23,000 BitTorrent users to be sued for downloading 'The Expendables'

People who happened to download The Expendables​ via BitTorrent may want to check their mail: they could be one of the 23,000 people, and counting, the US Copyright Group (USCG) plans on suing as what is now being called the largest downloading case in United States history.

On March 17, a US federal judge allowed the USCG to collect names, current and permanent addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and MAC addresses from all major ISPs (from AT&T and Comcast to Time Warner and Verizon) of those that they allege infringed copyright. The lawsuit is being filed by the USCG — which mainly works for indie movie producers who last year literally founded a way to turn a profit on mostly low-grossing movies by suing those who downloaded them illegally — on behalf of Nu Image, the production company behind The Expendables​.

Subpoenas are expected to go out this week to the 23,332 IPs obtained, as reported by Wired.

The USCG's plan and track record, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), is to "threaten" the defendants with a judgment of $150,000 — the maximum allowed by copyright law — with hopes that the defendant will settle with an amount that's usually between $1,500 and $2,500.

Wired claims that more than 150,000 people around the country are being targeted by the USCG and others mimicking their actions for downloading "B-rated movies and porn."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google to offer admin-free Chrome Frame installs

Next Story

Symantec: Facebook applications inadvertently leaked personal information

179 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

People should be sued just for watching that dribble of a movie.

Sylvester and his droopy old saggy face that looks like he's smoked too much and can't act.

Maybe they just need to fund the high salaries of these bad actors after it's flop.

But then, If they don't embrace the digital age, then it will blindside them.

In todays world of high definition and surround sound, I'm surprised people still download these horrid camcorder movies. The fact remains though, it is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owners consent. Therefore, if the company wishes to sue it has the right.

Piracy did do one good thing though. They made the studios more willing to have simultaneous world wide release dates. Who can rememeber the days of the 80s and 90s where the Americans had the movie on VHS before the UK even had the cinema release.

I personally don't like going to the movies. The cost is outrageous here in the UK. Most films are the best part of £10 per ticket, then if you want a drink and some popcorn it's at least £6 if not a bit more. That's just for one person. If you are a family of four it's a serious amount of money. We usually wait for it to get released in the stores. If there's a film we are really wanted to see (and to be honest, most films within the last five years have been average at best) we'll rent it at blockbusters.

Plus, who's idea was it to sell popcorn and tortilla chips in a cinema? I know, let's get a room full of people wishing to watch a movie and have everyone annoy each other munching on loud food. Why not just sell drinks and marsh mellows :-)

Don't you love the low lifes who post here defending mafia tactics using extortion to sue people. What these pirate lawyers are doing is extortion. The lawyers in the UK who started this whole thing, and who brought it to America because they even bragged about how much more money they could make over here.

But at least in the UK, their justice system appears better than ours, because over their those lawyers are in BIG trouble for doing this.

23,000 users at an average of $2,000 ($1,500-$2,500, settled) = $46,000,000

Is this Hollywood's new technique of recovering from profit loss?

This just reflects a disparity in the supply and demand. Instead of suing people they need to make movie tickets cheaper so that people want to watch their watered-down garbage.

And the people who went to see this ****ty movie in theaters should sue the studio for producing such a piece of junk. If I buy a product from the store which is pure ****, I go back for a full refund.

I test drive my cars before I buy them ah thank you!

Hope they like getting counter suits against them *Points and laughs at them*

If you get caught downloading torrent then your encryption sucks man. All I'm saying.. *Points and laughs*

I'm wondering what Torrent site they tracked this from..had to be an open tracker. I never download anything like this on a open tracker. But just as Svggarden said above... many places to stream it in vs downloading which would save ya the trouble.

Svggarden said,
There are various sites that you could watch movies online. Why bother downloading these and fill up your HD space.

Oh I dunno, because netflix/hulu/youtube "High Def" does not compare to a 8-20GB Bluray rip?

In this digital age, any and all things digital are up for grabs, simple as that. Peoples concience cannot be relied upon, so if they want to throw a dart at the haystack that fills the football stadium of torrent downloaders, I guess they should just go for it. 23,000 being sued, probably 10 million or more downloading illegally. The odds are stacked WAY against them. Welcome to the internet.

Quick question to those who know:
Yes, I did obtain this movie (a theater cam version /cringe) around when it was in theater.
But that was long ago, when I lived in a different state, under a different ISP, and the internet was actually in my roomates name. Chances?

Though, as I said above. I don't really download movies, unless they seem like they are going to be good. I generally will actually go to the theater and watch them, after I download them, and see if the first 20-30 minutes are good, if not, I will generally turn it off and delete it. If it is really good, I turn it off and go to the theater.

