« Netflix Posts Business Opportunity Overview Presentation | Main | Will the Popcorn Hour Popbox have Netflix at launch? »



Didn't it not do well because of other movies at the time?

Or the fact that they poorly advertised it?

Um....I have talked to a lot of people and when I ask if they have seen The Hurt Locker.... They don't know what I'm talking about!

So yeah....

Will Dearborn

^Good point Crow55. They barely advertised this movie before the Oscars. They weren't confident or proud enough of it that they sat on it for 2 years and now the blame game begins. Weak move.


:sigh: this tactic reminds me of red light cameras "We're going to pressue you with a huge court case, or you can pay us some money to make it go away." Didn't the mob used to do this to their enemies?
On another note (not that I do much pirating anyway). Charter has been thusfar using the Telephone and Telecom act to not release IPs saying it violates the law preventing them from disclosing what services you subscribe to. We'll see if they keep doing that.


Won't it be hysterical if one of the infringers is found to be ACTUALLY a bomb disposal tech IN Iraq or Afghanistan?


Hurt Locker came up in my queue and I watched it. Now, I like a decent war movie, but this thing was nothing special. I have no inclination to ever watch it again it's that bland. I really don't understand the number of awards it won, especially for things like special effects, sound effects, sound track? No way.

I see people downloading it as curious what all the Oscar buzz was about and how the hell it beat out Avatar in so many categories. Near as I can tell, they just wanted Bigelow or any woman to win best picture/director. I certainly do not think it was deserved. The Last Station was far superior in every way.


Come to think of it....I wouldn't have known much about this movie. If I didn't see a review on the Rotten Tomatoes show.

Seriously. Ask your friends if they have seen The Hurt Locker. Keep note of how many are confused at the question.

Which it won an Oscar and Avatar didn't. Sigourney Weavers thoughts: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/sigourney-weaver-james-ca_n_535309.html?ref=twitter

She might have a point?

The piracy thing is stupid....Who would download a film they knew nothing about? :-P Kidding, kidding.


This is total bullshit for two reasons.

First, Intellectual Property is complete nonsense. You can't legitimately own ideas, words, pictures, video etc. in an age of infinitely reproducible digital information. http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

Second, even if intellectual property is legitimate (which it's not), the statutory remedies provided for copyright infringement are not. If someone steals from you, and you have a common law claim for conversion (civil theft), you basically have a right to restitution -- what it costs to be made whole.

The "actual damages" suffered by a movie studio if someone downloads and watches their movies is, at BEST, the price of a ticket or DVD. Modern IP laws like the DMCA provide corporations with statutory remedies of thousands of dollars for a single violation. It would be like a legislature passing a law that says if you steal a pack of gum, you can be sued for $2,000 just because. It's total nonsense.


This is a fascinating story. Because all the negative commenters above don't seem to realize that this movie doesn't fit into the usual narrative of feisty pirates vs. evil Hollywood.

You're blaming Summit for not advertising heavily? Of course they didn't. They couldn't afford it. You're blaming Summit for not making a big splash theatrically? Actually, they did pretty well for an independent, getting it onto 500 screens. That's high for a film with no stars, no big director, and no Hollywood studio behind it.

The movie cost $11 million to make, and grossed $16 million at the US box office. They probably got to keep somewhere around $7 million of that (about 50% of gross, minus distribution expenses). 1500 x 5000 pirates = $7.5 million.

Now you see why this company is willing to be so severe. These lawsuits may well wind up *doubling* their revenues. If they find another 5000 pirates, well, these lawsuits might end up providing the *majority* of their revenues.

Lesson to would-be-pirates -- you can steal from the Man, because the Man doesn't care. But try to steal from an independent? You'd better hope the guy who runs the independent doesn't believe in suing people.


Bigelow is a typical Hollywood Oscars favorite. She has made a couple relatively unknown movies that everyone loves - e.g. Near Dark and Point Break. Hollywood likes to compensate those who have been under-appreciated in the past. If the underappreciation goes on too long they create a "Lifetime Achievement Award".

They like underdogs - like female directors.

They use the Oscars to bolster their artistic pretensions and hide their commercial realities. Hollywood economics are dominated by the so called "franchise" movies. So the Shrek, Narnia, Halloween series are important to them in order to stay in business, they won't win many awards.

They like drama or "hooks" in the back story. Bigelow is female, makes excellent movies that can be seen as artistic rather than commercial, and was married to the box-office king - Cameron (Hot Damn!). With such positives on her side it is almost inevitable that she would win an Oscar. She sends the approved message - i.e. we are socially progressive and are not just slaves to the almighty dollar.

The only thing wrong with this is that "The Hurt Locker" is only fair as a movie. I don't care what Rotten Tomatoes says.


I think they'll be quite disappointed when they discover that all the people they sue are, in fact, broke college kids who couldn't afford to pay them even if they wanted to.


Uh... right. I really wonder about AMPAS conspiracy theorists. There are approximately 6,000 voting members of AMPAS. The idea that they vote with any kind of uniform ideology is faintly absurd. The idea that the Oscars are used to "bolster artistic pretensions and hide commercial realities" ... well, these people gave the best picture award to Gladiator, for crying out loud. And Return of the King. And Titanic. And lots of other movies that have grossed tons of money and were otherwise just not that good.


Cant imagine they will have a lot of people settling for $1500.

Arent most folks that are "stealing" movies young,broke & assetless anyway ?

Ive never stolen a movie. But, if I was younger & more into tech I probably would have.

How many teenagers can pony up $1500 ?

How exactly would the studios COLLECT if they were to win a judgement ?



You are presuming that there are no expenses involved in suing.

I suspect the legal team will keep 40% after any out of pocket expenses which leaves far less for the producers.

And my guess is it would be expensive to figure out who is worth suing.

Winning a judgement against an unemployed student is not cost effective.


RJM - I'm far from a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that judgements against teenagers or other relatively broke people can be collected in the form of garnishing wages until the debt has been paid off.


Remember that $1500 is the "please go away and leave me alone" amount. The statutory damages are $150,000 per infringement. Suppose this ends up being like the RIAA case, and they get some $20,000 judgments from middle-class families with teenagers. They don't have to sue a lot of people to encourage the others to pay up.

I didn't notice initially that the distributor (Summit) is not the same company as the producer (Voltage) that filed the lawsuits. This actually makes the economics even *more* favorable for them to be aggressive on piracy. The production company usually gets the short end of the stick in any revenue split with the distributor. (For example, the industry-standard royalty for DVD sales is 20%.)


I still dont get how they can sue for that much..everyone who is getting sued should just give up $10 for the price of a movie ticket or $20 for the price of a dvd. If it was me give them $1 for a redbox rental and tell them to f off


This is an old post but I'm going to comment anyway: movie studios make movies to make money. If they couldn't sell them they wouldn't bother. So I don't really get the people who somehow think they're entitled to whatever they can get their hands on for free. My guess is that if these same people ever got off the sofa and created something themselves they'd have a sudden change of heart on the subject.

And the reason they can sue for more than the price of a ticket is because the law was written to discourage people from illegal sharing. If the fine was only the price of a ticket it wouldn't work.

Really, is any of this hard to understand? I'll bet the average child would be able to understand.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites