text:
by Mike Masnick
Fri, May 28th 2010 11:17am
Filed Under:
copyright, hurt locker, lawsuits, nicolas chartier
voltage pictures
As was widely rumored and more or less confirmed by the rude email from Hurt Locker's producers, saying that anyone who thought this was a bad idea was a "moron" and a "thief," the producers of Hurt Locker have now officially started suing people, whom they accuse of sharing the movie online in an unauthorized manner. While the initial rumors said that there would be "tens of thousands" of lawsuits -- and some had predicted over 100,000 -- at least the initial burst is for 5,000 people. The actual complaint (pdf and also embedded below) has some fun claims about how a single copy being distributed destroys the whole market blah blah blah. That this point is disproved time and time again by box office results apparently doesn't matter:
Of course, this really has nothing to do with stopping unauthorized file sharing or the perceived harm of file sharing. This is entirely about trying to squeeze money out of people. Thomas Dunlap, the lawyer running this under the name US Copyright Group, isn't looking to take any of these lawsuits to court. The whole point is to find out who these people are and to send them legal nastygrams, that come very close to your garden variety extortion letter -- telling people that they'll drop the lawsuit if they just pay $1,500. It comes across as a classic "protection racket." "Pay up and you won't get hurt." Hopefully more ISPs stand up for their customers (and their own business interests) and don't just roll over. But, more importantly, hopefully the courts recognize how questionable this practice is and start blocking such a clear abuse of the court system. Over in the UK, lawyers have been disciplined for these sorts of stunts, and in France, some lawyers were barred from practice for six months after trying to do something similar. With any luck, US officials recognize that this is an abuse of the legal system and work quickly to block this practice.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Lucasfilm Steps In After FanFilm That Tried To Follow The Rules Was Claimed By Disney Over Star Wars Music
- EU Cancels 'Final' Negotiations On EU Copyright Directive As It Becomes Clear There Isn't Enough Support
- Record Labels, Film Studios, Tech Companies And The Public Now All Agreed That Article 13 Is A Disaster
- Copyright Troll Gets Smacked Around By Court, As Judge Wonders If Some Of Its Experts Even Exist
- Voltage Picture's Lawyer Sues Copyright Trolling Participants, Calls Lawsuits Unethical
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
a-dub (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 11:24amIs there a way to find out which ISP's provide this type of information and which ones protect their customers?
Steve, 10 Jun 2010 @ 10:28pm
Re:none of the isp's "protect" their customers. Some of them, like time-warner, just try to postpone handing out information because it would cost them too much time and resources.
whitebrow (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 11:33amJust curious, but how are they tracking down who downloaded the movie. I remember the riaa was following people on kazaa and limewire.
afaik, those two p2p methods are dead?
Chryss, 28 May 2010 @ 11:46am
Re:It's bit torrent this time.
Free Capitalist (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 12:02pm
Just curious, but how are they tracking down who downloaded the movie.
They do not track who downloads movies, as this is impossible. They track the IP addresses that appear> to be downloading potentially infringing material.
Unfortunately, the courts seem to be using IP address as a verifiable source of identity.
The sad fact remains that an IP address is nothing more than an assumable quantum state.
Craig (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 11:34am
Good movieI highly recommend the movie...it's really good, and I didn't even see it in a theatre. Go, get the movie...now! You won't regret it.
Re: Good movieGreat movie, borrowed a a copy from my friend. I was going to purchase it until the asshole producer started this shit; now I'm boycotting.
correction, 28 May 2010 @ 11:46am
Re: Re: Good movieYou were never really going to buy the movie you cheap uck...
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 11:48am
Re: Re: Re: Good movie^ citation please?
Re: Re: Re: Good movieUmm, yes I was. I have a 300+ DVD collection and it was a great movie. I actually like owning DVDs and this one came with some decent special features. Now the producer lost my purchase because he was being a dick, and I bet he'll loose many more sales because of his attitude than he would have because of torrents.
TO ESAHC, 28 May 2010 @ 12:15pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie99% of the public doesn't know what a torrent is! They won't lose many sales because of the lawsuit. The only people they are pissing off are the type of people on this forum that download/STEAL the movie!
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:26pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movieIf only you had any evidence to back up your silly claims.
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 12:26pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movieYou and the producers keep thinking that. Just remember this "99% of the public doesn't know what a torrent is!" when sales start dropping off.
Carl, 28 May 2010 @ 12:46pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movieIf 99% of the people don't know what a torrent is, then what does the producer have to worry about?
Producers assistant, 28 May 2010 @ 1:12pm
Re: Good movieThey're not worried, definitely looking for free extra money with the extortion lawsuits. All the money from the sales, PLUS lawsuit money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movielol, you keep believing that.
Simon, 28 May 2010 @ 12:43pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movieWooooah! Hang on there - this is big news! Someone stole the movie? They took the film/tapes/disks (or however they're stored these days) from the film company? No wonder they're pissed.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:50pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movie99% of the public? Are you high? If only 3.3 million people in the States use torrents and assume that 10% of that figure use torrents for LEGAL material then you're looking at 3 million people in the states who may download material in an illegal manner.
Wow. 3 million people. Oh wait! Not everyone in the States has an internet connection so it's less than 3 million people.
I bet half of those are children too.
Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2010 @ 5:16pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good moviepeople on this forum
on this forum
this forum
6/10 troll.
beright, 24 Jun 2010 @ 1:17am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movieYes.It is illegal.So is speeding,that kills thousands of people every day around the world.So forgive me if I don't cry for these people who make more money in one month than 99% of people in a lifetime.But obviously they need twenty cars and at least 3 mansions around the world.Somehow I don't think they will pay that extortion money to some carpenter on the movie set.
gorehound (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 6:32am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good movieI used to buy movies from Hollywood but they want to make war on all of us so I am not ever buying a new film from any corporate entity.And I mena ever.i can always go buy a used and guaranteed to work DVD/Blu-ray and then I get my flick and the jerks of MPAA get nothing.
And I can rip it any way I want to.
Gary, 28 May 2010 @ 11:49am
Re: Good movieSorry, I'll never watch this film.
Even if it were the best movie that has ever been made, I'd still avoid watching it... even for free.
I refuse to give any manner of support to Nicolas Chartier, so I'm boycotting any project he is involved with.
Gary the idiot..., 28 May 2010 @ 12:23pm
Re: Re: Good movieSo you will skip seeing all the best movies to prove a point that doesn't matter? Life's too short, you should try to live it you dumbass....
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 12:28pm
Re: Re: Re: Good movie"you should try to live it"
By watching a move (a bad one at that)? If that's what you call living, then I'll stick to my non-life.
NullOp, 28 May 2010 @ 11:52am
Hurt LockerHey, I bought my copy! You should too!
JakeH, 28 May 2010 @ 8:10pm
Re: Hurt LockerWell, that is a movie I will never watch or promote now.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 11:57am"That this point is disproved time and time again by box office results apparently doesn't matter"
All BOR seems to prove to me is that a bunch of people went to see a movie in a theater. I do not see how this in any way shows that unauthorized downloading/uploading does not impact BOR.
Re:As file sharing increased, box office receipts also increased.
It shows, at the very least, that file sharing does not impact the box office in a significantly negative way. It suggests that increased file sharing may actually help box office receipts.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:13pm
Re: Re:BOR seems to me to bear no relationship to whether or not a movie was helped or hurt. It is merely a number.
Maybe some P2P users did go to see it after watching a copy at home, but then again maybe some did not. There is no way of determining if P2P helped or hurt since there is no way to determine how many may have gone or not gone to a theater because of P2P.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:31pm
Re: Re: Re:Then perhaps people shouldn't be making doom and gloom claims about its effect until they actually have evidence to back up those claims.
But then the extortion rackets wouldn't be able to make as much money, and lawyers would have to find better ways to siphon money.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:52pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:If only shooting healthy lawyers cured sick kids.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:04pm
Re:If the claim is that file sharing is destroying the market, and the market is still doing just fine, the claim is false.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:18pm
Re: Re:The claim here is not that an industry is being destroyed, but that a single movie is being effected.
As a side note, it is interesting that the suit was filed in DC...not exactly the location one would ordinarily expect for one involving a movie.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:20pm
Re: Re: Re:Except of course that it is a claim based on no evidence whatsoever. The only data available is that the movie was successful regardless.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:22pm
Re: Re: Re: Re:I recommend that you read the complaint.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:28pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:I did. I recommend that you provide any data that connects file sharing to an "effect" on the movie.
Except there isn't any. Try again next time.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:38pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Well, then perhaps you should also read the FRCP as it pertains to the sufficiency of complaints.
I am not expressing any opinion on the wisdom, or the lack thereof, concerning the lawsuit. I am merely noting that BOR proves nothing as some would have you believe.
As yet another side note, the law firm pursuing this lawsuit on behalf of the rights holder is about 12 short of a dozen. See copyrightsandcampaigns site to understand what I mean.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:45pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:And, again, you still have yet to point out any evidence that makes the claim of an effect on the movie anything other than false.
Ryan, 28 May 2010 @ 12:08pm
Re:While yes, it is true that correlation != causation, if the two factors do not even show correlation then you better find some damn good evidence for a causal relationship.
Do you have some reason to believe that file sharing detrimentally affects box office revenue despite increased file sharing rates and increased box office revenue occurring simultaneously?
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 2:44pm
Re: Re:the standard answers are this:
actual boxoffices sales are up dollar wise, but not as much seatwise. this is due to increased ticket prices, specifically for things like 3d and imax movies. the actual ticket sales are not increasing.
further, as the us population increases, all things being kept equal, ticket sales should go up by proportion. that isnt happening. we wont even discuss inflation and its effects.
further, as mike as pointed out here before, the number of movies being commercially released in some form or another has doubled, and yet income has shifted only a couple of percentage points. the take home per movie is way down on average. again, all things being equal, there should be tons more reason for people to go to the movies, and they are not doing so.
finally, you also have to look at the full chain / windows of sale to understand the effects. loss of dvd retail sales, lower buy rates on ppv, and so on are signs of slipping retail consumer activity. yet, pretty much everyone has seen the major movies. i wonder how that happens?
it is difficult to find solid hard link cause and effect because we are dealing with systems in motion. but it is clear that millions of people are getting their entertainment without paying, and there is no way that this doesnt have some effect, somewhere.