Make a crap movie, you can expect people not to pay for it. I never cared for the movie myself. Didn't even watch it in full.

metallithrax said,
Not sure if anyone else said this in here, but

I actually liked the film.

You are in the minority on that one.

metallithrax said,
Not sure if anyone else said this in here, but

I actually liked the film.

I liked it too

Faisal Islam said,
I downloaded from Rapidshare.com, is it a problem?

Its a problem to download movies illegally. But no, rapid share is not what this article pertains to. This is about bit torrent users. Rapid share is a pretty loose standard when it comes to getting in trouble. The links just disappear but no one ever has currently been prosecuted due to it yet.

SirEvan said,

No but your double post is a problem.

Seeing as he actually downloaded it and admitted it, I'd say the double post was the least of his problems

I don't exacly recall when was the wast time I went to a movie but it was long time ago. I'm not going to waiste my time going to see some crapy movie when I can see it at home. It is not about the money it is about the crap they make.
About torrents all you need to do is rent a private VPN service in another country dail the VPN and start using torrent your IP adress will show what ever real address you like for example white house or FBI central.

Stingray said,
This is terrorism.

I could see the MPAA saying something like that.
"If you download movies, you're a terrorist!"

What if I had bought the DVD and downloaded the copy from the torrent, so I could have a permanant version on my laptop?

Yea this won't be a legal nightmare at all... I hope that most of the people try to fight it instead of settling. There's no way that the USCG would be able to continue then.

hotdog963al said,
Terrible film. Torrenting is dead.

Do you know better aternative for downloading TV shows? Because some stupid Rapidshare is not alternative.. Anyway in my country is downloading not ilegal

6205 said,

Do you know better aternative for downloading TV shows? Because some stupid Rapidshare is not alternative.. Anyway in my country is downloading not ilegal


Newsgroups.

People who pirate and don't want to realize that these companies are just doing what they can to protect their profits are pathetic. Childish boys and little girls who haven't learnt the ways of life and can't stand for what they do.

Sure, if you want to pirate, go ahead. But don't come back whining like a little kid who didn't get what you wanted from mommy if you get sued. Don't come back with silly "defense" speeches like "These companies are oppressing us!" You know what you're doing is illegal. You know what they're doing makes sense. Stick with what you're doing if you want, but take the consequences like an adult if you're caught, then move on with life. If you can't do that, this isn't your game to play.

Your right. It is a game. These companies aren't suing people because it's the right thing to do, they want money they wouldn't get without piracy. Just like alot of people get movies, games and music that they wouldn't get without piracy.

Lamp0 said,
Your right. It is a game. These companies aren't suing people because it's the right thing to do, they want money they wouldn't get without piracy. Just like alot of people get movies, games and music that they wouldn't get without piracy.

Way to completely miss what he was saying.

Digitalx said,
the people who work for and create troll companies like this, all must die.

Troll companies? What? They made a movie, people watched it without paying for it. That's not called trolling, FYI.

I think I now know the real reason why those AT&T caps were put into place.....It's because they were on a "witch hunt". So pathetic.

The new bitlord encrypts data in and out, is that enough for them to not know your IP? Not downloaded it yet cus no Internet for a while but I will be d/l it *cough* buying it when I get it back

psionicinversion said,
The new bitlord encrypts data in and out, is that enough for them to not know your IP? Not downloaded it yet cus no Internet for a while but I will be d/l it *cough* buying it when I get it back

Encryption has nothing to do your with your IP. The way torrents work all you have to do is send a request to a tracker for seeds/peers for a particular torrent (based on its hash) and the tracker responds with a list of IPs to connect to

Rodovia said,
Shame on those 23,000 users. Your going to get the hammer smashed on your ip.

ipconfig /renew

Dono, just seemed like the appropriate response,

i'd never bother download such a piece of ****, those people got busted bad... if at least the movie was worth it.. its only shooting and damn explosions.. is that all hollwyood has?

xSuRgEx said,

you think your "members only super secret underground bunker tracker" is safe? lol

It's a lot safer than public torrents, and quicker and better.

Theres been no mass lawsuits against private trackers that I am aware of, they usually go after the site admins / uploaders. And even then it usually results in nothing (Oink's admin for example)

I wonder what they would do if everyone in the world started downloading the same EXPENDABLES torrent this week and shared it to everyone in perpetuity? 8)

joker999 said,
What's the different, download movie and borrow DVD from friends?

a BIG difference. I was leagally purchased

joker999 said,
What's the different, download movie and borrow DVD from friends?

actually there is no difference. The MPAA thinks letting a friend barrow a movie is also piracy.

warwagon said,

actually there is no difference. The MPAA thinks letting a friend barrow a movie is also piracy.

