"Hurt Locker" Producers To Sue Tens Of Thousands Of File Sharers

[jgraz]

Bad Ideas: Hurt Locker Producers Preparing To Sue Tens Of Thousands Of File Sharers

Apparently, the producers of the Oscar-winning movie Hurt Locker haven't paid attention to what's happened on the internet over the past decade. Despite the massive levels of backlash against the RIAA for its "sue consumers" strategy, the folks behind Hurt Locker are preparing to sue tens of thousands of people for unauthorized file sharing of the movie. Apparently, they've signed up with the relatively new operation US Copyright Group, that is trying to copy the strategy used by ACS:Law and Davenport Lyons in the UK, where they send out thousands upon thousands of "pre-settlement" offers to get people to pay up. This process has lead to condemnation from politicians (who have called it a scam) and lawyers being barred from practice and being disciplined by regulatory boards.

<snip>

In the meantime, Dunlap and US Copyright Group are now claiming that 75% of ISPs have "cooperated fully." That's a very different story than we heard back in March -- at which time only one ISP had cooperated, and others seemed pretty skeptical. In fact, in that original case, the fact that ISPs cooperated was even more questionable after it came to light that the copyright in question was not registered in time. If it's true that most ISPs are cooperating and handing over IP address info, based on such sketchy proof, that would be a dangerous precedent. What happened to ISPs insisting they would never just hand over such information?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1151229395.shtml

Don't make enough money in your business? Now you can go after random citizens with flimsy evidence and threats of hundred-thousand-dollar corporate lawsuits. Pay up or lose your house!

This is scary on a number of levels, not the least of which is the attack on privacy by forcing ISPs to turn over records of individuals' internet activities. If this scam succeeds, expect many more to follow -- including demands from companies to turn over the forum records of anonymous posters who criticize corporate policies or products online (think BP or Halliburton).

There's one way you can fight this extortion racket right now: take Hurt Locker out of your rental queue. Don't rent it, don't buy it, don't watch it on cable. The movie sucked, anyway. (Can I get sued for that?)

[leftofcool]

1. I doubt if this will fly.

There are many private servers out of the country that help file sharing that will not co-operate nor will the ISP's. These people are blowing steam. And even if they do turn over file sharers for this movie, prove it!

[jgraz]

2. This will be like the bizarro lottery. Someone is going to get chosen at random to lose everything.

They'll pick one person to make an example of, guilty or not. That poor sap will be bled dry with legal fees in order to frighten the rest of the targets into settling.

[leftofcool]

56. Yep, probably so

[Whisp]

3. now the director can teary eyed claim she's protectin the freedums of corportacy...

or some blather like she said at the oscars. protecting our freedoms, ha! yah sure. more like what the film is trying to do in their corporate way - protecting their rights to just grab money from anyone randomly like the so many examples we have seen lately.

feh.

crap movie anyway.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Good. Get the theives, and make them pay

Sorry, theft lovers, but you want to steal from me, do so face to face, or deal with the wrath of the full force. Deal with it, if you can steal, you can deal with it. Find a cleaver way to 'lawyer share' and see if you can not just get a free copy of another person's defense, call it your own, no fees, no nothing, safe as houses.
The people who rip off Union workers by stealing products do not rent, do not buy, they steal. That which others have made for sale, taking it without paying is theft. Rationalize it anyway you wish. You steal from me and my house when you do that, and we need that money more than you need a free fucking movie night.
I'm going to look you all up and come 'appliance share' as I need some new ones. Come to your house and 'furniture share' because mine is boring. Grand Sharing Auto, maybe?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

7. Our entire place is hosting a film crew for the next two weeks. Independent film makers.

Fact of matter- Film making is one of the last union job producing industries out there.

[jgraz]

10. How many union workers will share in the proceeds from this corporate money grab?

I'm guessing zero.