Dude, 28 May 2010 @ 12:55pm
Re:The fact that over the last few years, the MPAA has reported record box office numbers does not give much credibility to the statement the online filesharing is hurting the movie business. It would appear as though it has no negative effect, although it is impossible to definitively prove either way.
jsl4980 (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 11:58am
How is this legal?How is this practice legal in the US? This sounds like mafia-style extortion. I wonder if reporting these activities to the FBI or other law enforcement could help put these lawyers behind bars, or at the very least lose their jobs.
wallow-T, 28 May 2010 @ 12:04pmI saw "The Hurt Locker" in its very brief first theatrical run -- I drove 50 miles roundtrip to get to the theater that was showing it. Now these new developments just leave a bad taste in my mouth and I'll be planning to avoid any future projects from this production team.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 12:06pmUnlike the situation in the UK where individual users were alleged to have each downloaded/uploaded numerous works, here we have a single work...the movie.
Sean T Henry (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 12:08pmIts funny how in part 3 they seem to ignore that the upload speed can be set to 0k so then no data is being sent so every downloader is not an uploader.
TPBer, 28 May 2010 @ 12:11pm
Not worth..the hard drive space. Movie sux. I wish I could get on of those letters, I would republish all over the net so all could see the ridiculous extortion tactics. They cannot make you pay and they will never take you to court on this flimsy IP nonsense.
I'm using your IP now:).
cynumber9 (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 12:23pmlooks like we'll just have to boycott any movie from Voltage Pictures, LLC.
scared to say, hurt locker people scare me, 28 May 2010 @ 12:25pmWell, commencement of my dollars going to other prod companies now begins.
Curious, 28 May 2010 @ 12:50pm
IPJust curious..
I have a DHCP ip as opposed to a Static ip,
ive had this vaguely described to me and i just want to clarify with someone that knows..
I was told that after power cycling my modem for 30 seconds i would receive a alternate ip address
If this is true, which as far as i can tell from hosting an online game, when i access www.whatismyip.com is gives me a different ip after the power cycle.
Would this in anyway help to "hide" my identity if i decided to acquire online content
Jon B., 28 May 2010 @ 1:00pm
Re: IPIt's POSSIBLE that the ISP has a log of what IP address you have and when. So, if a third party has enough information to ask who had IP '18.104.22.168' at 2010-05-28 14:57:32, and the ISP is willing to give that information, then you can be identified.
You could choose to direct your traffic through a third-party proxy server, where whatismyip.com would just show the proxy server's IP. Then, you would be as private as the proxy server's level of logging and willingness to cooperate with whoever may ask.
Justin Pennington, 28 May 2010 @ 1:03pm
Re: IP@curious
While you are correct in that it will give you a new address in your situation, the ISP still knows what IP address was assigned to what person at what time. So if you download a movie from 3:05p to 3:20p, then change addresses at 3:30p when the copyright right inquires with the ISP they will just say who had this IP at 3:15p and they will know it was you.
TPBer, 28 May 2010 @ 1:28pm
Re: Re: IPNo Justin , not what person but which router that possibly 100s of people were attached to at a specific point in time. Your assumption is that of a noob. Do a little research before spewing bullshit out here. There is no way to tell which person used any IP at any time, moron.
Do you work for the RIAA, your misinformation points that way.
IshmaelDS (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 1:48pm
Re: Re: Re: IPWow, you need to calm down a bit, while you are correct from a technical standpoint, Justin appears to me to be just trying to help, not to mention from a legal standpoint I believe that the law would agree with Justin. As unless you can prove that you are an ISP you are legally responsible for what happens over your internet connection.
TPBer, 28 May 2010 @ 1:58pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: IPThis is a technical subject and semantics matter. The law is absolutely retarded on this subject, trying to help means nothing if the statement is completely wrong. I can log on to any number of closed wifi connex and I would technically be reged under their IP, they have no way of knowing. Now what was the point of your comment other than nothing.
IshmaelDS (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 2:03pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPThe point of the comment is that your wrong, this is both a technical and legal subject. You thinking that the law is "absolutlely retarded" doesn't mean that the law doesn't figure into the equation.
You can log into any number of wifi connections and be registered as their IP, agreed. The problem is that if they know it or not they are legally responsible for the activities that you do while on their connection. I disagree with this law but the unfortunate fact is that it is currently the law.
TPBer, 28 May 2010 @ 2:08pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPIt's totally unenforceable, the problem everybody caves like a bunch of little girls. The point is you do not have to answer or acknowledge those ridiculous letters. They do not have a leg stand on.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 9:59pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPIncorrect. While questionable the letter is intended to form a pre-action notification and you are best supported by answering in the format recommended by your jurisdictions pre-trial protocols. That said it may/will never go to trial - but you should not just ignore the letter. IANAL.
See here for an awesome guide to this: http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/resources/The-Speculative-Invoicing-Handbook.pdf
MadderMak (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 10:01pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPSorry that AC was me - forgot to sign in
TPBer, 28 May 2010 @ 2:10pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IPAnother point is that with the torrents you only have bits at any one time during the DL. There is no whole piece of infringing content until it's completed. There is not law against DL bits.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 2:39pm
Re: IP>Curious
No it doesn't. While it's different, your ISP logs both what your IP is and when you have it. So they can check their logs and see that while you don't have xxx.xxx.xxx now, you did four weeks ago. And that's how you'll get pegged. Fortunately, after 90 days or so (changed with the provider) those logs are wiped.
blah blah, 28 May 2010 @ 6:53pm
Re: IPNo. The ISP knows who had what IP address at what time. In layman's terms. Each IP is kept in a data base with physical account holder information correlation.
The ISP can tell which physical address and account holder was routed that IP at what date and time. This was originally set up to protect against real life threats, and system abuse.
The argument of "Someone stole my IP" - It's much harder to spoof a valid IP than what these script kiddies think. The NOC has valid checks in place. An individual capable of correctly spoofing an IP address, would not use this to commit copyright infringement. Think higher along the lines of international and industrial espionage. If a subpoena is submitted, and an IP and account holder are returned, it IS near impossible to prove invalid.
"Someone hacked my wireless" does not fly either.
You have just breached your TOS with the ISP. Which IS a valid fine for unlawfully distributing services. If the **AA's dont' get you, the ISP will. It's your responsibility to successfully, and safely operate your network. Looking for excuses to pass the buck only proves you're guilty.
The best way not to get caught, is to not do something illegal. Does not matter if you agree with the law, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Citation -
Level III NOC employee.
ninja4hire (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 9:14am
Re: Re: IPReasonable doubt. Google it. Many network based exploits are hard to to initiate but the fact they exist make it a possibility. You must be a noob NOC tech if you think only a super spy is capable of hacking an ISP's router and controlling the routing of a block of IP addresses. How do you think hackers/bots/etc.. hide their tracks?? Just because you think "your" network is secure doesn't mean the upstream provider's network is.
I am level XXXIII Noc tech at super ISP
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 12:26am
Re: Re: Re: IPFYI, "reasonable doubt" is a legal concept totally inapplicable to civil copyright infringement claims.
Jerry, 28 May 2010 @ 1:00pm
DMCA ComplaintsWell, the complaint is interesting. Do you think the court will now issue 5000 subpoenas? I'd hate to have to do 5000 whois lookups and try to get the subpoenas to each of the ISP's providing the service. From the ISP's perspective, a properly executed subpoena for customer information can't be ignored. However, like Time Warner, an ISP could claim the burden of lookups to be overwhelming. Here's a link to that story http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/timewarner-subscriber/
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 1:03pmThis movie was absolutely awful.
Curious, 28 May 2010 @ 1:11pm
IP@Jon B.
@Justin Pennington
Tyvm for the helpful info guys, much appreciated
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 1:24pm"It comes across as a classic "protection racket." "Pay up and you won't get hurt."" - this is one incredibly false statement, trying to make this look like some sort of mafia shake down of the innocent.
the people downloaded the movie. they may be peering it to others. they are not innocent. this is another classic techdirt reach, not shocking to see it on here on a friday!
Nastybutler77 (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 4:01pm
Re:"the people downloaded the movie. they may be peering it to others. they are not innocent."
Gee that's funny, I thought people accused in the US were innocent until proven guilty? I guess you don't know the law as well as you claim to. And what little evidence there is (IP addresses) is no guarantee that the person who is being sued is the same person that did the downloading. How about you stop lying and spreading BS around, m'kay?
Another classic TAM reach, not shocking to see on a day that ends in 'Y.'
Sam I Am, 28 May 2010 @ 1:35pm
IANALGeeze Mike, I generally agree with you on much of your perspective but on this one you are way off. A classic extortion letter "pay up and nobody gets hurt" is delivered to someone whose total contribution to the situation is their mere existence. The perceived/mock offense is specious, it doesn't exist; it's the muscle behind the threat that gives it credibility, not some sense that someone actually did something unlawful.
Unauthorized copying and distributing of a copyrighted product is unlawful, an inconvenient detail you had to skip over entirely to create this post.
It may be helpful, it may be promotion, it may actually drive the bottom line, but the only pertinent fact here for the Hurt Locker producers is that they are acting on an actionable offense. If they have one case of it, they have one case. If they have evidence of 100,000 cases they have 100,000 potential cases. In a court that is (and should be) the beginning and the end of it. Ancillary, incidental, beneficial (questionable) effect is utterly beside the point, and of course you know that. Without an initial, contributory unlawful act there is no actionable transgression and consequently no possible letter of "extortion." Simple.
But even more off balance, you suggest this is an abuse that US officials should act to curtail. Really? Do you really want to advocate that the most basic right to redress in a court of law for an unlawful act be taken off the table for everyone just because you prefer to be indifferent to some laws and instead focus on a grey area that you create out of thin air with your rhetoric?
IshmaelDS (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 1:52pm
Re: IANALI agree with mike as the fact is alot of these letters end up going to people that have no idea what a torrent file is, they also unfortunatly don't have any idea how to secure a wireless connection, or have grandkids, or insert any number of other issues. They also don't have the money to fight a corporation in these situations so unless the Hurt locker guys can get some kind of concrete evidence that the people that pay the bills for the internet connections that are identified are actually the ones that downloaded the movie I think this needs to stop.
Everything In Moderation, 28 May 2010 @ 1:52pm
Re: IANALThat would be true if it were a cut and dry "actionable offense". There is absolutely zero reason why an IP address should be considered equivalent to a unique identity that can be used to attribute blame, fault, or anything onto someone.
