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


View more comments

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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*

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 :-)

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.

Commenting is disabled on this article.