Yup, but fortunately the law doesn't agree with the MAFIAA on that. It's the "sharing" aspect of torrents that runs afoul of illegal distribution in their eyes.

But since there was no money changing hands the MAFIAA couldn't do anything (no damages), so they bought and paid senators and congressman until they got laws passed to make this instance a civil action with civil damages.

warwagon said,

actually there is no difference. The MPAA thinks letting a friend barrow a movie is also piracy.

Now that's just lame.

TCA said,

a BIG difference. I was leagally purchased

You were leagally[sic] purchased? What was the going rate?

Kidding of course, couldn't help myself.

RangerLG said,

You were leagally[sic] purchased? What was the going rate?

Kidding of course, couldn't help myself.

LOL it's a typo, I was only 30 dollars!

still1 said,
I ll post this here
Budget $80 million
Gross revenue $274,468,52

Which means it hasn't made a profit according to the studio... No one involved in this is going to see a dime of this extortion money. It's all PR (scare the people) money going in the pockets of lawyers and their ilk.

Brian Miller said,
We should sue them for making a crappy movie.

Moral arguments aside, yes. I mean, come on, The Expendables. Really? I could feel more sympathy if it were for something like Inception or even Toy Story!

Who do I sue to get the two wasted hours of my life back?

Sucks to be them for not using Usenet, that at least makes it more difficult or nearly impossible for movie studios to go after downloaders.

At least I have Netflix or Hulu for my needs.

This is exactly why I dropped torrents like a bad habit 4 years ago and have looked back since. Direct downloads FTW (and yes I know, private trackers for the win, blah blah blah).

warwagon said,
This is exactly why I dropped torrents like a bad habit 4 years ago and have looked back since. Direct downloads FTW (and yes I know, private trackers for the win, blah blah blah).

A person of your... nature shouldn't be downloading illegally, which is what you're implying.

Raa said,

A person of your... nature shouldn't be downloading illegally, which is what you're implying.

Warwagon's being an inabler lol!

Raa said,

A person of your... nature shouldn't be downloading illegally, which is what you're implying.

I plead the 5th lol

Edited by warwagon, May 11 2011, 4:32am :

This particular movie i bought on blu-ray because i enjoyed it, but you know what's really stealing, charging $30+ for a movie, if they where $10, maybe i'd buy a lot more of them than i download.

It's got nothing to do with being cheap, i'm happy to go out and pay for a movie on DVD or blu-ray, it's more to do with the fact i cannot afford every single movie that I want to see.

Now, I could rent them online, but why pay a couple of bucks to rent a movie I only have a few days/weeks to watch, when i could get it for free, permenantly. I'm not trying to justify stealing in anyway by saying that, just pointing out that it's easier to pirate, and you get more out of it, buying/renting has all thes restrictions.

Happy_Camel said,
This particular movie i bought on blu-ray because i enjoyed it, but you know what's really stealing, charging $30+ for a movie, if they where $10, maybe i'd buy a lot more of them than i download.

It's got nothing to do with being cheap, i'm happy to go out and pay for a movie on DVD or blu-ray, it's more to do with the fact i cannot afford every single movie that I want to see.

Doesn't mean spend every bit of money you do get on movies that come out left and right. Even if it was so many months later when you have that bit of extra money. Yeah but I can understand movies tend to be a little bit expensive 15-20+ dollars but, it's a one time thing and it's WAY cheaper then having to deal with Fines and court costs and whatever damage fee's they expect people to pay.

Happy_Camel said,
This particular movie i bought on blu-ray because i enjoyed it, but you know what's really stealing, charging $30+ for a movie, if they where $10, maybe i'd buy a lot more of them than i download.

It's got nothing to do with being cheap, i'm happy to go out and pay for a movie on DVD or blu-ray, it's more to do with the fact i cannot afford every single movie that I want to see.

Now, I could rent them online, but why pay a couple of bucks to rent a movie I only have a few days/weeks to watch, when i could get it for free, permenantly. I'm not trying to justify stealing in anyway by saying that, just pointing out that it's easier to pirate, and you get more out of it, buying/renting has all thes restrictions.

you got to realize there is a great deal of risk when you are making a movie because you dont know how people are going to react to it.. look at mel gibsons movie the beaver, it made 104,000 in the opening weekend and cost 40 million to make.. you think they are happy about that?? studios need to recover their losses from other movies as well.

Lachlan said,

you got to realize there is a great deal of risk when you are making a movie because you dont know how people are going to react to it.. look at mel gibsons movie the beaver, it made 104,000 in the opening weekend and cost 40 million to make.. you think they are happy about that?? studios need to recover their losses from other movies as well.

Never even heard of that movie haha, probably says a lot about it though.

