The Expendables BitTorrent lawsuit dismissed

Last May the United States Copyright Group (USCG) filed a massive lawsuit against over 23,000 people, claiming that those users illegally downloaded the 2010 action movie The Expendables via BitTorrent sites. Now it looks like that case has in fact been dismissed by the USCG and Nu Image, the movie production company which funded the production of the Sylvester Stallone-Jason Statham retro 80s action flick.

According to Torrentfreak.com, the dismissal of the lawsuit was made voluntarily by both parties, but it wasn't exactly from the goodness of their hearts. Rather the companies were somewhat forced to change their strategy due to a court decision. In July, District Court Judge Robert Wilkins ruled that Nu Image could only file lawsuits against the IP owners who live in the District of Columbia. That naturally cut off nearly all of the other lawsuits filed in this case. Faced with that possibility the parties decided to cut their losses and dismiss the lawsuits, including those in the District of Columbia. However, as TechDirt points out, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, which means that the USCG and Nu Image could refile the lawsuits.

The 23,332 lawsuits filed in The Expendables case was quickly overshadowed a few days later in May when a similar lawsuit was filed with 24,583 BitTorrent users who allegedly download the Academy Award-winning film The Hurt Locker. That case is still pending although its possible that the judge in that case could make a similar ruling that limits how many people the movie studio can actually sue.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Motorola's Xoom tablet to get 4G LTE update in next week

Next Story

Halo Fest reveals new Halo Anniversary maps and more

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I was going to present myself to defend myself in this case Now what do I do with these plane tickets???

@ sava700 you should do what we now do go to the supermarket before hand as it used to cost $51+ ($15.50 ticket x2 + $10 each for snacks) for me and my partner now it's $40

AND ROFL @ USCG trying to sue the only people who actually felt the movie worth watching but not worth paying to see

I liked the movie..and look forward to a sequal. As for the lawsuit well it should have never happened to start with as there wasn't anything they could do to stop this type of file sharing.

My take on the whole thing is that all the lawsuits should be called "Sharing lawsuits" not "illegally download lawsuits" If you 'only' downloaded the content (not on a tracker, not seeing any pieces) such as download from Rapidshare or with Frostwire with all sharing options disabled, you could only be charged with theft of 'one' item and they don't go after these downloaders.

I wish the legal system and articles about piracy would explain that the real reason that the fines are so stiff for torrent use is because of the share factor or rather the 'making available' share factor; not the act of downloading the movie itself.

betax said,
I wish the legal system and articles about piracy would explain that the real reason that the fines are so stiff for torrent use is because of the share factor or rather the 'making available' share factor; not the act of downloading the movie itself.

what do you mean "'making available' share factor"?

Guyro said,

what do you mean "'making available' share factor"?

It has as of yet been very hard to prosecute for simply downloading the content. However the "act of sharing", ie seeding, uploading, etc. is where they get you. Unlawful distribution is where they hit the big money.

schubb2003 said,
seeding, uploading, etc. is where they get you. Unlawful distribution is where they hit the big money.

That's why I don't seed beyond my initial leech

dotf said,

That's why I don't seed beyond my initial leech

While you are downloading, you are also dynamically sharing 'pieces' of the content. So you still get slammed with sharing. And since you are also on the 'tracker' with these pieces.. even if no one actually downloads from you, you still are giving others the 'ability' to download from you... This is the nature of torrents.

Well I will say, that in some cases the illegal of sharing movies can actually generate profit.

I've paid to see Rise of the Planet of the Apes twice since seeing a camjob.

Maybe I'm alone, but I like to preview content to deem whether or not it's worthy of my discretionary income, and the trailers on itunes or commercials on tv just don't cut it sometimes.

dotf said,

I've paid to see Rise of the Planet of the Apes twice since seeing a camjob.

You deserve to be sued for watching a CAM copy of ANYTHING If you're gonna watch anything, watch a screener or TS copy, cam's suck so bad

SirEvan said,

You deserve to be sued for watching a CAM copy of ANYTHING If you're gonna watch anything, watch a screener or TS copy, cam's suck so bad

After years of being saturated by 720 & 1080p content, seeing anything in CAM makes my eyes want to jump out and stab the person responsible for such an atrocity.

SirEvan said,

You deserve to be sued for watching a CAM copy of ANYTHING If you're gonna watch anything, watch a screener or TS copy, cam's suck so bad


I cant watch CAMs or TSs anymore. And screeners only if its a DVD. I rather wait.

dotf said,
Well I will say, that in some cases the illegal of sharing movies can actually generate profit.

I've paid to see Rise of the Planet of the Apes twice since seeing a camjob.

Maybe I'm alone, but I like to preview content to deem whether or not it's worthy of my discretionary income, and the trailers on itunes or commercials on tv just don't cut it sometimes.

If i was your doctor i would have sued you about disrespecting your eyes by watching so low quality video material. You should have downloaded DVDrip, at least, but BDrip 720p would be the way to go.

This does not limit the number of people they can sue, it only means that they have to file in the appropriate districts for each of the defendants.

Still, this _is_ a plus since it will be more costly for the media companies and trade groups to file across multiple districts rather than in a single district.

Enron - that really has no bearing as the film indutry, being a private enterprise, can do as they please and if I choose I need not give them any money. Whereas the federal government takes my money automatically and thus is responsible to us all for what they do with it,

SSSikora said,
Enron - that really has no bearing as the film indutry, being a private enterprise, can do as they please and if I choose I need not give them any money. Whereas the federal government takes my money automatically and thus is responsible to us all for what they do with it,

Right, and I'm just saying I prefer not to give them any money.

I have no pity for the film industry. The exorbitant amounts of money they waste on production is about as bad, if not worse, than the US Government's handling of money.

Brian Miller said,
Should have been dismissed for being a bad movie, saying: "...it's not even worth the bandwidth to illegally download..."

agreed

Brian Miller said,
Should have been dismissed for being a bad movie, saying: "...it's not even worth the bandwidth to illegally download..."

hell, the ISP's should file a lawsuit against the users for disrespecting their bandwidth as it was a waste for The Expendables (i am a Stallone/Statham fan in general but that film was honestly weak) lol

Brian Miller said,
Should have been dismissed for being a bad movie, saying: "...it's not even worth the bandwidth to illegally download..."

Totally agree hahahah!