[KittyWampus]

12. How will film makers pay to make movies?

[jgraz]

15. I don't see anyone having a problem funding movies now.

No matter how much the studios squeal, the simple fact is that there's little evidence that piracy costs movie makers a dime. Most people who download movies would not pay to see them anyway. I used to work at a studio that made some of the most-pirated movies in history. We all knew the MPAA line was bullshit. In fact, we didn't mind the shitty cam downloads because our movies didn't suck. We knew we'd be making money and the online copies would only serve to drive DVD sales.

What costs the movie industry is not piracy. It's their outdated business model, cumbersome delivery system and crap product.

[Javaman]

17. Let me ask you something really really simple.

Have you ever in your life tried raising money for a movie?

[jgraz]

19. Let me ask you something really really simple.

Exactly how much money did piracy cost you in your fundraising efforts?

The studio I worked at never had trouble raising money for their films. Even though their movies are some of the most widely-pirated in history, they made boatloads of cash because their product didn't suck.

[Javaman]

22. You worked for a studio who raised the money.

Not you.

Apple and watermelons.

So therefor you have no idea what you are talking about.

Try raising the money yourself, then get back to me.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

34. That's completely unknowable.

You were the one who claimed to work for a studio. So who's ego is bruised now?

Yes, it's complete "ego-puffery" as you say for me to use my personal experience as a credible source of information. :eyes:

Look, you can pretend all you want, but the reality is this: trying to raise money for a film is fucking unbelievably hard outside the studio system.

The one thing the studios have over independents is: everything. They have production facilities, investment groups, well positions names, etc.

Trying even to compare the lose of revenue of studios due to piracy as opposed to loss of revenue to an independent is absurd to say the least.

Plus trying to predict the future when dealing with possible gross on a film is the same as looking into a crystal ball.

For someone who claims to have worked at a studio, you seem not to know a lot of basic stuff.

[jgraz]

36. Sticking your entire fist in your mouth is also fucking unbelievably hard

Unless you can show a connection between piracy and fundraising for a movie, your example is just as irrelevant.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Well said

[Javaman]

21. That's what makes this article disingenuous...

The article claims that the lawsuits are being filed by the producers.

I have serious issues with that.

I believe that the lawsuits are being filed by the distributors and using the title of producer as a feint.

Very very rarely will a producer file a lawsuit such as this. And they only time they will is if they have a direct hand in the distribution of the film. Which means, that a distributor was brought onto production under the title of producer.

This is done all the time. It's bragging rights for the wanna-be producers who are actual distributors.

In the land of filmmaking reality, very rarely do you ever have a producer that wants to be a distributor, it happens but not that common. However, there are tons of distributors who are willing to line up to get a producer credit. It's a disease among them. They get it in their brains that just because they can sell movies to certain markets that they can also produce a film.

This is the reason why, I believe, there are so many crappy films out there.

This has been happening for years, but it was when the Weinstein brothers moved from being just distributors to producers that the landscape in independents began to change back in the mid to late '90's.

Some can do it, but for the most part, they can't get the concept of money out of their brains long enough to see the creative aspect of a film as being the selling point.

[Javaman]

16. That depends on the contracts.

Some productions allow back end deals for the crew. But those are few and far between.

Crew members are basically contract players. They work for a set amount of time and get paid as such.

while the above the line people work during the entire production. pre, shoot and post.

They deserve their gross point profits. It's their film, their idea and their production and many times also write it. By the way, writers get back end deals.

I had been a union member of the local camera union in Los Angeles for years.

There is no animosity among crew members who don't get back end deals. It's a job, just like any other. We got paid very well but we also worked very hard contrary to any civilians perception.

Back end deals and points are like money in Los Angeles and are not given out to just anyone. It's a bartering system. What a person brings to the production is what is determines the back end or points.

[Javaman]

14. Technically speaking...

independent films aren't union.