Anyway, i don't really see what you're trying to say, other than studios say "Oh no, we spent 40 million making this movie, it's only made a couple hundred thousand because it's a dud, so lets charge a ridiculous amount for it on DVD to try and make a bit more, which will ultimately drive people to pirate it anyway, so bringing the price up won't help"

I'm not going to sit around and wait 6 months for when i have some spare cash laying around to buy/rent a movie i want to see, when i can see it right now, for nothing.

If movies cost about 5-10 bucks, i'd probably buy a lot more, it's just too damn easy to pirate, and imo, that's where the problem lies, the convinience in stealing, and the price difference. Not saying i would buy ALL movies if they where chaeper, but of the ones i have downloaded, i'd probably buy at least 70% of them instead of downloading if they only cost $5

Happy_Camel said,
It's got nothing to do with being cheap, i'm happy to go out and pay for a movie on DVD or blu-ray, it's more to do with the fact i cannot afford every single movie that I want to see.

Uhh, welcome to being a grown-up who has to ration his/her finances? Of course we can't get everything we want right away. It's not any different with any physical object, your morals shouldn't change just because it's digital goods.

Lachlan said,

you got to realize there is a great deal of risk .

In business everyone is taking a risk. That's the way life is. My dad lost almost all its money in a bad business. If there was no risk associated with making millions then something would be wrong.

But the difference is generaly in business if you make a bad product people wont buy it or return it and you'll lose money. People who bought your product can return it if they are not satisfied.

I bought a Samsung all in one theater last year. It was crap. I was not satisfied and the LAW gives me the right to return it and i did return it for a refund.

To me the problem with the entertainment business (sport, movie, music, ...) is you can make a crap product, hire big stars or market it with millions, release it to DVD quickly after theater and make some money cause the customers CAN'T get a refund. How many time did you illegally watched 2 movies with one ticket in theater when you were young cause the first one ****** big time ? I did it at least 2-3 times in my life.

People always focus on good movies not making money because of pirates. But those people rarely talk about ******* bad movies making money cause the customers in the entertainment business have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT at all.

Now i'm not saying people should be able to return movies when they are bad. Obviously the law can't let people do that. But as long as this business will show so few consideration toward the customers they can't expect people to be nice to them.

BTW that new Star Wars Blu-Ray box should be less expensive. Some fans (not me) already paid for those movies 3 times (theater, VHS, DVD, Special edition) . That's a problem the law will need to adress one day. When you buy Star Wars you should buy the right to the movie and not have to pay full price for a new format.

Xero said,
I bet some of you are thinking maybe being canadian isn't so bad, eh?!

No. Not at all actually. We're still glad we're not. Lol

This is so fail though. Glad it's not me thankfully.

Xero said,
I bet some of you are thinking maybe being canadian isn't so bad, eh?!

Between healthcare and no legal precident against piracy, yes I am glad to be canadian.
I also have an ISP that doesn't have bandwith capacity limits.
Add 14TB of Hard Disk and you've got a wonderful life of consuming content ahead.

Sadly, this will come to an end with our new Conservative Majority government, who are for all intents and purpose, in the back pockets of the US fat cats anwyay.

Xero said,
I bet some of you are thinking maybe being canadian isn't so bad, eh?!

I've always wanted to be canadian

Sorry for the double post guys I kinda messed up my mouse yrs ago slammed it outta anger so it dbl clicks or unhighlights on it's own. lol

sCrAtCh420th said,
looks around, nope wasnt me i got my copy from netflix

lol and people complain that movies are to expensive.. 8 bucks a month and you can watch tons.

sCrAtCh420th said,
looks around, nope wasnt me i got my copy from netflix

It's not in all countries, and as far as I know, Netflix where I live offers a ****ty selection.

I remember this being posted last year. BUT the number has grown since then...I don't see why people don't just either Netflix or go to the store and buy it...or ask their parents? Assuming that some of them aren't able to buy it (lack of funds, unless they get an allowance). I've seen the movie at a friends because they have Netflix and I liked it, but not enough to be a cheap ass and DL it.

$1,500 is ridiculous. Honestly, $100-250 should be the penalty for first offenses for LEECHERS. Go after the person(s) that actually leaked the movie(s), make them pay the high amounts. Your average leecher shouldn't be fined a larger amount when they aren't the ones that actually leaked the source...

Elessar said,
$1,500 is ridiculous. Honestly, $100-250 should be the penalty for first offenses for LEECHERS. Go after the person(s) that actually leaked the movie(s), make them pay the high amounts. Your average leecher shouldn't be fined a larger amount when they aren't the ones that actually leaked the source...

I thought by default all the torrent programs make you the provider also? How would you trace it back to the original?

Elessar said,
$1,500 is ridiculous. Honestly, $100-250 should be the penalty for first offenses for LEECHERS. Go after the person(s) that actually leaked the movie(s), make them pay the high amounts. Your average leecher shouldn't be fined a larger amount when they aren't the ones that actually leaked the source...

The whole point of suing people large sums is to deter them and others from pirating. If the fine was only $100, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't deter anybody. That probably wouldn't even cover the legal fees of the company filing the lawsuit.

Elessar said,
$1,500 is ridiculous. Honestly, $100-250 should be the penalty for first offenses for LEECHERS. Go after the person(s) that actually leaked the movie(s), make them pay the high amounts. Your average leecher shouldn't be fined a larger amount when they aren't the ones that actually leaked the source...

would be like not charging people for using and selling drugs but getting the guy that made them in the first place... that never works you need to get everyone involved and push down the supply and demand of the illegal activity

giantpotato said,

The whole point of suing people large sums is to deter them and others from pirating. If the fine was only $100, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't deter anybody. That probably wouldn't even cover the legal fees of the company filing the lawsuit.

What are the real chances that this will prevent others from pirating?

Marcos_Edson said,

What are the real chances that this will prevent others from pirating?

None. People are against REAL piracy, i.e. SELLING dvds on the streets, but no one regards SHARING as a problem and they never will.

The RIAA/MPAA are trying to protect a dead distribution model because to them (most accountants and lawyers) this road is easier to understand than adapting to the future.

But they lost music and they will lose all media at the rate they are going. Adapt or die.

Lachlan said,

would be like not charging people for using and selling drugs but getting the guy that made them in the first place... that never works you need to get everyone involved and push down the supply and demand of the illegal activity

personally they should be given the chance to purchase the movie on DVD if the offer is refused then sue them atleast they'd get some sales

Elessar said,
$1,500 is ridiculous. Honestly, $100-250 should be the penalty for first offenses for LEECHERS. Go after the person(s) that actually leaked the movie(s), make them pay the high amounts. Your average leecher shouldn't be fined a larger amount when they aren't the ones that actually leaked the source...

Yes, let's teach pirates that if and only IF they get caught, they'll pay just $250. Like a speeding ticket.

As long as the cop doesn't catch you...

Athlonite said,
personally they should be given the chance to purchase the movie on DVD if the offer is refused then sue them atleast they'd get some sales

Finally, someone comes up with a logical solution that's mutually beneficial.
This is much better than the name calling and finger pointing and out and out rudeness that I had to read to get here.

If only it were this easy.

FrozenEclipse said,

Right, I'm sure you never download them.

Actually I went to the legit drive pack website to get the mass storage driver pack. They told me it was a torrent only download. So I did it. Even doing something legit freaked me out. I felt like I was going To get sued for that download.

nub said,
Torrents are bad anyways

Movies are bad
Television is bad

read books, educate yourself, don't waste time on the frivolity of the interwebs and mass media.

I heard this movie sucked so bad. I'm shocked anyone even wanted to download it through torrents! I won't even spend $1 at redbox to rent it.

Intelligen said,
I heard this movie sucked so bad. I'm shocked anyone even wanted to download it through torrents! I won't even spend $1 at redbox to rent it.

It's got like 12 major action names in it, can you blame them for being curious?

LiquidSolstice said,
It's got like 12 major action names in it, can you blame them for being curious?

That sure is hypocritical compared to your replies above.

RangerLG said,

That sure is hypocritical compared to your replies above.

I'm talking about the real interest in it, not the urge to pirate it. I actually watched in in theaters after seeing the movie poster because it had so many major actors, and I wanted to see how they all acted together.

Granted, that was a failed experiment, but people wanting to see such a grade-A actor list has nothing to do with piracy.

Derrick Lonnell said,
just another plot to make ppl more poorer so the rich can get richer

by making you pay for things they created and took a risk to make by pooring investors money into it?? no wonder the US economy is going down because people cant even get out to support the few things left that are made there.

Derrick Lonnell said,
just another plot to make ppl more poorer so the rich can get richer

I wouldn't call it richer. If they never illegally downloaded in the first place this wouldn't have happend now would it? Least to say they wouldn't have bought the movie either even if they watched it but the fact is they do have in possession a movie they never paid for so the way I see the backward thinking in this is they're both at fault. That being they downloaded illegally first and now bad practice companies just want to make a profit to justify the movie they probably wouldn't have bought but mostly still kept in possession. All's fair in love and war as they say and people should know the consequences of doing illegal activities in the first place. Heck ever people that work for the movie industry, download illegally as well. Hard to root out the problem but this could be a small start though not a good start.

Derrick Lonnell said,
just another plot to make ppl more poorer so the rich can get richer

yea, pay for your ****, then your country does better. Proven fact.

It's just about instilling fear in the masses.

But the masses have shrugged off the copyright/distribution "issue" because they are NOT profiting from it and they learned that sharing was good from Sesame Street.

And even though the RIAA/MPAA lobby has bought and sold congress, it still doesn't mean the people aren't still shrugging.

Derrick Lonnell said,
just another plot to make ppl more poorer so the rich can get richer

... and the people can't avoid pirating to consume media. Right.

You talk of this like it was about food, and people living off the streets.

Derrick Lonnell said,
just another plot to make ppl more poorer so the rich can get richer

No, it's just another case of poor people (or people who aren't actually poor) wanting free stuff.

Lachlan said,

by making you pay for things they created and took a risk

Lawl you are kidding right ?

We are talking about the Expendables here not some sort of low budget drama with unknown actors ...

Nexus- said,
thats why you use peerguardian or peerblock if you are going to do this stuff.

or better yet avoid torrents all together as there is other alternatives that don't cost much money (i.e. $11 a month) and have basically everything you could want damn near.

once using the 'alternatives' i just can't go back to torrents as it's fast speed and instant access and it's SSL (encrypted) and you don't share anything. so basically they can't bust you.

but it's nice that torrents are taking all the heat from those companys that sue so they stay away from the better alternatives (but i think some of the reason they staying away from the better alternatives is that it's not nearly as easy to find and sue people)

----------------------

but for the record that film was not even good anyways. Stallone's 'Rambo' (2008) was much better.

ThaCrip said,

or better yet avoid torrents all together as there is other alternatives that don't cost much money (i.e. $11 a month) and have basically everything you could want damn near.

not in my country

Nexus- said,
thats why you use peerguardian or peerblock if you are going to do this stuff.

peerguardian or peerblock just block the known IP but not the unknown so they are worthless those programs.

Nexus- said,
thats why you use peerguardian or peerblock if you are going to do this stuff.

That comment is seriously a laugh and a half. As ActionPack said all they do is block known IP addresses and there is no way of knowing them all. If you seriously think they work then you need to do some more homework!!

ACTIONpack said,

peerguardian or peerblock just block the known IP but not the unknown so they are worthless those programs.

that's pretty much true. simply because while they can block a moderate amount of known IP's, which helps, it's not fool proof and i am sure those guys that sue are constantly changing IP's etc etc so your pretty much screwed.

ACTIONpack said,

peerguardian or peerblock just block the known IP but not the unknown so they are worthless those programs.


antibiotics are useless too, because they only block certain viruses...so we might as well not use them anymore right? ..right?

SirEvan said,

antibiotics are useless too, because they only block certain viruses...so we might as well not use them anymore right? ..right?

Viruses aren't aware of antibiotics and can easily dodge it.

SirEvan said,

antibiotics are useless too, because they only block certain viruses...so we might as well not use them anymore right? ..right?

You fail at medicine.

ThaCrip said,

that's pretty much true. simply because while they can block a moderate amount of known IP's, which helps, it's not fool proof and i am sure those guys that sue are constantly changing IP's etc etc so your pretty much screwed.

I really doubt they constantly change IP's... They can get enough idiots who probably don't use peerblock because they don't know what they are doing..

Wow, fail, just wrote out a comment and submission only got like the first sentence. Anyway:

"The lawsuit is being filed by the USCG - which mainly works for indie movie producers who last year literally founded a way to turn a profit on low-grossing movies by suing those who downloaded them illegally"

If that's not a nasty business practice, I don't know what is. Sure, lets produce mediocre movies then when they do badly, sue people into oblivion for downloading them... ruining their lives because they decided to download it just to turn a profit.

Caleo said,
If that's not a nasty business practice, I don't know what is. Sure, lets produce mediocre movies then when they do badly, sue people into oblivion for downloading them... ruining their lives because they decided to download it just to turn a profit.

I don't see how making a bad movie justifies producing illegal copies of it. You might as well justify rape by saying "well, the sex would have been bad if consensual".

Solid Knight said,

You might as well justify rape by saying "well, the sex would have been bad if consensual".

i don't think you can compare rape and illegally downloading a movie. ever.

ben.page said,

I don't think you can compare rape and illegally downloading a movie. ever.

I just did. But in all seriousness, I'm not equating the two. It's only a parallel of the logic: "I didn't like X therefore I can do anything I want to X"

Solid Knight said,

I don't see how making a bad movie justifies producing illegal copies of it. You might as well justify rape by saying "well, the sex would have been bad if consensual".

Tha hell does rape have to do with this?

