but the best penalty they can slam on a company making billions annually is like a $2 million fine?
avatar
lukipela: Why should someone's income have anything to do with the penalty for breaking a law?
Because if you have 6 billion $ and the fine is limited at 1 million $ you are not gonna give a damn about that fine or that law. And well DUH, thats exactly how international corporations operate.

Edit: That said, "fairness" would demand that punishments are always equal. Which is why corporations should not be treated as people (just saying ,p)

2nd Edit: Thinking about it more, your question is a good one. ^^
Post edited May 11, 2011 by eRe4s3r
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Your movie was a commercial failure?(30 posts)(30 posts)
(30 posts)