There are union "independent films" and there are non-union independent films".

independent films with a union crew usually have a good chunk of money via a major source to afford a union crew. Plus, if they are union that means 1) the director or production crew is signatory or 2) they are pursuing signatory status.

Granted, unions will protest non-union productions, but those are very few and far between due to what the budget is of said film and who is producing, directing or staring in the film.

I know of what I speak, I was a member of the local camera union in Los Angeles for years.

In other words, not all independent films are created equal.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. You don't rent you steal

And then you play name calling games. Impressive. Makes a strong point. But frankly, a boycott by shoplifters is not a threat, but a thing greatly to be desired.
The bad guys are the Corps. The file sharing element, well that pisses them off royally. So in the long run, it also serves my interests. Because the corps, they want to steal from both of us, you and me both, audience and artists alike. It is good in the long run for me for the corps to be thinking about loss prevention. It also, of course, behooves me to encourage them to pay attention, protect the product and the income stream. Once they begin to pay attention to the reality, individual file sharing will not be a concern anymore. It is far more complex and my views on it more nuanced than I am implying. This is just one element in an ongoing battle, and the actual battle is not with file sharing individuals. So aside from the rest, one thing for sure is that both file sharing people and the makers of the files they share have a mutual foe in the corps who own the product. They are the actual rival for both parties.
This will all blow away eventually. It is a temporary issue. But in the meantime, the rhetoric will certainly fly. There is much at stake, for many many people. I will be standing with my Unions, that is what Union people do. Enjoy the show, as always!

[jgraz]

27. One word: whitespace.

How can you possibly work on a movie if you can't even type a decent post?

I doubt you have much of a clue how the income stream works in a movie studio. If you work on a movie, you get paid regardless of how many people pirate it. Show me evidence of how much money piracy cost you and I'll send you a check myself.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Post typing is not work. This is sport.

And you don't even know what I do for a living. Decades of it. 'A movie' does not a career make, you know. Many, many, many projects make a career.
Your own choice of words is 'pirate'. Theft. If you are pushing the idea that after market money is not an important income stream to many people, individuals who worked on a film, then you do not know a thing. Residual streams, royalties, profit participation all of these are important components of the business, and forms of income that rank and file artists live on.
You have many misunderstandings of how the business works. That makes it easier for you to do what you do. So you make wild statements that are not connected to reality.
When you say the people all get paid no matter how much theft occurs, that is simply not true. Not true at all.
Piracy. Your chosen word for what you are defending. Piracy. I called it file sharing. But you are correct, it is piracy, and of course you use your words with startling professional accuracy, no white space, so let us read the definition of your own chosen badge:
1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas
3 a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright.

[jgraz]

47. You can make no connection between movie piracy and loss of income

That makes you just another pro-corporate authoritarian.

Nobody took anything from you. Quit acting butt-hurt about something that doesn't affect you in the least.

[JackRiddler]

55. Actually, a movie can make a career.

One great film that flops means more if it survives to be viewed decades later than a career of 30 standardized genre products with big box office. The widgets pay more salaries, it is true, but by your presentation you are a business person who happens to be involved in movies, and should speak only as a business person.

[Javaman]

39. Do you know how contracts for distribution works?

Basically, a deal is cut via percentage or flat rate for each territory.

Once the contract is signed. That's it. Either the filmmaker, who knew what he or she was signing, will get a trickle of money (percentage) or they will sell their rights (flat rate) and the product becomes the property of the distributor for a set period of time. (usually a point where all possible money making potential has exhausted itself).

It's the distributors that are the ones who are taking the hit if the film gets pirated.

The only time the filmmaker takes a hit is if they self distribute. At which point, it won't be in the theaters to begin with and will go direct to video via yet another agreement with the video or online distributor or they will post it for free and hope people throw them a bone and "donate" some money.

[JackRiddler]

57. The distributors are taking a hit only if the filesharing prevents sales.

Maybe you can help us figure this out. Just spent a few minutes looking for cumulative statistics for the film industry, but haven't found them yet. Do you know where we can find these numbers?