Anyway you have to admit this is VERY low-life to be suing so many potential customers like this.

Solid Knight said,

I don't see how making a bad movie justifies producing illegal copies of it. You might as well justify rape by saying "well, the sex would have been bad if consensual".

Is that to say you consider rape better than bad consensual sex? I don't think you can justify downloading a poorly rated movie because it is poorly rated but I don't think your rape analogy qualifies.

I think what the real issue is that you might get studios deleiberately producing cheap crap, wait for it to be pirated and then pounce. That kind of destroys the whole artist merit of film making.

Caleo said,
Wow, fail, just wrote out a comment and submission only got like the first sentence. Anyway:

"The lawsuit is being filed by the USCG - which mainly works for indie movie producers who last year literally founded a way to turn a profit on low-grossing movies by suing those who downloaded them illegally"

If that's not a nasty business practice, I don't know what is. Sure, lets produce mediocre movies then when they do badly, sue people into oblivion for downloading them... ruining their lives because they decided to download it just to turn a profit.

did we forget that IP != person as to the latest judge ruling? So those 23000 IPs are worthless.

compl3x said,

I think what the real issue is that you might get studios deliberately producing cheap crap, wait for it to be pirated and then pounce. That kind of destroys the whole artist merit of film making.

I seriously doubt they'd get together and think up a movie that will bomb just so they might be able to make money via lawsuits after dumping more money into legal fees and anti-piracy agencies.

Solid Knight said,

Potential customers?


+1 totally agree with you .. lol they downloaded it , how are they potential clients..

I hate that arguement that people download it to test it out to go to the theaters.. just go on youtube and watch the trailers or read reviews.. Can anyone say that they have downloaded a movie and watched the first 10 minutes then decided to get in their car and go straight to the theatre and pay the 15 bucks to watch the rest on a bigger screen? not many people

Not saying I've ever done it myself, but I've heard of people that have liked movies after downloading them, then going out and paying for them. I've even heard of some people that probably would have never seen certain movies without illegally procuring them, which they eventually purchased.

Solid Knight said,

I don't see how making a bad movie justifies producing illegal copies of it. You might as well justify rape by saying "well, the sex would have been bad if consensual".


are u freakin serious to compare this with rape.....

still1 said,

are u freakin serious to compare this with rape.....

When you guys are done bashing him for the comparison because you can't refute the logic, you might want to try explaining exactly what's wrong with the analogy.

Samurizer said,

When you guys are done bashing him for the comparison because you can't refute the logic, you might want to try explaining exactly what's wrong with the analogy.

Sharing is natural. It's not considered to be crime by an absolute majority of the world. It's "illegal" in US only because greed fatasses who bought the law.

coth said,

Sharing is natural. It's not considered to be crime by an absolute majority of the world. It's "illegal" in US only because greed fatasses who bought the law.

"Sharing" my ass. Sharing involves giving others part of something that rightfully belongs to you. Piracy is about stealing - taking something that never belonged to you, and distributing it to everyone everywhere against the wishes of the people who actually created that work. If you can't see the difference between the two, you must be very poorly educated, or one of the same greedy dumbasses that pirates things because it's free and easy.

Caleo said,
Wow, fail, just wrote out a comment and submission only got like the first sentence. Anyway:

"The lawsuit is being filed by the USCG - which mainly works for indie movie producers who last year literally founded a way to turn a profit on low-grossing movies by suing those who downloaded them illegally"

If that's not a nasty business practice, I don't know what is. Sure, lets produce mediocre movies then when they do badly, sue people into oblivion for downloading them... ruining their lives because they decided to download it just to turn a profit.


Poor movies don't legalize piracy. If the movies are so bad, don't download them.

That comment made no logical sense.

Northgrove said,

Poor movies don't legalize piracy. If the movies are so bad, don't download them.

Wait, what? You mean exercise some self restraint? Heavens no! I thought it was our right to take whatever we want and make up stupid excuses when we get caught doing it!

Northgrove said,

Poor movies don't legalize piracy. If the movies are so bad, don't download them.

That comment made no logical sense.


Poor movies don't legalize piracy. It doesn't but your never going to buy a poor movie, you might only download it to check it out. A little reminder, movie industry is growing and so is piracy it's a win win situation.

Also I download a lot of films, I also have a huge bluray collection and I have a year cinema ticket. Yet I would be fined $1,500-$2,000 for downloading one film when I've watched about another 40 films this year so far on bluray and in the cinema.

A firm in the UK did this, they went bust a little while ago because this business model(not anything to do with copyright protection) can make a quick buck but they stumble when things hit the court. To those 23,000 people don't pay the fine challenge them, they can't cope with hundreds of court cases at the same time and an IP isn't really enough proof.