Furthermore, in this case, there is really no way for anyone accused to obtain any information from the ISP about how and where the IP address are assigned, collected, stored, ect. There are highly complicated automated systems that are prone to error and exploitation.
This where the problem lies. If a mistake was made, and you are innocent, the process of defending yourself will, in the case of a federal lawsuit, do you more damage both financially and in the amount of time spent, than would simply paying the money.
The accused have basically no way to make a case to defend them-self and even if they were able to, it would likely cost more than just paying.
I leave you exhibit A:
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 2:01pm
Re: Re: IANAL"There is absolutely zero reason why an IP address should be considered equivalent to a unique identity that can be used to attribute blame, fault, or anything onto someone." - sorry, but you are wrong here. the isp knows exactly which user id was logged into which ip at which time. the mac address and such is also recorded. if the end use decides to give others access to the internet through their connection, it isnt any different from allowing people to use your phone for long distance. no matter how you slither, you are responsible for the bill. basic securing of a wireless is a very simple process, takes seconds. most isps who use integrated modem / router / wireless units are pre-setting the wireless to be secure. if the end user in their home cannot control their own connection, then they have issues.
hackinwifiallovertown, 28 May 2010 @ 2:19pm
Re: Re: Re: IANALLaugh...i can hack most wep or wpa encrypted wifi connections in less time that it takes the average user to even set it up and you'd never be the wiser unless you sit and monitor your router with SNMP all day long which most routers provided by ISP's dont have enabled and neither do most routers you buy off the shelve at bestbuy. The only time ive ever seen SNMP on a router is with a hacked firmware installed to a WRT54G (ddrt).
ninja4hire (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 2:20pm
Re: Re: Re: IANALYou don't log in to an IP. That doesn't make any sense.
Your modem is assigned a DHCP address based on its MAC address, which can be easily forged or spoofed. And so can IP addresses. How do you know a hacker hasn't compromised an ISP's edge router somewhere and has hijacked your IP address?? Or that the kid across the street hasn't cracked your WEP or WPA protected wifi?? Too many ifs to bring someone to court.
Bottom line is they would need more then an IP address. Show me the packet captures of the "alleged" copyrighted material that was downloaded to my ip address.
hackinwifiallovertown, 28 May 2010 @ 2:25pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: IANALYEP! Hell i remember when comcast's modems were so jacked up that you had to clone the modems mac address to the router in order for it to work...real secure there.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 2:49pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: IANALtech 101. you can fake the mac address (reprogramming on some devices) but in the end, your user name signed in / logged on, and that mac address, username, and assigned IP were all connected together. if you change your mac address, you will lose the IP address, and have to reconnect (which re-logs you into the ISPs system).
if someone is hacking my connection, that is my problem, not the movie producers, and not the ISPs. if you are going to go to that extreme to download something, dont you think you are pretty much a lawbreaking asshole at some point?
hackinwifiallovertown, 28 May 2010 @ 4:58pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IANALlaugh...tech 101: Your user account has nothing to do with your modem. Your user account is linked to your account in the same way the mac address of the modem is linked to your account. User accounts are not logged in or out at the modem, its either connected or not because the mac address of the modem is permitted to connect or its not. If you change your mac address of the modem, it will indeed disconnect and you will have to call and get the modem reprovisioned in their system ie: THE MAC ADDRESS ADDED TO THE ALLOWED POOL. Just quit trying to troll and go back to 4chan idiot.
MadderMak (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 10:09pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IANALmaybe in your neck of the woods.
Ever consider here in AUS it is the phone service and user name NOT the MAC?
I can use any modem on my line... but not on another line regardless of user/mac.
so maybe tone it down a bit mate - your opinionated fangs are showing :)
Disclaimer: I am a Lv3 NOC tech.
MadderMak (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 10:06pm
Re: Re: Re: IANALBut it is not the ISP seeking redress - it is the producer who says "you did it" when they should say "who did it?".
Sharing your connection may violate the TOS and involve contract law (with your ISP) but it is not equal to direct copyright infringement with a 3rd party.
Tha'ts why just an IP cannot identify an infringer with absolute certainty.
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 2:56pm
Re: IANALGeeze Mike, I generally agree with you on much of your perspective
Really? Sam, I've never seen you post anything in agreement with me. You seem to always take the pro-stronger copyright position.
A classic extortion letter "pay up and nobody gets hurt" is delivered to someone whose total contribution to the situation is their mere existence. The perceived/mock offense is specious, it doesn't exist; it's the muscle behind the threat that gives it credibility, not some sense that someone actually did something unlawful.
And you don't think that in this process many innocent people will receive this threat letter? We've already seen with the RIAA cases and with the European ACS:Law cases that many innocent users get snared with these letters.
Unauthorized copying and distributing of a copyrighted product is unlawful, an inconvenient detail you had to skip over entirely to create this post.
Indeed. But the question is the actual impact of it, and the reasonableness of suing people for wanting to watch your movie. Considering the likely backlash for this move, it's going to cost the production company a lot more than they gain by shaking people down.
It may be helpful, it may be promotion, it may actually drive the bottom line, but the only pertinent fact here for the Hurt Locker producers is that they are acting on an actionable offense
Doing so grossly out of proportion to any "damage" done. That's the problem.
If they have one case of it, they have one case. If they have evidence of 100,000 cases they have 100,000 potential cases.
If they have evidence of 100,000 cases, then their problem is not with those people, but that they're clearly doing business badly. That's the only reason why so many people would defy your business model options.
But even more off balance, you suggest this is an abuse that US officials should act to curtail. Really? Do you really want to advocate that the most basic right to redress in a court of law for an unlawful act be taken off the table for everyone just because you prefer to be indifferent to some laws and instead focus on a grey area that you create out of thin air with your rhetoric?
When that redress is done in this manner (something you ignore) that is grossly out of proportion to the issue, and done in a way that will likely get many people to pay up without a good legal basis, then, yes, I do believe that is entirely reasonable.
In fact, I find it disturbing that anyone would think this is a reasonable response.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 4:07pm
Re: Re: IANALyou forgot to use "you lie" and while you find it disturbing, you dont yet find it troubling. have you been replaced by a bot?
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 8:15pm
Re: Re: IANALWe've already seen with the RIAA cases and with the European ACS:Law cases that many innocent users get snared with these letters.
Oh come on, Mike. Get real. That laserjet was guilty and you know it!
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 1:48pm
Never saw it never willWith stupid tricks like this I will make sure to never see this film - ever.
Chris Mikaitis (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 2:15pm
The worst is yet to come...The terrible part about this whole thing is that anyone who settles through ignorance, fear, or otherwise will now be on a list of 'people who have settled an infringement claim'. This list could easily then be sold to other copyright holders, matched to IP addresses, and now we have a list of 'suckers'.
People might argue that the first offense would convince them to not download illegally again, but that's the problem. This opens the door to other claims with less of a burden of proof. There is now precedent to charge these folks for anything unintentionally downloaded (or watched). I could see them being sued for watching an SNL clip on Youtube (which they didn't necessarily watch or share, but perhaps stumbled upon), with precedent given to the fact that they 'regularly' download (receive) illegal content.... seems like a problem...
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 2:39pmHurt locker litigation.
This was posted on another website, and this should be made clear to ANYONE who receives an extortion letter from Voltage for their Hurt Locker litigation scheme...
IF YOU or anyone you know receives a subpoena from Voltage Films, contact the US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
AND FIND A DEFENSE ATTORNEY willing to LODGE a CLASS-ACTION Law-suit at Voltage Films for invasion of privacy and UNLAWFUL accusations.
The Film THE HURT LOCKER isn't being re-distributed, only "random" binary bits of numbers are being passed from computer to computer.
Merely obtaining an ISP address and an IP address IS NOT SUFFICIENT evidence to accuse someone of committing copyright infringement;
ANY individual can access ANY OTHER individual's computer and commit a crime.
Voltage and other Entertainment Industry Companies are FRIGHTENING private citizens into settling these unfounded lawsuits outside of court.
Strength comes in numbers: the Entertainment Companies wrongly accuse innocent citizens of copyright infringement and scare the citizens into settling a lawsuit without the private citizen CHALLENGING them in court.
For instance: a Grandfather paid a Record Company $5000 because The Grandfather was AFRAID to challenge the Record Company in their claim that his grand-daughter downloaded music to His personal computer!
THE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT should be notified of these unscrupulous tactits of record and movie company's to SCARE (extort) private individuals to settle out of court without having a FAIR TRIAL.
See, Big Business' WEAPON is to Sue individuals who are unaware of other individuals receiving the same law-suit.
Its a scam: Entertainment Companies "Catch" private individuals who may or may not be guilty of copyright infringement and make them pay money without a trial--essentially, Big Businesses divide private citizens and conquer them via EXTORTION (scaring them into paying to avoid further cost of a trial).
Those who are accused by Entertainment Companies MUST POOL THEIR RESOURCES together to COUNTER-SUE the "bullying" companies like Voltage Films in this case.
Simply obtaining someone's ISP information IS NOT ENOUGH evidence to PROVE any one particular individual committed a crime.
Playfully all defendants will file a CLASS ACTION COUNTER- SUIT against VOLTAGE for ILLEGAL INVASION OF PRIVACY.
Anyone can sit at anyone else's computer and click on "buttons."
AN ISP or even an IP address is not enough evidence to determine who is guilty of distributing copyrighted material.
The FILM THE HURT LOCKER is copyrighted . . . only Binary numbers are being traded.
There is No Evidence that the actual FILM or digital recording of The hurt Locker has been distributed.
The Goal: if you are handed a subpoena alleging you committed copyright infringement, IMMEDIATELY contact other people who've received similar subpoenas . . .
Try to BANKRUPT VOLTAGE PICTURES via a series of Class-Action Counter-suits claiming false accusation and invasion of privacy as grounds for your COLLECTIVE legal counter-suits of VOLTAGE FILMS .
Nick Berry
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 2:50pm
Re:class action will not work, sorry. each case of copyright violation is a valid individual standing case. there is no way to certify a class of "people who didnt do anything but still got a letter".
it is a nice idea from some dimestore internet lawyer wannabe, but in the end, doesnt appear to hold water. please learn more about class action before you repost crap like this again.