How has the industry developed over, say, the last 10 years? How does that compare to 30 years ago? I mean total revenue from box office plus DVD sales and rentals. Many factors are involved - trends in salaries and economies overall, entertainment alternatives, etc. - but I would argue that the total spent (perhaps including on-demand or specialty cable channel subscriptions) represents approximately what people are going to be spending on these items in total. Regardless of what the distribution methods are or how much free stuff they can get on top. That's the size of the industry, and if free distribution modes weren't available, people would NOT pay more to see more.

But maybe the numbers tell a different story.

Can you show a dramatic drop in TOTAL revenues (beyond what one would expect from recession) in recent years that might be attributable to unauthorized file sharing?

[Javaman]

59. Trying to find money lost by distributors via file sharing will be like

finding hens teeth. You think the federal reserve guards who it give out money too closely? You don't know distributors. LOL

You bring up very good points, but alas, those numbers are very closely guarded secrets.

This is how studios use creative accounting tricks to show how block busters actually lost money, thus not having to issue payouts on backend deals.

How they get away with this crap is astounding.

There are countless incidents since the dawn of the studio system of hiding money, shifting money and making many vanish altogether.

Trying to get studios who self distribute or independent distributors to cough up that info is a Quixotian endeavor.

I would love to get my hands on those numbers.

See this is the thing, right now all these lawsuits by these various producers/studios/distributors all share the same thing: cooked numbers. There is really no way that they can show for absolute that such and such amount of money was lost due to filesharing. It's virtually impossible.

What I'm assuming they are doing is they use stats reflecting gross box office receipts against distribution revenues against, again, population density for particular regions. Of course, I'm just guessing here, because how it really is done is anyones guess, but that's mine.

Then armed with those stats they make a claim that movie X should have done this amount of market share in this region. But because box office numbers in that region show movie X doing a lot less, then therefore, there has to be an amount of piracy do to information they gathered via their own investigation of net activity vis a vis file sharing in that region.

That's my best guess. This kind of stuff is very much like alchemy.

It's only then, they target the biggest offenders of illegal downloading to take out their wrath upon.

Personally speaking, I think the amount of file sharing is a lot less than what the studios claim them to be here in the U.S.

I do think that the stats for illegal filesharing in Asia are much much higher due to various Asia government regulations as to what is allowed and not allowed.

But trying to go after the Asian pirates is virtually impossible, so they go after the easy target.

Frankly, I would love to see a class action suit against the studios regarding their use of these stats which determine the level of file sharing activity.

[JackRiddler]

62. It sounds like potentially good stuff for discovery motions...

The defendants in these chickenshit suits may have the potential to force the distributors and studios to produce their books to show the damage. My guess is at that point a lot of suits would be withdrawn!

Of course, that would require a defendant with a hell of a legal team, which the random victims chosen by the distributors won't have. An ambitious firm could go find them - with a countersuit for damages also prepared. No idea if anyone's doing this.

[Javaman]

64. Over the years many a filmmaker has threatened an audit of one studios books or another...

The filmmaker has that option as part of a standard boiler plate agreement. It's a basic element to all contracts.

But as you say, "the defendant would need a hell of a legal team". And that is where the face meets the pavement.

The studios work with a stacked deck, knowing full well that a poor filmmaker (not talking well established one) have all the odds against them. A lawsuit would make the filmmaker persona non grata in hollywood and get the unfair title of "hard to work with" slung around their necks (beyond destroying them financially). The studios are brilliant at keeping lawsuits going to financially exhaust their adversaries.

As for the average person suing, well we have read of the various attempts over the years of private citizens counter suing the music industry for illegal downloading charges. The citizen usually winds up losing because they don't have the battery of lawyer or the money to keep the suit alive.

They are also in the position of trying to prove a negative (they didn't download the files).

It's really a wicked system.

Time and time again, various filmmakers will make attempts at starting their own distribution system or try various means to work with the system to make film distribution fair to the filmmakers, but it's really a david and Goliath sort of situation where david doesn't have any stones to throw.

I'm a little bitter over my own experiences, but not so much to understand how the system works and how to work with it. I chose instead to just get out all together. I got tired of compromising my integrity.

I always found it interesting how people in the film industry refer to people not working in the industry as "civilians". I still find myself using that term. LOL

[JCMach1]

9. I am so sure you never taped a record, film, NFL or other game on VHS, etc.

maybe you should send them a check in the mail. All of that was illegal too.

[CBGLuthier]

38. Nonsense. It is not illegal to tape over the air broadcasts

What is illegal is to share them. It also is not illegal to tape (copy) anything you buy. Record, CD, VHS and DVD for archival purposes.

The only glitch is the Digital Millennium Copyright act regarding copy protection on (typically) DVD's. This makes breaking encryption (but not the actual copying) a crime.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. You are just wrong. All of that is legal as can be.

The pirates all blather falsehoods to rationalize their actions.

[JCMach1]

71. So those FBI warning on all of those tapes were just for show...

[Javaman]

13. Did you read the article?

the reality is this has less to do with illegal downloads than it has on 1) invasion of privacy 2) proving that people actually downloaded the movie 3) trusting fly by night companies that promise returns on bullshit lawsuits that have proven time and time again to be complete failures in pursuing such matters 4) releasing IP addresses when the telecom corps stated they wouldn't in the past to preserve the consumers privacy.

Yes, people who download illegal content should be held accountable but given the nature of what is going on here, that is not what will happen.

The filmmakers will 1) be scammed by this crazy ass company making claims it certainly can't guarantee 2) be screwed out of a lot of money while this scam company walks away laughing with a fat pay day.

this has very little to do with the filmmakers. And frankly, I believe this article is very disingenuous. The producers, I believe, aren't the ones pursuing this, it's more than likely the distributors who are and are pressuring the producers to seek legal action.

Rarely if ever, do producers at this level of production ever get involve with the direct distribution. Once you ink a deal, it's out of their hands.

[Javaman]

6. Suing is really not the best way to go...

This will not end well.

I smell scam from this "US Copyright Group".

In the end, the filmmakers won't get anything but this fly by night group will have made their fees and skipped away.

Filmmakers need to be compensated some how for their works that are illegally downloaded, but exactly how is anyones guess.

[JCMach1]

8. Precisely... and the solution probably has to do with quick delivery

i.e. immediate to your laptop or TV and low-cost.

When we hit 1.99 for a film download, you might have a model that can work. And why even download... get a workable VOD system going where I can pay that price for lifetime access and you will have a business model.

The real fly in the ointment is the old media corporations. Why? Distribution such as that listed above cut out the middle man... namely the old media conglomerates.

[KittyWampus]

11. So no more going to the movies then? Unless you or a friend own a theater system in their homes.

And how exactly are artists going to fund their work?

I don't know the answer either. Going to a movie costs too much. Blatantly stealing artwork just sucks.

[Javaman]

29. Did you read that recent ruling about film releases?

FCC grants studios right to show new movies at home

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/07/1931942/fcc-grants-studios-right-to-show.html

"Federal regulators have granted a controversial waiver to the Hollywood studios that clears the way for them to show first-run movies in the home shortly after - or even during - their release in theaters."

How indeed are we going to fund the movies.

what I think is going to happen is this: more bells and whistles will be attached to various films to get people into the theaters to 1) justify the higher ticket costs 2) to keep the theaters alive.

This is very reminiscent of the 1950's when TV started to take audience share and in the 1980's with video tapes doing the same thing.

But on the flip side, those independent productions will suffer from less and less funds as return on investment dwindle based on distribution deals. If an independent doesn't have a distributor, they might as well kiss funding goodbye. That means there will be more presales, which will further dumb down the product. Because even though a filmmaker has a good story, if they don't have someone or something special about the film, it will be very difficult for them to get the funding.

