Lionsgate Waging a Legal War Over Expendables 3 Internet Leak

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Lionsgate Waging a Legal War Over Expendables 3 Internet Leak

Expendables 3 Poster

The studio is none too happy that its upcoming Expendables 3 has been downloaded over a million times online.

Those who frequent file sharing sites might have seen a file called "Expendables 3" being offered for download as early as a few weeks ago. Now, film company Lionsgate is taking legal action against the individuals who it claims shared an advance copy of the film online. Last week, Thursday, Lionsgate filed a lawsuit in California against "John Does 1-10," and targets the people behind torrent sites: limetorrents, billionuploads, hulfile, played, swantshare and dotsemper, and "uses language that's similar to past mass 'Doe' complaints against torrent users." According to Lionsgate, it has learned on July 24 that a digital file containing a high-quality reproduction of the action film has been stolen and uploaded on the internet. Lionsgate claims all of the copies circulating online are said to be traceable to the original digital file that got nicked. To date Expendables 3 is said to have already been downloaded over a million times across multiple sites.

The lawsuit mentions: "By downloading one of these 'torrent' files associated with the Stolen Film from [limetorrents (dot) com], users join a 'swarm' where they download parts of the Stolen Film from many different users and also upload to other users parts of the Stolen Film they have already received, until eventually they have reproduced the entire Stolen Film on their own hard drives and in most cases have also uploaded all or a substantial part of the Stolen Film to others."

Additionally, Lionsgate mentions in the lawsuit that it sent demand letters to the torrent operators mentioned but did not receive a response. The studio is demanding a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctions that prohibit anonymous operators of the sites from hosting, linking to, distributing reproducing, performing, selling or making available copies of Expendables 3. However, Lionsgate isn't stopping there, as the requested injunction also aims to "take all steps necessary to recall and recover all copies of the Stolen Film or any portion thereof that they have distributed," and is even eyeing the ISPs that are providing cloud storage and hosting services, the banks and financial institutions that are servicing said torrent sites.

Say what you will about movies not being worth the price of admission, but downloading a film and watching it for free is theft however you look at it -- regardless if you think it's worth paying full admission price or not.

Expendables 3 stars Sylvester Stallone, Jet Li, Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Antonio Banderas, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Wesley Snipes, Kellan Lutz, Victor Ortiz and MMA fighter Ronda Rousey for an August 15, 2014 theatrical release.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Permalink

Was it really nessessary to post links to the torrent sites?

Another company fighting the fight that is already lost.

Alex Co:
downloading a film and watching it for free is theft however you look at it

Not exactly. It's copyright infringement, but theft requires not just having something you didn't pay for but also depriving the original owner of it. Since digital copies are copies and leave the original owner in possession of the original, it's not theft.

Whether or not infringement is morally wrong or not is not an argument I'm particularly interested in having since it ultimately ends up devolving into unverifiable claims about whether somebody would have bought a movie/game/whatever had they not pirated it, but I'll stand by copyright infringement and theft not being the same thing.

gigastar:
Was it really nessessary to post links to the torrent sites?

That happened automatically! Damnit! Taking it out now! Sorry and thanks!

Interesting, they got Ronda instead of Gina. I know Ronda is THE female fighter of the moment (the shine has come off her a bit though) but Gina was the original female fighter of the moment and has done a movie or two before.

That is one hell of a cast list, I don't even recognize most the names on the list. I am in the minority that kind of likes the expendables films but there was a lot of "fighting for screen time", this list is huge ... so I have to think that fight will be a royal rumble for screen time.

.............the hell is Kelsey Grammer doing in this movie? Don't get me wrong, I love the guy and think he's a great actor. It's just when I think "80's/Early 90's Action Movie" (which all these movies are purely an homage to and almost even a parody of), I don't really think of Kelsey Grammer kicking ass and taking names.

I wouldntvwatch this if you paid me, let alone let it clutter my hard drive.
The first two are such inane drivel that I fell asleep during them

RJ 17:
.............the hell is Kelsey Grammer doing in this movie? Don't get me wrong, I love the guy and think he's a great actor. It's just when I think "80's/Early 90's Action Movie" (which all these movies are purely an homage to and almost even a parody of), I don't really think of Kelsey Grammer kicking ass and taking names.