Nastybutler77 (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 4:11pm
Re: Re:"please learn more about class action before you repost crap like this again."
This from the moron who doesn't seem to realize that accused people are innocent until proven guilty.
"the people downloaded the movie. they may be peering it to others. they are not innocent."
Pot meet kettle.
Phoenix, 28 May 2010 @ 2:56pm
Open and Shut"13. The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the plaintiff."
Yep, that about sums it up. In other words, "What we have here, is a total lack of respect for the law." ;)
MadderMak (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 10:12pm
Re: Open and Shutno... for the Plaintiff.
I for one repect the law - those who make it is another matter :)
Phoeniz, 28 May 2010 @ 3:02pm
Only 5000?Only 5000 lawsuits launched? I guess the process is still in Beta.
Phillip Vector (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 3:16pm
ExtortionI am curious. How does this differ from actual extortion (if at all)? Why can't the people who got letters sue for extortion?
Phillip Vector (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 3:17pm
Re: ExtortionI did find this.. But this seems to put it clearly into illegal activity to the letter senders...
The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 4:01pm
Re: ExtortionI am curious. How does this differ from actual extortion (if at all)? Why can't the people who got letters sue for extortion?
Well, the argument is that traditional extortion doesn't involve the victim having done anything illegal. So it's something like "pay up or someone might smash up your store."
So, the argument goes, this isn't extortion because the person may have actually done something illegal (i.e., copyright infringement), and thus, saying "pay up or else we'll sue" is not technically extortion, because the "pay up or else we sue" is over an actual illegal activity.
I'm not convinced that distinction is really that meaningful, especially in situation like this, where the activity is so prevalent, and the potential damages are so great and out of proportion to the activity.
However, courts haven't always agreed.
Phillip Vector (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 4:08pm
Re: Re: ExtortionWell, how does it differ from blackmail then? Same line of reasoning?
I mean, if I tell someone, "Pay me or else I will tell the cops what you did"... That is blackmail. Isn't it?
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 6:09pm
Re: Re: Re: ExtortionI mean, if I tell someone, "Pay me or else I will tell the cops what you did"... That is blackmail. Isn't it?
Indeed, but this is slightly different in that it's not about not telling (i.e., keeping you safe from criminal prosecution). This is about avoiding filing a civil suit... So, still slightly different.
Re: Re: Re: Re: ExtortionOkay, but they haven't actually proved that you did anything illegal. So isn't this kind of like accusing somebody of sexual harassment and saying you'll sue them if they don't pay up, knowing that they might rather pay to avoid the reputation damage even if they know they're innocent?
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 4:11pm
Re: Re: Extortioncourts? common sense doesnt agree. the distinction is incredibly meaningful. extortion is about a threat of violence or loss for no reason. a legal letter allowing for a settlement before a court case is a very different kettle of fish. when you say you cant see a meaningful difference, i have to wonder what else you dont consider meaningful in your other arguments on the blog. this is a pretty simple deal, you used incredible amounts of hyperbole to claim something is extortion (when it is not), and you cannot see the difference? wow. i think the guru needs to get his moral compass adjusted.
Phoenix, 28 May 2010 @ 4:32pm
Re: Re: Extortion"So, the argument goes, this isn't extortion because the person may have actually done something illegal (i.e., copyright infringement), and thus, saying "pay up or else we'll sue" is not technically extortion, because the "pay up or else we sue" is over an actual illegal activity."
Good answer. It worries me that someone would not understand this without it being explained to them.
"I'm not convinced that distinction is really that meaningful, especially in situation like this, where the activity is so prevalent, and the potential damages are so great and out of proportion to the activity."
Uh oh, wrong answer. I think your (and others') ambivalence towards the law contributes to the problem. My perspective is that the usual $1500 settlement offer is a reasonable penalty/deterrent. It hurts but it isn't going to wreck anyone's life. I'm sure Jammie Thomas would jump at such an offer now. If people resist settling because they object to the action, they do so at their own peril, just like when they downloaded the movie and made it available to torrents in the first place. Remember, "13. The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the plaintiff." I don't think you can argue this point.
Will a couple of innocent people be caught in the net? Maybe. I'd like to hope not based on the granularity of data that can be provided to the plaintiffs, but mistakes happen. There have been a few visible mistakes made in the past, but to the best of my knowledge most were resolved, although I haven't done a lot of research on that point. The vast majority of people caught in the net will be guilty, of that I have no doubt.
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 6:15pm
Re: Re: Re: ExtortionUh oh, wrong answer.
Expressing an opinion based on fact cannot be "wrong." You can disagree, but it cannot be wrong.
I think your (and others') ambivalence towards the law contributes to the problem. My perspective is that the usual $1500 settlement offer is a reasonable penalty/deterrent.
Ok. Using your language choices: "wrong answer." Given the nature of the infringement here, $1500 is a huge amount for an activity that many engage in, which hasn't been shown to cause any direct harm -- and which is done by many people who never would have paid in the first place.
It hurts but it isn't going to wreck anyone's life
Why does such an action deserve someone to be "hurt"?
I'm sure Jammie Thomas would jump at such an offer now.
Except she's already turned down a much lower settlement offer from the RIAA. She's fighting this based on principle (I think she's wrong to fight it on principle, because she's not going to win), but she's made it clear she won't settle for any amount.
If people resist settling because they object to the action, they do so at their own peril, just like when they downloaded the movie and made it available to torrents in the first place.
Indeed, but you're ignoring the larger question of whether or not this action is fair or proportionate.
How would you feel if you got one of those letters despite not having downloaded the film?
Remember, "13. The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the plaintiff." I don't think you can argue this point.
Um. Sure, you can argue that point.
Will a couple of innocent people be caught in the net? Maybe. I'd like to hope not based on the granularity of data that can be provided to the plaintiffs, but mistakes happen.
Granularity of the data? IP addresses? Really?
There have been a few visible mistakes made in the past, but to the best of my knowledge most were resolved, although I haven't done a lot of research on that point. The vast majority of people caught in the net will be guilty, of that I have no doubt.
Nice that you don't believe in the great American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Funny that you seem to be a big stickler for other US laws... but that one you can take a pass on.
Says a lot.
Phoenix, 29 May 2010 @ 1:31am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion"Expressing an opinion based on fact cannot be "wrong." You can disagree, but it cannot be wrong."
It can be wrong, in my opinion. If you disagree, so be it.
"Ok. Using your language choices: "wrong answer." Given the nature of the infringement here, $1500 is a huge amount for an activity that many engage in, which hasn't been shown to cause any direct harm -- and which is done by many people who never would have paid in the first place."
The fact that many people engage in this illegal activity doesn't legitimize it. In fact, it makes the $1500 settlement offer seem even more reasonable to me. The amount of harm to the plaintiff is nothing more than your opinion as a blogger unless and until it is accepted by a court.
Indeed, but you're ignoring the larger question of whether or not this action is fair or proportionate.
How would you feel if you got one of those letters despite not having downloaded the film?
I think the action is both fair and proportionate. If I received one of those letters and I hadn't downloaded the film, I would contact the legal firm and resolve it.
Remember, "13. The foregoing acts of infringement have been willful, intentional, and in disregard of and with indifference to the rights of the plaintiff." I don't think you can argue this point.
Um. Sure, you can argue that point.
No, I don't argue that point, I assert it because there is no other credible position, and I think it's one of the most important points in the dialog.
Will a couple of innocent people be caught in the net? Maybe. I'd like to hope not based on the granularity of data that can be provided to the plaintiffs, but mistakes happen.
Granularity of the data? IP addresses? Really?
If you think IP address is the granularity being used, you're naive. It's IP address + MAC ID + Userid at a minimum. There is also traffic pattern data that is being used.
Nice that you don't believe in the great American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Funny that you seem to be a big stickler for other US laws... but that one you can take a pass on.
Says a lot.
Now you're making things up. You're a liar, Mike. I do believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty (it isn't a law) and I have never said otherwise, so you're a liar. I have only said that my opinion is that the vast majority of those who will receive letters are guilty. In fact, I estimate that if mistakes are made, it will amount to no more than 5 out of 5000 people and the mistakes will be easily resolved.
Modplan (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 3:59am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ExtortionYou quite clearly stated that " The vast majority of people caught in the net will be guilty, of that I have no doubt."
So no, he's not making things up.
Nastybutler77 (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 10:42am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion"and the mistakes will be easily resolved."
And you base this on what?
Nastybutler77 (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 3:00pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ExtortionThat should have been a reply to Phoenix, not Modplan... Hit the wrong reply button, dammit.
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 12:18am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Extortion"$1500 is a huge amount for an activity that many engage in"
But Mom, EVERYBODY'S DOING IT!
jupiterkansas (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 3:50pm
about that award...One of the ironies here is that Hurt Locker only got its Academy Award by giving out FREE screeners to all of the Academy members. People weren't going to see the film in theatres just like all the other Iraq war movies. Hollywood just really wants to feel like it has something to say about this war, and Hurt Locker was a good candidate, but Hollywood's too rich and corporate driven to actually tackle anything important. There were a dozen better films last year, including A Serious Man, Inglourious Basterds, and Moon.
We seriously need some copyright reform in America.
Santa Claus, 28 May 2010 @ 4:53pm
So how does this workOkay, so before I start, disclaimer: I didn't download the movie, but several of my friends in college downloaded the 720p version, back in November 2009 (so, after the theatrical release, but long before the DVD/BluRay copies came out).
I've been reading about the recent Time Warner response to the Ewe Boll FarCry lawsuits, where they stated that they (TW) only kept IP records for ~6 months at the max. I'm sure this is the upper limit for most ISP's...most tend to be around 90 days or so.
Therefore, how exactly are they going to sue these Doe's - as in, from when are they targeting people.
Out of curiosity, how do producers/their IT wizards know exactly which IP's downloaded their files? I mean, do they piggyback some sort of passive tracker into all of the files and then, ahem, "leak" them, silently collecting data? Or...? I'm not certain at all.
I mean, most of the rippers for torrent files have been doing it for quite awhile, so I'm sure they could find these passive trackers and whatnot when they re-encode and upload the files to whatever trackers they use (e.g TPB, private trackers, what have you). Just some thoughts...discuss?
chubbysumo, 28 May 2010 @ 4:56pm
their "evidence" is too weak to even go to courtThe company providing the "evidence" of the IP address's has already been shown to be a shady and un-reliable source of information. They are the same company that resulted in an internet connected printer being hit with DMCA notices. IF you were to receive a letter from them, send back a threat. Let them take you to court, and let them lose, and leave shamed.
On a personal note, I have received one of these "pre-settlement" agreements, and I sent it back, with a threat from my lawyer. The company responsible has not yet replied(over a year ago that i sent it back, so, its not a "new" tactic, just not used en-mass like US copyright group and ACS Law did.
They send these threat/extortion letters hoping to get a stupid person that will just pay up, and never have to see the inside of a courtroom. They DO NOT EVER intend for any of these to get to the courts, as they would all be ruled frivolous in a matter of minutes. US copyright group is just hoping to make a buck from stupid people. I suggest you contact a real lawyer if you get one, and file a counter suit for harassment, and get criminal extortion charges going.
PS, can we get a PDF or link to what the letters are saying?
Edaze55 (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 5:10pmThey really have their nerve. Didnt they steal the whole premise behind the movie from the life of Master Sargent Jeffery Sarver?
Oh, thats right, the embedded journalist came up with the movie idea all on his.
RadialSkid, 28 May 2010 @ 5:31pmTO ESAHC:
"The only people they are pissing off are the type of people on this forum that download/STEAL the movie!"
Who are you trying to convince, exactly?
I've never torrented a film in my life (it eats up too much of my alotted bandwidth), and generally pay for movies. Due to the arrogance displayed by the sniveling producer of Hurt Locker, I'm definitely NOT seeing it now.
aaron, 28 May 2010 @ 6:07pmthe real question is are they suing people who downloaded it after it got big post-oscars or everybody who ever downloaded it? I wonder when they hired this uscopyright group on to start monitoring?
moonpie23, 28 May 2010 @ 6:29pm
stealingi've never seen so many thieves so indignant in my life.....
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 6:36pm
Re: stealingi've never seen so many thieves so indignant in my life.....
I've never downloaded an unauthorized work. I don't even have bittorrent on my computer.
Also, you should learn the difference between infringement and stealing.
That said, you actually believe this is a proportional response? You actually think this will help get more people to want to pay for a movie? Please explain.
Steve, 10 Jun 2010 @ 10:39pm
Re: Re: stealingI like your rebuttals and you are a great help to the general public with all of the information you provide. Please join my facebook group if you have facebook
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 6:45pm
Will a court really allow marginally related defendants as one case?So they filed one case w/ 5000 DOES, and they think the court will allow that? They may have all been exchanging the same movie, but can they really establish all these defendants can be legally sued in one case? Sounds like they are trying to avoid separate filing fees; they should be forced to file a separate lawsuit, separate filing fee, and allege specific facts as to each defendent even if the defendant remains a DOE until subpoena power is used in the case to ID them.
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2010 @ 9:03pm
roomiesi live in a house with eight roomies. there's a computer in the kitchen we all share. from the IP address alone, who is to prove which of us downloaded the hurt locker? it is the landlord who provided the ISP account. he doesn't even reside in the same state. how is this innocent until proven guilty?
Roe, 28 May 2010 @ 10:32pmThe thing which needs to be stressed is the reaction most people have when a law firm sends them a demand letter: panic from not knowing how they can afford to deal with it.
If you are a parent, and you get a letter saying someone at your house downloaded whatever, you don't know if your kid did or didn't do something they should have. What if it was one of their friends? If your child says they did nothing wrong, then what, how does the parent know? Pay anyway?
There is no government oversight. The law firm(s) pushing these claims have financial motivation to generate revenue to keep the suits moving forward.
The fact is the average parent, or individual, will be manipulated and is vulnerable. I don't care if as many as 98% of the people who are contacted are guilty. Those innocent 2% don't deserve to be railroaded for the sake of some Washington, DC, lawfirm's bottom line.
Ralph M, 29 May 2010 @ 6:24am
IdiotsThere has been enough publicity and lawsuits over this type of downloading of copyrighted material over the last 10 years. Anyone downloading this material should be sued. Can they really plead ignorance? Instead of doing it the "right" way paying a couple bux, people want things for FREE? Go ahead, roll the dice and see if you buy yourself a song or movie for a few thousand bux.
"If its too good to be true, it probably is"
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2010 @ 6:45amI wonder, will the list of IP addresses in the subpoenas be released publicly?
RT Cunningham (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 6:58am
Stupid LawyersEven with the more and more Internet-enabled devices, people still share those devices. How can the actual infringer be positively identified with only an IP address? Unless the IP address can be corroborated with a picture or a fingerprint (it can't), it could be any person using that device.
Unfortunately, with civil cases, there is no burden of proof requirement. The court (or jury) only has to believe you're guilty and you are.
Ralph M, 29 May 2010 @ 7:06amHeres an idea RT.. DONT SHARE your devices, dont SHARE your wi-fi. Its the same concept as getting a RED-LIGHT ticket by camera. The ticket goes to the registered owner as you cant prove who's driving. KNOW who's using your internet service and WHAT they're doing on it. Is your child watching porn online? Hopefully most people prohibit such access... and downloading copyrighted material should be enforced the same way.
RT Cunningham (profile), 30 May 2010 @ 4:11am
Re: Stupid LawyersThat's apples and oranges.
Copyright infringement and inducing copyright infringement have specific requirements that point to an individual (or group), not an owner. If this wasn't the case, then internet cafes and other publicly accessible computer owners (like libraries) could be liable.
If the owner of a vehicle, who isn't driving, gets a red light ticket, the ticket will get thrown out if the owner appears in traffic court since the ticket is for a driver, not an owner. If this wasn't the case, rental car companies could be liable.
Roe, 29 May 2010 @ 7:11am@ 08. They have filed suit against 5,000 individuals in one action. According to Torrent Freak over 3,000,000 downloads of the movie occured following the Oscar win. Those are some pretty slim odds you will be caught. Asssuming they even get the names for all of them (which might not be the case for TWC customers).
Besides, it's only $1,500. That's about 25 new film releases, 7 video games, 20 CDs and a pirated copy of paint shop; or the equivalent of maybe 6 months of steady downloading. I am sure most who are caught are still ahead of the benefit curve.
AM, 29 May 2010 @ 11:50amThis is just for people who seeded it right?
Re: seededThe technology is produced by GuardaLey IT. According to CSS Labs, it is really just a modified BitTorrent client, which tracks known seeds of infringing movies.
If that client is only recording torrent information, then yes, it would only record people who seed. On the other hand, if it also seeds the content (or pretends to), then it may also record other clients that attempt to connect with it.
There's no way to know for sure, because the technology is proprietary.
Incidentally, I've seen no reports that it records anything other than an IP address.
Re: oopsUpdate:
After reading this post at CSS labs, it appears that they are targeting leechers as well.
I'm not sure if this is legally actionable - I thought that you needed to distribute material to be considered an infringer. (For example, that you could be sued for releasing a bootleg recording, but not for buying one.)
jason davis, 29 May 2010 @ 12:44pm
Hurt LockerI like to ask what is perhaps a naive question to the majority of those on this board. Why don't you just pay to watch the film? With my monthly DVD subscription - i go through about 10 per month - it costs me about 75 cents. Isn't this a lot of trouble to go through - and a lot of pointless risk? Is the thrill of "stickin' it to the man" behind a computer screen like a little girl just too great?
Re: Hurt LockerQuite a lot of sharing took place after the film was in theaters, but before it was available on DVD. Also, it is not available for instant streaming/download at any official site that I know of. So maybe they just couldn't stand the wait.
jason davis, 29 May 2010 @ 12:54pm
Hurt LockerI like to ask what is perhaps a naive question to the majority of those on this board. Why don't you just pay to watch the film? With my monthly DVD subscription - i go through about 10 per month - it costs me about 75 cents. Isn't this a lot of trouble to go through - and a lot of pointless risk? Is the call of "stickin' it to the man" from behind a computer screen like a little girl just too great to ignore?
Chris in Utah (profile), 29 May 2010 @ 4:22pm
Really Mike?With GE acquiring Comcast & brokered by the FCC...Wait that's all the variables I need that we are going to take it up the extrema factory.
angry young man, 29 May 2010 @ 8:49pm
the movie's way overratedThe movie's a hodgepodge of very dramatic scenes with no narrative, no character development, no ongoing conflict (ironically) and no resolution beyond the fact that, like most people, the main character would rather risk getting blown up in Iraq than spend another day with Evangeline Lilly.
55, 30 May 2010 @ 8:07amThe document only says BitTorrent- are they just confused or did they not figure out how to track other protocols?
55, 30 May 2010 @ 10:28am
Re:Er, I mean other clients.
NAMELESS.ONE, 30 May 2010 @ 12:57pm
and jsut to rubn it inwithout watching it i downloaded it 20 times
and i will keep doing so all week
NuNyA BiZ, 30 May 2010 @ 7:01pm
Another ideaWhen will these idiots realize, all they do with their lawsuits is increase piracy. The closest anyone would come to paying for this, is to rent it for 2 bux and copy it (cant track us that way can you?) These idiots already made 16,000,000 dollars from this crappy movie.
jason davis, 31 May 2010 @ 10:57am
Re: Another idea"all they do with their lawsuits is increase piracy" - please share with us the evidence upon which you make this claim.
"is to rent it for 2 bux and copy it" - is the 2 dollars really going to change your life, or is the overall expense related to the need to be passively entertained 24/7?
"already made 16,000,000 dollars from this crappy movie"
"Crappy movie" is your opinion; fortunately, both your opinion and mine are irrelevant to whether or not one is obligated to pay for what one consumes - i don't recall ever being allowed to donate what i thought i should based on my enjoyment of the book / meal / whatever.
"Made" 16M dollars? hardly. that was the BOR. Out of that comes the theatre's share, the cost of producing physical prints @ $15,000 each, and marketing costs - probably at least $16M. They lost money on the film, as do 70% of films released. And though you did not make this statement, anyone who thinks they will make any money from this enforcement action once the lawyers and expenses are paid really needs to sit down and do some math. The reason behind this is deterrance, pure and simple, and the costs are being shared by all the studios in the form of their financial support for the MPAA and various support mechanisms such as the organization involved here.