This is what happened in the late '90s. As studios began paying outrageous sums for scripts, they wanted "insurance" in the way of big names attached. Thus defeating the whole concept of what made the indie's special: Story.

there is so much at play, it's really hard to see where it begins and ends.

[KittyWampus]

32. Tangent- I lament the fact that society has fewer and fewer events to get together in public

and share in common experiences.

[Javaman]

54. That worries me as well.

we are becoming more and more isolated.

But I would like to think that there is an intrinsic part of us that still will find enjoyment in public gatherings. Perhaps if anything, families will get sick of each other to the point where they will get out from in front of the tv 24/7 and seek out others. LOL

people can only take one another's company for so long. :) That is my hope. LOL

[leeroysphitz]

18. That movie sucked anyway. I downloaded it for free and the producers should compensate

me for the time I wasted on it.

[jgraz]

20. Who's up for a class-action lawsuit?

I say we each deserve about $1000 for sitting through that shiat.

[MadBadger]

48. + a bagillion

[WeDidIt]

23. GOOD!

Copyright violators should be held accountable for their actions.

Now excuse me while I go to Amazon to order a Blu-Ray of Hurt Locker.

[jgraz]

25. From the guy who never met a corporate fuckover he didn't love.

Tell me, do you ever get tired of sticking up for the big guy? :puke:

[WeDidIt]

30. Do you steal IP?

Are you an IP thief?

I support jail sentences for IP thieves. I make a living because of IP. When you steal IP, you take food off my table.

[jgraz]

33. I help make some of the most-pirated IP in the world

And I make plenty of money, thank you. No problem putting food on my table.

Maybe you need to ask for a raise.

[WeDidIt]

35. Yeah

I ain't buyin' what you're sellin.

If you want to be a thief, be a thief.

I hope you are one of the people who downloaded this and they sue you.

And I know one thing for certain. Anybody who works for the company I work for that is successfully sued for stealing IP would be fired immediately. It doesn't matter what IP is stolen. Stealing IP is a firable offense at our company. No ifs, ands or buts. They call it "justifiable termination of employment". It doesn't matter if you did it with company assets or not. We depend on IP and will not tolerate any among us who steal IP.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

58. Self delete

[cbdo2007]

28. I'll opt for Redbox for $1 instead. Thanks!

[hyphenate]

31. I've downloaded files of movies in the past

and oftentimes, the quality of such sucks badly. I tend to stay away from movies anyhow--if a movie is good, I usually buy it. Last year, I was a big fan of Slumdog Millionaire, and while I downloaded it, it was much nicer to buy and look over the extras and deleted scenes. Same thing with Harry Potter 5 (Order of the Phoenix)--downloaded it, watched it, and bought the regular DVD when it finally came out.

I've got about 100-150 records that I'd like to see copied for prosterity, but when I see songs online, I grab them, so I don't have to drag my own copies out.

[thereismore]

37. That film is exploiting the soldiers. Actual soldiers blasted it for being laughably unrealistic. nt

[TexasObserver]

40. Hurt Locker Producers should be sued for that piece of tripe.

What a disappointing movie. The Academy hates Cameron so much they gave the oscar to that sorry film. While I can't blame them for hating Cameron, the Hurt Locker has to be the most overrated film in movie history. It's not even as good as Stop Loss.

I saw it by DVD, so there, Producers! You already got your nickel from me.

[MadBadger]

49. + Ten Bagillion

[Octafish]

51. They ARE being sued -- by a SOLDIER who says he's the original author.

"Hurt Locker" Blasted by Soldier Jeffrey Sarver Who Claims Iraq War Story is His

Maybe there is justice.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. It was a box office flop and they hoped to make $ on the DVD. It is beyond me how it won

best movie. Now they are try recoup what they think is theirs and in fact, they should pay people to watch it.