Don't you remember Cheers Part 2: Boston Bloodbath? Frasier really put John Rambo to shame in that one.

Alex Co:
Say what you will about movies not being worth the price of admission, but downloading a film and watching it for free is theft however you look at it -- regardless if you think it's worth paying full admission price or not.

the movie was put out before its theatrical release. blame the source and not the folks that take advantage of a hiring mistake Lionsgate made.

The plot of the second movie feels like making a check list for the pacing. One "not famous" guy got killed by the big bad, and they feel a need for revenge (Just forget about the super weapon thingy that Van Damme wanted to sell, because he never even got the chance to).

The heroes chase the bad guy at the airport. Bam, bam, bam...nothing that really stands out, but probably the Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Bruce Willis bits are enjoyable. The final fight are poorly choreographed, Scott Adkins which is famous for the Undisputed movies got no time to shine.

A movie that supposed to represent the badass action star leave a bad taste in my mouth. At least, the first movie had a story. But for some reason, I really wish the third movie will give me some of the badass feel when I get from watching those action stars.

i wonder how many more people knew about this thanks to this news story.
i for one didnt know that expendables 3 was already up for pirating, not that
i care at all, but still. Seems like something you would want to be hush hush
about.

Well if they got their hands on the person that posted the video, then good for you, string them up. But if you are going after the torrent sites, you have already lost.

Falterfire:

Alex Co:
downloading a film and watching it for free is theft however you look at it

Not exactly. It's copyright infringement, but theft requires not just having something you didn't pay for but also depriving the original owner of it. Since digital copies are copies and leave the original owner in possession of the original, it's not theft.

Whether or not infringement is morally wrong or not is not an argument I'm particularly interested in having since it ultimately ends up devolving into unverifiable claims about whether somebody would have bought a movie/game/whatever had they not pirated it, but I'll stand by copyright infringement and theft not being the same thing.

Almost exactly what I was going to post. Thank you.

'Copyright infringement' is in no way, shape of form theft, even if it is morally/legally questionable. Calling it theft prevents honest debate. Kinda disappointed that The Escapist referred to it as such.

Yeah i saw it somewhere, but i don't really want to waste my time on it even for free.

Aggieknight:

Falterfire:

Alex Co:
downloading a film and watching it for free is theft however you look at it

Not exactly. It's copyright infringement, but theft requires not just having something you didn't pay for but also depriving the original owner of it. Since digital copies are copies and leave the original owner in possession of the original, it's not theft.

Whether or not infringement is morally wrong or not is not an argument I'm particularly interested in having since it ultimately ends up devolving into unverifiable claims about whether somebody would have bought a movie/game/whatever had they not pirated it, but I'll stand by copyright infringement and theft not being the same thing.

Almost exactly what I was going to post. Thank you.

'Copyright infringement' is in no way, shape of form theft, even if it is morally/legally questionable. Calling it theft prevents honest debate. Kinda disappointed that The Escapist referred to it as such.

yeap yeap and yeap. I heard the rating got downgraded from adult to a PG-13 film which is just.....dumb.

I don't have much to say about downloading it after it is released, but torrenting it before it is even released is downright dirty.

EndlessSporadic:
I don't have much to say about downloading it after it is released, but torrenting it before it is even released is downright dirty.

Why? You have the exact same result it in the end

THis seems like the dumbest possible response to a leek like that. What realistic benefit does suing people really serve. Even if they are able to successfully get a conviction how much money would they ever actually get from such a lawsuit? And by publicly filing a lawsuit this way they call attention to the leak so a much wider audience will now be aware of the bootlegged copies existence. I certainly would never known about it had it not been for this article lol.

For it to be copyright infringement, doesn't the IP holder have to take steps to ensure their work is protected?
If so, how is suing after copyright has been infringed considered "protecting" said copyright? The fact that it's being copied wholesale suggests to me that there was very little protecting the work, if anything at all, or that there was obviously inadequate protections placed upon the work. Sure, there are always going to be people that will find a way, but since they get mad over EVERY IP they make being copied I would suggest they care not for attempting to protect their work.
Well, I never could make it through the first expendables movie, wasn't even aware of the second, but I'll download this one just to be a pain in their lazy deluded behinds. Let's see how well they protected this copyright of theirs...
Oh, downloading already and I didn't even need trackers either! Didn't notice any protection at all. Thanks TPB, And Thanks Lionsgate, I still won't bother watching the movie though, not for free either. Downloaded and deleted, all within 5 minutes.

Ajarat:
For it to be copyright infringement, doesn't the IP holder have to take steps to ensure their work is protected?
If so, how is suing after copyright has been infringed considered "protecting" said copyright? The fact that it's being copied wholesale suggests to me that there was very little protecting the work, if anything at all, or that there was obviously inadequate protections placed upon the work. Sure, there are always going to be people that will find a way, but since they get mad over EVERY IP they make being copied I would suggest they care not for attempting to protect their work.
Well, I never could make it through the first expendables movie, wasn't even aware of the second, but I'll download this one just to be a pain in their lazy deluded behinds. Let's see how well they protected this copyright of theirs...
Oh, downloading already and I didn't even need trackers either! Didn't notice any protection at all. Thanks TPB, And Thanks Lionsgate, I still won't bother watching the movie though, not for free either. Downloaded and deleted, all within 5 minutes.

this lawsuit is considered part of protecting their copyright

"...Recover all copies of the stolen film or any portion thereof they have distributed"...

Good luck with that is all I'm going to say. I don't begrudge them for filing suit over a movie being available before it even came out, especially a crap one they spent a lot of money on, but it'll take an act of god to remove every single file in existence out there. Good luck getting every single copy of the file off of each computer it's sitting on is all I'm saying.

I think Lionsgate probably has more justification for filing suit than a lot of other similar actions, but they're fighting a losing battle. This won't put a dent in the number of downloads, indeed on the contrary there's a good chance that confirming this is a real copy of the film will result in another demonstration of the Streisand effect and make it even easier to acquire.

And posting the fact the leak happened all over sites like this is really going to reduce the demand now.

Oh sweet it comes out on the weekend I'm taking off for my birthday, I know what I'm doing on Friday :). That said this reeeeaaallllyyy isn't a movie I would watch on a computer or a home theater system the first time (even if it is a bad ass set up). This is something you watch at the movies and go FUCK YEAH. Anyway, I wish them luck on getting those copies back, won't happen though :P.

Do you ever wonder, when you hear news like this, if maybe the studio leaked it on purpose? Like, maybe they realized that their movie sucked, at least compared to the budget they blew on it, so they figure they'll need an excuse to explain to their shareholders why their film won't make its money back. Leaking a copy of a bad film not only gives them a good excuse but also opens up the potential for lawsuits (which, if they can get one to stick against a deep-pocketed ISP, could be quite lucrative), potentially recouping all the money that their film wasted.

I mean, it's not terribly likely, and if their movie is actually good it becomes exceedingly less so, but without having seen the first two, I'm guessing that, as is common with third films in a series, this movie will not be a stellar example of its craft -- and given the credits list, I bet the cast didn't come cheap.

Given how well the last two movies did, you'd think they'd be happy with people at least watching the third.

RJ 17:
.............the hell is Kelsey Grammer doing in this movie? Don't get me wrong, I love the guy and think he's a great actor. It's just when I think "80's/Early 90's Action Movie" (which all these movies are purely an homage to and almost even a parody of), I don't really think of Kelsey Grammer kicking ass and taking names.

You know, I actually thought this as well. Then I remembered he was the original Beast in the X-men movies.

then I still thought he wasn't a great fit but I still think it's badass that he's gonna be killing people with his doctor powers.

TristanBelmont:

RJ 17:
.............the hell is Kelsey Grammer doing in this movie? Don't get me wrong, I love the guy and think he's a great actor. It's just when I think "80's/Early 90's Action Movie" (which all these movies are purely an homage to and almost even a parody of), I don't really think of Kelsey Grammer kicking ass and taking names.

You know, I actually thought this as well. Then I remembered he was the original Beast in the X-men movies.

then I still thought he wasn't a great fit but I still think it's badass that he's gonna be killing people with his doctor powers.