Lastly, to think that it is the "producers" behind the suit is somewhat naive. Ask yourself the following: once the film goes into production, who owns the legal and financial rights and the legal authorship of the film? Hint: it isn't the producers. So if you're really peeved that someone might come after you for usurping a product for which a lot of money, and many people's time effort and creativity have been invested, perhaps you should boycott all the films produced by the studio? Or would that be too inconvenient?
Nastybutler77 (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 11:06am
Re: Re: Another idea"Lastly, to think that it is the "producers" behind the suit is somewhat naive."
Hey smart guy, take a look at the plaintiff listed in the lawsuit. Hint: it's the produciton company.
And this is only one of the many falsehoods in your comment.
RadialSkid, 31 May 2010 @ 1:03am"I like to ask what is perhaps a naive question to the majority of those on this board. Why don't you just pay to watch the film?"
Because I don't want to see it. Did that one ever cross your mind?
jason davis, 31 May 2010 @ 10:42am
Re:Then I suppose you haven't viewed a pirated copy, in which case my question wasn't directed at you.
RadialSkid, 31 May 2010 @ 3:37pm
Re: Re:"Then I suppose you haven't viewed a pirated copy, in which case my question wasn't directed at you."
Yet I still haven't paid for it. Since the filmmakers seem to have such a sense of entitlement, that should make me as big a villain as anyone who has downloaded the film.
Why exactly should filmmakers care if anyone who doesn't pay them has seen the movie or not? Not paying is not paying. What if I borrow the DVD from a friend? Holy cow, I've just seen the movie, AND I DIDN'T PAY FOR IT!
Or could it be, perhaps, that filmmakers still cling to the fallacy that every download is automatically a sale lost?
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2010 @ 2:34pmFor all the people claiming this is "extortion," don't you think there's a difference between saying "if you don't pay me money [that you don't owe me], I'll break your kneecaps [or do something else I have no right to do]" and "if you don't pay me an amount of money that is arguably less than the amount I'm legally entitled to, I'll lawfully attempt to get all that I feel I'm legally entitled to?"
If they have no evidence whatsoever against a particular defendant, then that's a problem. But we don't know whether that's the case yet, because we don't know who any defendant is.
Fatmocha (profile), 31 May 2010 @ 4:26pm
I think its ironicOne of the central themes and character developments comes from the main character buying pirated media from a boy that he ends up developing a relationship with.
discusted, 31 May 2010 @ 5:05pm
Lack of clickwrapThese legal whores only have recourse against the people they can prove that put their movies online.
There is a legal concept called "clickwrap". Look it up on wikipedia.
To protect downloadable media, it must be "wrapped" with an "I agree" installation process. Think about the software you download.
I might have downloaded this movie as it seemed to be in the public domain. There was no "clickwrap" that prevented it from expanding on my computer and being shared with others. By the time I finally started viewing it, and saw it was only intended for professional private review, it could well have been shared with other people (that also were not advised by a clickwrap).
They only have recourse against people that may have illegally made their product available for public domain sharing.
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2010 @ 12:25am
Re: Lack of clickwrapAlmost everything in your post is wrong. Downloading a copyright protected movie without permission (regardless of whether you put it online yourself) is copyright infringement, in most cases. You don't need to agree (whether through a "clickwrap" agreement or otherwise) to copyright laws to be bound by them.
love that corporate greed, 31 May 2010 @ 6:27pm
its Called EXTORTIONThe suit is for downloads, not shares. Think about that. Nowhere does it say completed downloads. So its entirely likely that many started the DL but didn't complete it. 1bit of Hurtlocker = GUILTY! = $1500. I think what they should do is just sue everyone everywhere for pirating this movie. Some will settle in fear. Lets pretend thats 1 in 10. Since this type of extortion is only legal in the US, that 307mil (us pop) x $1500 x %10 = $46 billion making hurtlocker the highest grossing movie of all time. Sure half of that will have to go to the law firm, but $26bil on a movie that cost $15 mil to produce is a good investment. Perfect business model.
Guilty until proven guilty, but why even have to prove anything when they'll just pay in fear? Its the new American profit model!
Im sorry but honestly, before they can do this they should need to subpoena your pc and verify that indeed you did DL the movie. Not just part of it, the full thing. Then like most civil suits not backed by corporate greed they should be able to sue for 3x the cost of goods, which would be the purchase price of the dvd. So i see this online for $30 MSRP, you should then be liable for $90 plus legal fees. Sadly this film has been reported by other sources as having been up for DL 6 full months prior to its debut at the festivals. Which means someone at, or possibly, voltage themselves seeded the original copies. Wow, organized corporate crime really does pay.
I wasted $15 on this piece of garbage in the cinema on the recommendation of many a fool. But I paid cash and didn't save my receipt so now I'm probably a criminal and therefore I deserve a lawsuit from voltage too or at least a hot poker in the ass.
YAY Google, 1 Jun 2010 @ 4:57am
Google helped usIf google is responsible for using my unprotected wifi then my neighbor must be responsible for downloading The Hurt Locker on my wifi.... Right???
Google uses my wifi....... Bad google
Neighbor uses my wifi....... Bad me??? wait what?? double standard?
Pete, 2 Jun 2010 @ 4:38amJust wondering are people living in the UK at risk of being sued?
Dave, 7 Jun 2010 @ 12:48pm
Re: UK and EU citizens also at riskAlthough GuardaLey have not targeted people in the UK or elsewhere in Europe at this time for these films, there are others, also based in Germany who have recently been doing so, and rest assured GuardaLey will try it on in the UK, especially with the new digital economy bill about to be enforced - where end users can lose all access to the Internet, as well as their computers and face fines and imprisonment on top...
At CCS LABS, we are about to implement a perfect counter to attempts by companies like GuardaLey to spam the courts, ISPs and end users with law suits based on a detection accuracy rate of less than 1/1000.
Keep an eye on CCS-LABS.COM over the next week or so... good news is on the horizon which will stop these scamming companies from tricking you out of your money.
Exofox, 2 Jun 2010 @ 3:56pm
Time-Length and ViewDoes anyone even have an idea of how far back they are even going. I doubt the US Legal System would allow for 100,000's (like some sites are claiming) to be filed. As it is, getting 5000 people to show up to court would take years, and would tie up the courts with legal ramblings instead of putting convicted felons away who are there for murder or something.
How far back are they looking? From when the movie was produced? Last 2 years? 1 year? 6 months? I'm sure BitTorrent has a file dump session atleast every few months where data logs of I.P.'s get tossed.
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2010 @ 9:47pmThis guy annoys me, I'll boycott him and his company.
His stunt at the Oscars then this... Even an "artist" needs some semblance of class.
Then again, I'll probably rent The Whistleblower from a dollar kiosk when it gets there. Even if it gets terrible reviews with it's executive producer, Rachel Weisz won't.
By Virtue Fall and The Company You Keep are two more coming from his company, the latter is produced by Robert Redford, but I'll likely pass on them.
winston, 7 Jun 2010 @ 10:28pm
shame on VoltageWhere did this early released 'pirated' disk come from? I can only imagine Chartier & Voltage released it.
The obviously believe that because of the films' tremendous performance at the Oscars that it should have done much better at the box office. Perhaps there is some truth to this but I doubt it's that major a factor. After all, Ironman & Avatar had no problems and history is full of such films w/great reviews but poor performance at the box office.
The issue IMO, is simple; are the file-sharers responsible that the industry cannot issue its products in a copy-proof format because they haven't kept up with the rapidly changing technology? Answer=NO.
When dramatic changes in digital technology suited an industry (like it did in the manufacture of cd's over LP's) they took full advantage. Nobody complained about making too much money.
Voltage is making a big mistake, not because illegal file-sharing is not stealing (it is) but because having multi-million dollar film companies harassing individuals for exorbitant amounts of cash to cease hostilities against them is patently offensive. Where I come from, we call that extortion! They are suing their own customers; not very smart. It will be interesting to see how many of these Voltage lawsuit victims have legal copies of the film as well as their shared copies?
Voltage should really put it's energies behind devising a secure method of issuing digital media and stop extorting money from their own customers for taking advantage of technology they have at their fingertips!
Steve, 10 Jun 2010 @ 10:36pm
Facebook groupJoin my Facebook group at www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=134341123246967&v=wall
Laird (profile), 12 Jun 2010 @ 11:01am
What about smaller films that don't have theatrical releaseA lot of indie films by-pass theatrical release entirely. If they end up getting pirated on the web, what about them? Doesn't that directly impact their sales in a negative fashion?
It's one thing to be back by a major-studio and big bucks, but if a film is a lower budget project, financed by smaller (not rich) investors, don't they deserve a return on their money.
Also, indie producers often have to pay the SAG agreements, etc. and so have expenses off the top BEFORE recouping anything. It would seem that piracy does hurt producers in these situations.
Me 2, 9 Dec 2010 @ 2:11pm
Winkz..Mr. Dunlap and his cohort attorneys at Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver are a bunch of lying scumbag vermin. Stand up to them! There threat and letters re just that paper. They have no intention of filing any lawsuits nor have they hired any attorneys or even talked to any attorneys of substance in these matters. Ignore them and they will go away as they have to. Do not enrich them by sending them any money whatsoever. They openly know at the law firm that this is all a big sham and scam � a virtual legal shakedown for the 21st century.
So, if you stand for freedom of the internet copy your middle finger and send it by fax to Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver:
phone: 800-747-9354 x3885
fax: (202) 318-0242
e-mail: email@example.com
You can also call them and give them a piece of your mind or flood their email. If everyone did this work at Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver would slow to a snails pace as no other faxes, emails or phone calls could get through. Make their life difficult as they have tried to, basically, illegally extort thousands of Americans. Give them a piece of your mind! Remember complaining and being an irate consumer is your right! File a complaint with your state attorney generals office. File complaints with the state bar association in Washington DC � I know that they won�t stand for this abuse of the legal system if enough American consumers complain about it to them:
requiem, 28 Nov 2011 @ 3:24pm
Re: Winkz..Exactly! I am one of the people whom have received a letter of extortion from these swine.
This case is the one of the first of its kind, it must not be a profitable business model for other producers to copy. DO NOT GIVE THEM THE $2900 TO SETTLE. An IP address is about as identifiable as the make/model of the car you drive. All those file hashes, MAC adresses, times/dates/, and threats in that settlement letter don't ass up to SHIT. All they are doing is scaring non-tech savvy consumers into settling. I'm filing every complaint I possibly can, I encourage everyone to do the same as well.