[jgraz]

52. When this lawsuit scam gets out, I hope their DVD sales drop through the floor.

The real pirates here are the corporate scumbags pushing this extortion racket.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

66. I hope so too. Thanks for posting.

:hi:

[Lorien]

63. Exactly. They think they are "owed" so they're going after the money any way that they can

I've worked on films that are copied and shared all the time, but they were hugely popular at the box office and offered great "extras" on the DVDs, so the sales were exceptional. No reason to go after file sharers. In fact; if they like watching some crap version online they are probably more likely to go out and by the two disc special edition DVD, so our company has never gone after file sharers.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

65. I also think that the irony is that most people who file share wouldn't go see the movie or purchase

the DVD in the first place.
I have also in my past d/l and if the movie is worth it, bought the DVD for the quality and to have as a keeper.
I think what the production company is doing is an asinine act of pure desperation.

[cbdo2007]

43. If you received one of the letters, would this idea work?

Go out and buy the movie on DVD with cash at some small retailer and tell them you tried to rip that DVD but you couldn't do it because of their copy protection and it's your right to make a copy of media that you purchase so you just decided to download it instead? If you have a physical copy of the movie it makes their letter void, right?

[jgraz]

50. It's even easier.

Just ask them for the MAC address of the computer that downloaded the illegal copy. All they have is the IP address of your modem. If you have WiFi, they can't even prove the download happened at your house.

This is just an extortion scheme, plain and simple.

[slampoet]

60. I currently download only out of print stuff that I own, i am waiting for them to try and sue me

In that mix i have at least 20 artists who are Owed money by their recording company, several that were released on bad vinyl, Cassettes, or defective CD's.

I am just waiting for them so i can counter sue the RIAA to make SURE that this money ends up in the hands of artist and NOT the RIAA.

They really don't want to be setting that precedent.

[grahamhgreen]

61. Personally, I love file sharers - please share my movie! (see below)

As someone who actually has a real independent no-budget film, I'd like to thank the file sharers for providing us so much free marketing for our film (see signature line).

I need to do a post about this......

[EOTE]

67. I look forward to checking that out. I had seen ads for this before...

but I had no idea it was from a fellow DUer. Hopefully I'll get a chance to see it this weekend. Thanks!

[Javaman]

68. That's how to wisely use the system to your benefit.

Good for you!

Cheers and good luck with the film!

:)

[Sebastian Doyle]

69. I had no intentions of watching this movie

But now I'm gonna have to download it, just to spite their greedy fucking asses. Maybe this is their stealth marketing plan? :rofl:

[and-justice-for-all]

70. It is just never enough is it?

This film did just fine and DVD sales did as well:

Summit Entertainment picked the film up for distribution in the United States after it was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival for $1.5 million.<63> The Hurt Locker was released in the United States on June 26, 2009, with a limited release at four theaters in Los Angeles and New York City.<64> Over its first weekend the film grossed $145,352, averaging $36,338 per theater. The following weekend, beginning July 3, the film grossed $131,202 at nine theaters, averaging $14,578 per theater.<65>

It held the highest per-screen average of any movie playing theatrically in the United States for the first two weeks of its release,<1> gradually moving into the top 20 chart with much wider-released, bigger budget studio films.<66> It held around number 13 or number 14 on box office charts for an additional four weeks. Summit Entertainment took The Hurt Locker wider to more than 200 screens on July 24, 2009 and more than 500 screens on July 31, 2009. As of March 21, 2010, the film grossed $40,016,144 against its $15 million production budget, and the domestic total of $16,400,000 places it at number 117 of all films released in the U.S. in 2009.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hurt_Locker
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/HURTL.php

DVD Sales Performance
Released on DVD: January 12, 2010
DVD Units Sold: 1,579,489
Consumer Spending: $28,527,445
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/HURTL-DVD.php