Oh I agree, I actually thought he was a brilliant choice to play The Beast as he really has the perfect look for it and can very easily play the part of a sophisticated intellectual. Like I said, though, he's not really the first name that comes to mind when I think of over-the-top 80's/Early 90's Action Movies. The type of movies where the hero literally just stands in one spot, shooting from left to right and mowing down an entire line of guys with machine guns shooting at him...all while not even getting a scratch.

Falterfire:

Alex Co:
downloading a film and watching it for free is theft however you look at it

Not exactly. It's copyright infringement, but theft requires not just having something you didn't pay for but also depriving the original owner of it. Since digital copies are copies and leave the original owner in possession of the original, it's not theft.

Whether or not infringement is morally wrong or not is not an argument I'm particularly interested in having since it ultimately ends up devolving into unverifiable claims about whether somebody would have bought a movie/game/whatever had they not pirated it, but I'll stand by copyright infringement and theft not being the same thing.

Well said.

I honestly find it a little mystifying. I think there are legitimate arguments for why copyright infringement is the wrong thing to do, but when I see people equate infringement with theft I cant help but feel like its almost a admission of defeat. The message it sends, at least to me, is that people consider that it has to be theft in order to be a bad thing - or on the flip side, that if it isnt specifically theft then its ok.

Misrepresenting the actual act and trying to equate it with a somewhat stronger illegal act sends the message that the people using those arguments dont in fact believe their own position. Infringing copyright is immoral on its own - it doesnt need to be made into something its not for that to be true.

Alex Co:

Say what you will about movies not being worth the price of admission, but downloading a film and watching it for free is theft however you look at it -- regardless if you think it's worth paying full admission price or not.

well about from actually , factually and legally i guess.

RJ 17:

TristanBelmont:

RJ 17:
.............the hell is Kelsey Grammer doing in this movie? Don't get me wrong, I love the guy and think he's a great actor. It's just when I think "80's/Early 90's Action Movie" (which all these movies are purely an homage to and almost even a parody of), I don't really think of Kelsey Grammer kicking ass and taking names.

You know, I actually thought this as well. Then I remembered he was the original Beast in the X-men movies.

then I still thought he wasn't a great fit but I still think it's badass that he's gonna be killing people with his doctor powers.

Oh I agree, I actually thought he was a brilliant choice to play The Beast as he really has the perfect look for it and can very easily play the part of a sophisticated intellectual. Like I said, though, he's not really the first name that comes to mind when I think of over-the-top 80's/Early 90's Action Movies. The type of movies where the hero literally just stands in one spot, shooting from left to right and mowing down an entire line of guys with machine guns shooting at him...all while not even getting a scratch.

Maybe he has a gun in his briefcase. Maybe he's been hiding the action hero side of himself this whole time. MAYBE HE'S THE TRUE EXPENDABLE

The Bucket:

EndlessSporadic:
I don't have much to say about downloading it after it is released, but torrenting it before it is even released is downright dirty.

Why? You have the exact same result it in the end

Nope.
Piracy after the product was released, lets say 1 week or two, is fiarly harmless (contrary to what some stupid people may say).
Pracy on launch can be harmful. That you want to avoid.

Piracy BEFORE launce is VERY severe for the product .

weirdee:
this lawsuit is considered part of protecting their copyright

I understood that that is what they think, but I was under the impression that litigation is a reactionary method of reclaiming actual damages, not a method of protection for suing does nothing to actually prevent any such copyright infringement. Next time you want to argue, try fucking reading what someone has said.

I wouldn't watch that garbage for free.

And despite the leak they're still going to be #1 at the boxoffice that weekend and they're still going to make lots of money off of a crappy movie just because that's how things work.

Alex Co:
...Last week, Thursday, Lionsgate filed a lawsuit in California against "John Does 1-10," and targets the people behind torrent sites: limetorrents, billionuploads, hulfile, played, swantshare and dotsemper, and "uses language that's similar to past mass 'Doe' complaints against torrent users."...

This is very surreal. It's stuff like this that a story of comedic excellence is waiting to be penned.

It's like suing Keyser Söze.

I wish them all the best with it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here