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2016 @ 12:52amFive years and another movie later... Voltage's Dallas Buyer's Club operations are hitting so many roadblocks it qualifies for its own Road Runner cartoon.
Meanwhile aside from the usual Anonymous64 troll, all the samefagging IP address trolls are nowhere to be seen.
Imagine that!


text:
Help Desk
Work Request
A-Z Index
Academic Calendar
Event Calendar
ECU News Services
About Us
ECU Now Blog
Bioengineered veins could help patients needing bypass surgery, dialysis
More than 500,000 patients could potentially benefit from this new technology each year
Dr. Alan Kypson
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. (Feb. 2, 2011) — Thanks to research involving experts from East Carolina University, other universities and a Morrisville-based biotechnology firm, the day when a surgeon can pull a new human vein off the shelf for use in life-saving vascular surgeries is now one step closer to reality.
New research published in the current issue of the journal Science Translational Medicine demonstrates the capability of tissue-engineered vascular grafts that are immediately available at the time of surgery and are less likely to become infected or obstructed. The bioengineering method of producing veins shows promise in large- and small-diameter applications, such as for coronary artery bypass surgery and for vascular access in hemodialysis.
Humacyte, a Morrisville biotechnology company, worked with university researchers to develop the veins.
"This new type of bioengineered vein allows them to be easily stored in hospitals so they are readily available to surgeons at the time of need," said Dr. Alan P. Kypson, a cardiothoracic surgeon, associate professor at the Brody School of Medicine at ECU and an author of the paper. "Currently, grafting using the patient's own veins remains the gold standard. But, harvesting a vein from the patient's leg can lead to complications, and for patients who don't have suitable veins, the bioengineered veins could serve as an important new way to provide a coronary bypass."
The American Heart Association Update on Heart Disease Statistics reports that in 2007, in the United States, surgeons performed more than 400,000 coronary bypass procedures. Patients requiring bypass surgery may not have suitable veins or arteries available and are not candidates for synthetic grafts because of the size needed for grafting.
The bioengineered veins also show promise for patients on kidney hemodialysis. According to the National Kidney Foundation, 320,000 patients are on chronic hemodialysis. Each year, 110,000 new patients develop renal failure requiring dialysis, and the number is growing by 3 percent a year. More than half of dialysis patients lack the healthy veins necessary and must undergo an arteriovenous graft placement to have bloodstream access for hemodialysis.
Most arteriovenous grafts that are placed for hemodialysis access are made of a synthetic material, which suffers from significant drawbacks including a high rate of infection, a propensity for blockages due to clotting and a thickening of blood vessels known as intimal hyperplasia, said Dr. Jeffrey H. Lawson, a surgeon and associate professor at Duke University School of Medicine and an author of the research.
"Due to high complication rates, each AV dialysis graft requires an average of 2.8 interventions over its lifetime just to keep it functioning," Lawson said. "Hence, there is a huge clinical need for a functionally superior, off-the-shelf AV graft that suffers from fewer complications than current materials."
Lawson has served as a consultant for Humacyte and has received research support from the company through Duke.
In this research, scientists generated bioengineered veins in a bioreactor -- a device designed to support a biological environment -- and then stored them up to 12 months in refrigerated conditions. The bioengineered veins, 3 millimeters to 6 millimeters in diameter, demonstrated excellent blood flow and resistance to blockage in large animal models for up to a year.
Scientists from Duke, ECU, Yale University and Humacyte conducted the research, and Humacyte, a leader in regenerative medicine, funded it. Overseeing the research and serving as senior author of the article was Dr. Laura Niklason, founder of Humacyte and professor of anesthesiology and biomedical engineering at Yale. Niklason is an authority in regenerative medicine for arterial engineering and led the team that recently created a functioning rat lung in a laboratory.
Shannon L.M. Dahl, senior director of scientific operations and co-founder of Humacyte, is lead author on the paper. "Not only are bioengineered veins available at the time of patient need, but the ability to generate a significant number of grafts from a cell bank will allow for a reduction in the final production costs, as compared to other regenerative medicine strategies," Dahl said. "While there is still considerable research to be done before a product is available for widespread use, we are highly encouraged by the results outlined in this paper and eager to move forward with additional study."
Humacyte (http://www.humacyte.com), a privately held company, is primarily focused on developing products for vascular disease and for dermal filling and soft tissue repair. The company uses its innovative and proprietary platform technology to engineer human extracellular matrix-based tissues that can be shaped into tubes, sheets or particulate conformations with properties similar to native tissues.
These can then be used in many specific applications, with the potential to significantly improve treatment outcomes for a variety of patients, including those with diabetes and on hemodialysis. The company's proprietary technologies are designed to result in off-the-shelf products that can be used in any patient.
This image shows a 6-millimeter-diameter human bioengineered vein before implant. Image courtesy Science/AAAS
Doug Boyd
| 252-744-2482
East Carolina University
ECU News Services
1001 E. Fifth St.| Greenville, NC 27858 USA | 252.328.6481 |
Contact us
©2018 |
Terms of Use
Report a Barrier

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Bank of Bengal half note with documents for sale,1853
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Indian banknotes,british india banknotes,mughal farmans,indian coins,indian stamps,postal history,postal stationary, bank of bengal,banks in india,straite settlements banks,censor covers,world war covers,ancient indian coins,roman coins,banking history of hongkong,china,far east,MY EMAIL IS firstname.lastname@example.com, BLOG INDEX. http://indianbanknotes.blogspot.com/2009/08/list-of-posts-in-this-blog.html
Indian Banknotes from 17xx,Indian banking history,Postalhistory from 15xx AD,Moghul Farmans,Islamic Science,Ancient Science,Ancient Coins,Danish India coins,Pre Satavahana coins,Presidency banknotes,BANK OF BENGAL,Bank of Bombay,Bank of Madras,General Bank,Bengal Bank Banking,HISTORY of India,Asia,China,Shanghai,Hongkong,malaya,Britain,BANK OF BENGAL,Documents signed by Kings,Ship Passport of ancient period,world banknotes,modern ancient COINS,STAMPS,india,british india,FDC all in THEMES;Modern WORLD COINS,ANCIENT COINS FROM ALEXANDER PERIOD,BIMETAL,SHAPES OFCOINS,UNRECOGNIZED NEW NATIONS,world postal history from 1840,FDC,Thematic post cards cds,printed slogans,postal history covers from 1862 INDIA-world,WW II censor covers,americana,Europe,MALAYA etc,Revenues,telegrams,diplomatic mail,aerograms,shapes in stamps,NONpaper.COINS of sarda script,and all rulers coins in the dominion of Br india region, gazni,,sarda script coins,mohd bin sam in hindi unuque,razia,balban, karkotata-kidara rulersindo portuguese tin Pondichery under denmark rare coin, farmans of Aurangazeb 17XxAD,
YOUDEHHA FIRST DEMOCRACY IN INDIA"YOUDEHA GANASYA JAYA" COIN DIE,Father of the Youngest Stamp collector in the WORLD, Calculated SPEED of light from Maha Bharata,1012 AD, Prime minister Mr Rajiv Gandhi released my book ,ASK FOR PRICELIST OF YOUR CHOICE ITEMS FOR ANY EXCHANGES YOU CAN MAIL TO THIS ADRESS ONLY BY REGISTER POST MOBILE. +91 08686211191 WhatsAPP no also
DAMODHAR.RAO.M;Plot No 17 SANTOSHMA Colony,WestMarredpally SECUNDERABAD;500026 INDIA


text:
Special Order
Product Highlights
Configured for: 3.5mm Locking Mini-Jack for Sennheiser3-Pin LEMO Connector for Sennheiser
Not available with current selections
Special Order
Special Order
Special Order
Mount Options: Left-Ear MountedLeft-Ear Mounted bxfucuevfs Right-Ear Mounted
Special Order
The black 4065 Omnidirectional Left-Ear Mounted Headset Microphone with a Hardwired 3.5mm Locking Mini-Jack Connector for Sennheiser Wireless Systems from DPA Microphones is designed for unobtrusive use on-stage and in the studio. The mic features a neutral sonic character that is designed for accurate reproduction of the human voice.
|Polar Pattern
|Principle of Operation
|Cartridge Type
|Pre-polarized condenser element with vertical diaphragm
|Frequency Range
Soft-Boost Grid: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/-2 dB, 3 dB soft boost at 8 to 20 kHz
High-Boost Grid: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +/-2 dB, 10 dB boost at 12 kHz
|6 mV/Pa, -44 dB re. 1 V/Pa (nominal, +/-3 dB at 1 kHz)
|Equivalent Noise Level
Typical: 26 dBA re. 20 µPa
Maximum: 28 dBA
Typical: 38 dB
Maximum: 40 dB
|S/N Ratio
|68 dBA, 1 kHz at 1 Pa (94 dB SPL):
|Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)
<1% THD up to 123 dB SPL peak
<1% THD up to 120 dB SPL RMS sine
|Dynamic Range
|Typical 97 dB
|Maximum Sound Pressure Level (SPL)
|Peak Before Clipping: 144 dB
|Output Impedance
|30 to 40 Ohms
|Cable Drive Capability
|Up to 984' (300 m)
|3.5 mm locking mini-jack
|Temperature Range
|-14 to 113°F (-10 to 45°C)
|Relative Humidity
|Up to 90%
|Cable Length
5.9' (1.8 m)
Diameter: 0.06" (1.6 mm)
|Microphone Diameters
|0.21" (5.4 mm)
|0.5 oz (14 g)


text:
Film Festival Preview
Film Fest Founder Fades Out
An interview with Jon Bowman of the Santa Fe Film Festival
During his time in New Mexico, Jon Bowman has served as associate publisher for New Mexico Magazine, columnist for The Santa Fe New Mexican's arts insert Pasatiempo and editor/author of seven books including 100 Years of Filmmaking in New Mexico.
Film Festival Preview
The Cinema Different
The Santa Fe Independent Film Festival
While the venerable Santa Fe Film Festival reaches its milestone 10th year, organizers of the upstart Santa Fe Independent Film Festival are grasping for a milestone of their own: their very first year. For its inaugural outing—taking place Friday, Dec. 4, through Sunday, Dec. 6—the SFIFF promises to bring "the most provocative" independent films from around the globe.
