KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
A federal court judge in Washington has gone ahead and rejected a $30,000 damages award against internet subscribers accused of downloading a pirated movie through a torrent client. The judge, Thomas Rice, expressed doubts that the filmmakers were really hurt that much and branded the $30,000 request as “excessive punishment”.
Over the last few years, hundreds of internet subscribers have been sued in the US for downloading and seeding movies via torrent clients. These lawsuits tend to aim to force the downloader to settle but if an alleged pirate refuses to respond after being identified via their ISP, then the rights holder can go straight to a court for a default judgement, where they will usually be awarded huge sums of money.
Indie film makers behind titles such as Elf-Man and The Thompsons attempted to get a court to fine 11 defendants, one of which was a couple who would share the fine, $30,000 each, amounting to $300,000 in total damages for downloading a single movie. Thomas Rice notes that this fine is excessive, particularly considering the evidence that was presented.
“This Court finds the evidence in this case, which merely shows that each Defendant copied and published via BitTorrent Plaintiff’s motion picture––the cost of which to rent or purchase was less than $20––rather than distributed for commercial resale, does not support a $30,000 penalty for each Defendant”.
The film makers tried to argue that the downloads threaten the financial future of the company's projects and high damages could serve as a deterrent. Fortunately for the defendants, the judge remained unpersuaded that financially ruining the lives of 11 people was the right way to go.
“this Court is unpersuaded that the remote damages––’downstream revenue’ and destroyed plans for a sequel due, in part, to piracy––justify an award of $30,000 per defendant, even in light of the statute’s goal of deterrence.”
The judge went on to award the minimum in statutory damages instead, which amounts to $750 per film. However, the defendants also have to pay attorney fees of $2,225, bringing the total fine up to just under £3000 each.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: $3000 is still a fairly large fine but at least all of the defendants involved in the case should recover financially fairly quickly, whereas a $30,000 fine has the potential to financially ruin a person's life for some time. What do you guys think of this? Personally, I still think a $3000 fine is too much considering that a rental of the movie would have likely only cost $5 to $10.
‘Murica.
That is all.
“rights holder can go straight to a caught for a default judgement, ” You’re better than this. 😉
This could be solved if in law was writen something like “If caught downloading the movie/other illegaly, and doesn’t own a legal copy of it, has to pay 2x current retail value” (retail value would have to be based off reliable sources, such as amazon) because honestly paying 3000$ for something worth 15$, it’s really being used as a scare factor (and let’s be honest here, there have been studies that suggest people who download movies also tend to be the ones who go to the cinemas).
SHouldn’t be any fine at all since it was just a copy of a copy that originated from ONE copy, which has most likely already been payed for. Therefore no loss, no crime. (that’s what torrents are when you have downloaded them) With that logic they can fine someone for copying a friends MP3s, which EVERYONE has done at least once. Same with mix tapes back in the days. Which alot of movies and series “encouraged”.
let’s be honest in this part, movies do take a budget to make (went into IMDB for curiosity see the scores of those 2 and honestly I’m amazed even someone downloads, 3.8 and 4.7 rated movies), that budget will never come to the consumers as a phisical value, media is made to be listened/played/viewed and the value is taken for that… be honest, when you go to things such as fun parks, do you pay to go on the giant whell? I’m betting the answer is yes, well those are always going arround, so the user doesn’t really make the owner pay more for him being there, and the scenery was already there, then why do you pay?
they should only be charged the cost of the movie they downloaded. nothing more, nothing less.
$2250 for court fees is absurd, but then again lawyers are some of the biggest crooks around.
$750 fine is also ridiculously large when compared to e.g. speeding fines. You cannot, after all, cause death by dangerous torrenting…
Good, worthy movies get their budget anyway from the cinemas. Every year there is a new record a few times and they still get enough views on TV to make a profit.
And a fun park isn’t a copy :P… so it actually makes sense to pay for the wear and tear of the ride everytime you ride it, even though its insanely expensive considering you stand in ONE line for 20+ minutes for a 3ish minute ride. Sometimes less xD and the wear is probably like 0.000000001% per rider. 🙂 Thoughin all honest, there should only be an entrance fee, not a riding fee for each ride + entrance fee :/
if film makers didn’t decide they wanted to make billions per film out out our pocket we wouldn’t be soo tempted to get them for free
I’d say 100. 10x the movie price is pretty substantial. 75x is way more, but wow, 30,000? REALLY? They thought a lot of that movie didn’t they. I think their fight shouldn’t be with the 11 people, it should be with the system that runs a monetised world in which which banks print money and let people borrow at interest and pay back more than they borrowed… how do they get the extra? The bank prints that off too and loaned it to someone else for interest… So basically its an unsustainable system of infinite growth? Yes, pretty much
$750 plus $2250 is $3000, not £3000.
Economic growth is by definition infinite if you consider that the underlying factors of growth are driven by new services and technological improvements, which in theory, as long as humans are humans, new discoveries, new inventions and so on will continue to occur in time. The monetary system you describe is not inherent to the theory of ”economic growth”, though the neo-capitalist system does rely on that idea to squeeze you out of the extra penny you are producing and figuratively hold you by the nuts.
Well, not really no. Downloading torrents is illegal, it IS theft. Though I agree that 30,000 , or 3,000 or even 300 is taking the piss…
All entertainment companies seek the same thing, regardless of their origin.
Well mate that is still 2000£ a movie… Quit a budget you need to watch the little mermaid!
So true, they really need to start thinking logically because anytime we can afford to go to the movies we do and when we can’t or won’t go for certain ones they should at least be happy that we have seen them and talk about them, at the very least that is free advertising, provided they made a good film of course, lol, in any event I was not going to pay to go anyways.
> “… Sometimes less xD and the wear is probably like 0.000000001% per rider. 🙂
> Thoughin all honest, there should only be an entrance fee, not a riding fee
> for each ride + entrance fee :/
The wear is: the amount it takes to make it spin when empty (to attract people to moving shiny object), PLUS an additional amount to stop and start it to let people on and off, PLUS an amount for each rider.
The Maintenance Schedule also affect the wear, more maintenance means less wear (and fewer hours with riders in the seats). Less maintenance means more wear (and more riders in the seats, subject to a greater risk of accident – and thus being sued).
With only an “Entrance Fee” and no additional charge for each ride then you would pay more to enter and must ride everything as many times as you can just to get your monies worth.
Now, if they charged on a basis of height, width and weight then they could make smaller Machines that cost less (and were subject to less wear).
Let the fat people play Smash-Up-Derby in Tanks (with Truck tires strapped on the sides), and charge them an arm and leg — which could then be deep-fried and served for an additional profit (and lower cost rides for all).
.
The other better solution is that THEY PAY YOU a fortune to go there and an additional amount of money for each ride you go on. There would be no Maintenance whatsoever. The Haunted-House sign that says “Enter At You Own Risk” could be placed over the Gates of the Fair.
The owner’s of the Fair could install Cameras and either make DVDs that they could hope would not be pirated or put the Videos up on YouTube and collect a penny a hit.
An additional benefit of early attendance is that you are first at the Smorgasbord (so it is not pecked over) and first at the Shooting Gallery (getting your choice of Gun). Needless to say the Fair Owner does not have Ducks for you to shoot at as he is able to save a buck by using Fair Patrons.
See, there is no problem that can not be resolved FAIRly.