The max fine should be the price of the DVD $1,500 is blackmailing vulnerable people, scaring the cash out of them.

Solid Knight said,

I seriously doubt they'd get together and think up a movie that will bomb just so they might be able to make money via lawsuits after dumping more money into legal fees and anti-piracy agencies.

Either I am really cynical or you are really naive. I have no doubt that if this practice became profitable people would do it.

coth said,

Sharing is natural. It's not considered to be crime by an absolute majority of the world. It's "illegal" in US only because greed fatasses who bought the law.

Classic pirate defense mechanism. Blame it on "the man", not YOUR greed to want something for free.

Get real

compl3x said,

Either I am really cynical or you are really naive. I have no doubt that if this practice became profitable people would do it.

What a completely retarded business plan/conspiracy theory. I feel sad for you if that's the best you've god.

Gaffney said,

Poor movies don't legalize piracy. It doesn't but your never going to buy a poor movie, you might only download it to check it out. A little reminder, movie industry is growing and so is piracy it's a win win situation.

"Check it out" is still you pirating the movie. Don't try to sugarcoat it.

Also I download a lot of films, I also have a huge bluray collection and I have a year cinema ticket. Yet I would be fined $1,500-$2,000 for downloading one film when I've watched about another 40 films this year so far on bluray and in the cinema.

It doesn't make that one movie you downloaded any less illegal or any less piracy. Stop making stupid comparisons/sugarcoats.

A firm in the UK did this, they went bust a little while ago because this business model(not anything to do with copyright protection) can make a quick buck but they stumble when things hit the court. To those 23,000 people don't pay the fine challenge them, they can't cope with hundreds of court cases at the same time and an IP isn't really enough proof.

This isn't a business model. Saying it is would be just another retarded pirate defense mechanism.

The max fine should be the price of the DVD $1,500 is blackmailing vulnerable people, scaring the cash out of them.

IT's not up to you to decide what's fair when dealing with people who obtained someone else's stuff without paying for it.

Your reasoning is completely bonkers. Face it, you want free stuff. Admit it to yourself, and move on. Don't insult anyone's intelligence by doing the whole RIAA/MPAA IS EVIL, OMG LAWSUIT TROLL BUSINESS MODEL, or OMG IT SUX ANYWAY MIGHT AS WELL DOWNLOAD IT routine, because it's old, pathetic, and just plain sad.

Samurizer said,

When you guys are done bashing him for the comparison because you can't refute the logic, you might want to try explaining exactly what's wrong with the analogy.

You won't understand till someone you know got raped and someone else you know had his/her stuff stolen.

You guys aren't humans. Simple.

coth said,

Sharing is natural. It's not considered to be crime by an absolute majority of the world. It's "illegal" in US only because greed fatasses who bought the law.

Since when? Oh yea, ever since the younger generation doesn't feel they need to pay for anything digital. And FYI. It's illegal not only in the U.S.

Lachlan said,

+1 totally agree with you .. lol they downloaded it , how are they potential clients..

I hate that arguement that people download it to test it out to go to the theaters.. just go on youtube and watch the trailers or read reviews.. Can anyone say that they have downloaded a movie and watched the first 10 minutes then decided to get in their car and go straight to the theatre and pay the 15 bucks to watch the rest on a bigger screen? not many people

Actuallyy......
My friend got Inception, and as we were watching it, I thought it was pretty good. So I suggested we go watch it at the theaters, my treat. And thus, we did. So there is that.

Suppose I'm one of the 'not many people,' though.

Solid Knight said,

I seriously doubt they'd get together and think up a movie that will bomb just so they might be able to make money via lawsuits after dumping more money into legal fees and anti-piracy agencies.

So naive it's even cute.

Samurizer said,

When you guys are done bashing him for the comparison because you can't refute the logic, you might want to try explaining exactly what's wrong with the analogy.

Comments that stupid do not deserve explanations. Obviously this guy is so stupid he wouldn't understand the arguement anyways.

StevenMalone77 said,

Comments that stupid do not deserve explanations. Obviously this guy is so stupid he wouldn't understand the arguement anyways.

Firstly, if you'd like to drop your maturity level by calling him stupid, why not try to spell "argument" properly? Those squiggly red lines under your words mean something.

Second, his point is valid, he's using the same reverse logic to explain rape that people are using to explain the lawsuit. If you can't see that (or don't understand what a literary hyperbole is), you might want to refrain from commenting.

still1 said,

are u freakin serious to compare this with rape.....
It really irritates me when people fail to see that it is not in any way "comparing" (equating in severity) the two specific examples used in an analogy, but rather pointing out a similarity in logical structure. This happens far too often and I cringe every time I see it.