Reel World
Namaste in Cinema
This weekend must have seemed like the perfect one for a film festival, because we've got at least three of them to choose from. In addition to the massive 10th Annual Santa Fe Film Festival and the inaugural Santa Fe Independent Film Festival, there's the first annual Buddhist Film Festival taking place at the Cell Theatre in Downtown Albuquerque.
Idiot Box
Still Life
"Painting Taos" on PBS
'Round these parts we like our Idiot Box ... well, idiotic. Education and art don't usually factor into it when you're confined to a steady diet of "E! True Hollywood Story," "When Animals Attack" and "Cheaters." Occasionally, though, we must all expand our horizons and admit that even TV is capable of delivering a little beauty into our lives.


text:
So many times there is no justice in the world when people are just jerks. There are typically no laws against rude, selfish behavior, and so the assholes of the world go about ruining things for the rest of us with no repercussions. Once in awhile, however, they get just what they deserve, like this 24-year-old man recently did when he started trying to dash the Christmas dreams of some kids at a parade.
According to the Toronto Star, the man, who hasn't been identified (but should be so he can be publicly taunted as well), was drunk and belligerent at an annual Santa Claus parade in Kingston, Ontario. Then he started yelling his Grinch-like declaration, "Santa isn't real!"
It makes me seethe just reading about it. The fact that the paper reports that his hair was gelled to looked like two devil horns is not so surprising.
But this time good triumphed over evil, and police arrested him. Not for crushing Christmas dreams officially, but rather for creating a disturbance by being drunk and breach of probation. Still the message was clear. A rep from the police there, Const. Steve Koopman, said: "It was pretty despicable that someone, during this time of the year, would tell kids Santa isn't real — which of course we would argue."
Despicable indeed. I have no delusions that we can keep our children in bubbles forever, but there are just some places strangers should never go.
A friend once told me that she will never waiver from her message to her children, "If you don't believe, you don't receive," even when they're grown. I've adopted that philosophy as well and see no reason to ever tell them any differently if they're 4 or 40. Other parents approach it differently, and that's fine, but as far as I'm concerned there's too little magic in the world as it is.
While you can't stop kids from telling each other what they think they know (and yes, I am still pissed at a certain boy from second grade who tried to dash my son's dreams, but failed), it's different when it comes from adults who should know better. It's just mean, plain and simple.
So I love that this guy got arrested. And I hope he knows that he's going to have to work really hard if he has any chances of getting off the naughty list. There's going to be coal in his stocking for a long time to come!
Do you think he got what he deserved?
Image via Bart Fields/Flickr


text:
Johnny Bench was the greatest catcher of the 1970's and possibly of all-time. When you look back, Bench was the best hitting, best fielding, best running, best throwing and hit with the most power for his position for the entire decade. How many players can you think of that dominated any position like that? Bench gets my vote for the MVP of the 1970's. I would love to hear your comments.
As far as the Johnny Bench Rookie Card from 1968 goes, it leaves much to be desired, but was typical of cards from that era. Not that I have anything against Ron Tompkins, but it is hard for collectors to get excited about this card.
I think that Johnny Bench baseball cards are one of the best bargains - when you consider how great of a player that he was. Bench is not as popular of a person as many stars and seems to be overshadowed by the personalities of Pete Rose, Tony Perez and Joe Morgan.
The 1969 Topps, 1970 Topps and 1975 Topps cards of Johnny Bench are nice posed catcher position shots. The 1969 Topps Bench Card photo was taken in spring training one year before he made the team and shows him wearing #55. Also be sure to check out the action shots in the 1972 through 1974 years at Dean's Cards. Bench may have the best Topps Baseball Cards of anyone of the decade. His cards in the 1980's were fairly boring portraits.
To see Dean's Cards inventory of Johnny Bench Baseball Cards and Magazines, please click here.


text:
As we go about our day with the wearing of the green and raise a toast to St. Patrick's day today, let's not forget all those born-and-bred Irish stars who came from the land of shamrocks to entertain audiences around the world. OK! has a few favorite, smiling Irish eyes we'd like to celebrate today — from actors like Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell and Saoirse Ronan to musicians like Bono, Glen Hansard and Dolores O'Riordan. Check out our gallery of our favorite Irish stars, and have a happy St. Patrick's Day!
While Liam Neeson is Irish, he'll show up next in the new Clash of the Titans as the Greek god Zeus!
Two of the stars on our list — Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson — starred together in In Bruges. Meanwhile, both Colin and Colm Meaney have appeared alongside Tom Cruise: Colin in Minority Report and Colm in Irish-themed movie, Far and Away, which also co-starred Nicole Kidman.


text:
- you have been banned from commenting in this journal.
Sorry, user mamamame does not list you as a friend, and they've set the "friends only" option for who can reply to their journal.
No HTML allowed in subject
Notice! This user has turned on the option that logs your IP address when posting.
(will be screened)
View All Archives


text:
Ice rink opens in Paris' elegant Grand Palais, for skaters and wannabes
PARIS – Parisians and tourists can now glide and sway — or stumble — at an ice rink under the vaulted glass dome of the landmark Grand Palais.
The seasonal rink, billed as France's largest of its kind, opened on Thursday for the silver-blade set at the sumptuous exhibition hall just off the famed Champs-Elysees Avenue, a tourist magnet at all times of year.
For Hayley Weston, a visiting 26-year-old from Britain, skating on the 1,800-square-meter (20,000-square-foot) rink under the vaulted glass dome of the Grand Palais was a memorable experience.
"It's the highlight of my week. It's like dancing on ice," she said.
The Grand Palais, built for the 1900 Universal Exhibition, is an architectural masterpiece combining Neoclassical and Art Nouveau styles. It is a standard venue for art exhibits and an unusual site for ice skaters, who can pop afterward into an Edward Hopper retrospective under open until Jan. 28.
But at least one skater said he was disappointed by the quality of the ice and by the price: €12 ($15.70) for adults, which includes skate rental. The entry fee for children is €6 but free for kids under 3.
"It's the Grand Palais. It's pretty. But I thought it would be bigger," said Janis Ithunime, 18, who came to Paris from the southern suburb of Massy-Palaiseau to ice skate. "For the price, I regret it (the trip)."
The rink is open for night skaters Thursdays through Saturdays until 2 a.m. But the magical venue disappears after Jan. 6.


text:
Difference between revisions of "Hilton Head Island"
Revision as of 01:51, 16 October 2009
Hilton Head Island [11] is in South Carolina, just across the border from Savannah, Georgia. With an approximate population of 33,000, it is located on a beautiful, semi-tropical 12 mile barrier island. Hilton Head Island is a vacation playland with famous beaches and great golf courses that overlook the Atlantic Ocean.
Get in
By car
US Route 278 is the main thoroughfare serving Hilton Head Island. It is intersected by Interstate 95, a primary interstate highway on the Eastern Seaboard, near the town of Hardeeville about 40 minutes west.
By plane
Hilton Head Island is served by two airports.
Get around
US Route 278 is known as the William Hilton Parkway on the island. It is the "business route" and is two lanes, north and south, for most of the length of the island, ending at the Sea Pines traffic circle which is the hub of the popular south end of the island. The Cross Island Expressway by-passes this, reducing the drive time from 25 minutes to a 5 minute ride from the bridge to the island to the Sea Pines traffic circle. The Hilton Head Island Airport is accessed from the intersection of William Hilton Parkway and Dillon Road.
There are miles of picturesque off-road bike paths that traverse the main roads of the island and within the resort plantations. Although not lit for night riding, they are the perfect way to traverse the island during the day time hours.
Don't rely on those coupon books you find everywhere – ask some service employees for their recommendations. Well-known or busy does not necessarily mean good food.
To get started:
Being such a popular vacation destination, Hilton Head has many lodging choices. There are several hotels on the island, however a great and widespread accommodation alternative is the vacation rental. Vacation rentals are available in many types, from large condo buildings to quaint homes, new and old.


text:
This shower head proves that affordability doesn't have to replace style or performance. The PowerSpray+™ shower head features the latest generation of pulsating massage technology and a sleek, stylish profile.
Enjoy five spray settings, from relaxing, full-body spray to high-pressure massage and OptiFLOW® technology for more water force. The metal face with anti-clog rubber nozzles cleans up quickly as well.
Annual Water, Gas and Dollar Savings by Gallons Per Minute (GPM) 1
Mrs. DWatch Videos


text:
You have no items to compare.
Please help us to make sure Laminator.com always has the best prices online. If you find an identical product at a lower cost on another site we will beat that price. Simply call us at 1-800-773-8879 and we will make sure you receive the best possible price. If it is after hours please place your order online and email us or call within 24 hours with the link to the product page that contains the lower price. We will issue you a credit.
The price match you are requesting must be for the identical item. It must also include the cost of shipping, handling charges, and applicable taxes our competitor is charging you for that item. Our competitor must have the item in stock!Additional Guidelines:
There is our best price guarantee in a nutshell! We understand that you're busy so we keep it as simple as possible.
Although we try to provide the best possible customer service we realize we do make mistakes. If for any reason you are not fully satisfied with your order please call us and we will do everything possible to correct the situation! You won't need to hit 5 buttons after dialing to reach us either. We have actual people that answer the phone. And to be honest with you they're really nice!


text:
Gov. Rick Scott announced late Friday that he is satisfied with the direction of the state's powerful utility board and re-appointed Tallahassee lawyer Lisa B. Edgar to a third term on the panel.
Edgar, 49, has served on the Florida Public Service Commission since January 2005, when she was appointed by former Gov. Jeb Bush. She urged the governor to give her another four-year term to give the commission continuity in the wake of frequent turnover.
Edgar will now become the third commissioner to serve a three-year term. The job pays $130,000. Others preceding her are former commissioners Gerald Gunter and Terry Deason. In the last four years, Edgar has seen as 16 different commissioners come and go on the panel.
Former Gov. Charlie Crist refused to reappoint two commissioners for being too close to the utilities they regulate, and the Republican-controlled Legislature, at the urging of some of the state's largest utilities, responded by ousting four of Crist's appointees because they were perceived as too consumer-oriented.
Scott had been urged to reject Edgar by a Gainesville-based Tea Party group and state Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, who accused Edgar of favoring the utility industry in rate cases.
The governor rejected those arguments and also passed over three other candidates, former state Rep. Ken Littlefield, Tampa Bay Water official Donald Polmann and Aventura Commissioner Luz Weinberg.