[bootlegga]

$1:

A Canadian man who was ordered to pay 20th Century Fox $10.5 million for streaming episodes of “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy” says he has been driven to bankruptcy by the court’s decision.

Fox reportedly filed a lawsuit with the Federal Court in Toronto last October, alleging that two websites — Watch The Simpsons Online and Watch Family Guy Online — violated its copyright.

In its ruling, the Federal Court found the defendant had copied episodes of the TV shows, uploaded them to a server and gave the public access to them through embedded video players.

It awarded Fox $10 million in statutory damages, and another $500,000 in punitive damages. According to Torrentfreak, a news site that covers copyright issues, the two sites are now property of Fox.

The defendant in the lawsuit, identified as “Mr. Hernandez” in earlier reports and as “Nick” in an interview with Vice magazine, said he was surprised by the lawsuit because such suits had not been common in Canada.

“I assumed I'd hear about a movie site in Canada being taken down first and then I would have voluntarily followed suit to avoid any issues … but obviously I never expected to be the guinea pig,” he told Vice magazine.

He said he set up the websites out of frustration over the fact that more recent seasons of “The Simpsons” are not available on DVD, and he doesn’t see his activities as being harmful to Fox.

“I filled the gap,” he said. “I was hoping Fox would eventually create their own service that I could link to or use in some way.”

“Nick” said he did make money off the sites, but not enough to make a decent living. He says he was struggling with credit card debt while running the sites.

“They are getting every penny from my house sale and that's really all I have for them,” he told Vice. Despite his financial problems, Fox was “trying to paint a picture as though I made half a million dollars per year with the thing.”

According to Torrentfreak, Watch The Simpsons Online got about 80 million visitors during its lifetime, which began in 2008, and Watch Family Guy Online got about seven million.

Under Canadian law, people who infringe copyright for commercial purposes can be fined up to $20,000 per infringement. The maximum amount in this case would have been $14 million, law news site Lexology reports.

Nick argues entertainment companies themselves could end piracy if they took steps to make their content more easily available.

“If all the entertainment industries got together and made a worldwide Hulu of sorts, they could and would kill piracy even if it [had] a minimal fee similar to Netflix,” he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/16 ... a-business

While I don't have a problem with individuals downloading, THIS is most certianly illegal. Making money off someone else's creative work is theft.

[desertdude]

Yeah but 10.5 million is a bit ridiculous IMO, a reasonable fine and even,some jail time if need be, but 10.5 mil.

And the money made was most probably from adverts not from selling content.

[bootlegga]

desertdude desertdude:

Yeah but 10.5 million is a bit ridiculous IMO, a reasonable fine and even,some jail time if need be, but 10.5 mil.

And the money made was most probably from adverts not from selling content.

Well, the maximum fine was $14 million, so it could have been worse.

As for how he made money, it's irrelevant IMHO. He still made money from someone else's creative content.

[desertdude]

Ah fuck it, I dont give a shit anymore about this.

[Thanos]

Neither do I. Cat's out of the bag and the industry can't put it back in again. Yes, these guys are breaking the law. But they're ripping off a vicious business that in turn has been ripping off artists, writers, musicians, directors, and actors for decades. Want to read about some injustice? Then look up how a vile old cocksucker like Saul Zaentz actually had the gall to sue John Fogerty for sounding too much like John Fogerty (and then look up also what Zaentz also did to the Tolkien family and all the craft-market licensees of Tolkien products when the New Line LOTR movies came out). Or what David Geffen did to Don Henley, where Henley really can't record anything under his own name anymore thanks to Geffen's lawsuits. Or, in one of the worst examples of utterly immoral, unethical, yet somehow completely legal theft ever, look up what an absolutely soulless bastard named Stan Polley did to Badfinger, a crime so blatant that songwriter and vocalist Pete Ham ended up committing suicide out of sheer despair at what was done to him.

Yes, in a purely legal argument, illegal downloading is bad. But it's taking profits away from a business that is so contemptable on most levels that if anyone deserves it to happen to them then it's the assholes at the recording companies and movie studios. Fuck them. I hope they all die from cancer of the ass to match the cancer in their hearts. They don't deserve a second of pity, not after what they've done and keep doing to the creators who make their money for them.

[Freakinoldguy]

desertdude desertdude:

Yeah but 10.5 million is a bit ridiculous IMO, a reasonable fine and even,some jail time if need be, but 10.5 mil.

And the money made was most probably from adverts not from selling content.

Doesn't matter. Without the content the Adverts would have been non existent or useless.

He used someone else's property for personal monetary gain and that's theft. So good luck buddy. If you're stupid or greedy enough to think that they won't come after you just because you're a Canadian, you got what you deserved.

[Thiizic]

I dont understand how this is an issue for big companies like Fox.

Charging someone millions of dollars for letting people watch OLD EPISODES is pathetic.

In nature you see many animals using each other for benefits.
Example: The Polar Bear and the Arctic Fox.

The Arctic Fox often follows polar bears and takes whatever is left of their kill.
It isn't hurting anybody.

[Freakinoldguy]

Thiizic Thiizic:

I dont understand how this is an issue for big companies like Fox.

Charging someone millions of dollars for letting people watch OLD EPISODES is pathetic.

In nature you see many animals using each other for benefits.
Example: The Polar Bear and the Arctic Fox.

The Arctic Fox often follows polar bears and takes whatever is left of their kill.
It isn't hurting anybody.

He was using their product for profit. He wasn't just streaming the video's for free he'd taken on advertisers and was making money off of the things he streamed.

$1:

“Nick” said he did make money off the sites, but not enough to make a decent living. He says he was struggling with credit card debt while running the sites.

Irrelevant. It's stealing plain and simple and your income level isn't an excuse.

If I came to you house and took your second car without your permission and then used it as a taxi to make myself some money would you be happy. I doubt it and neither was Fox when they found out what this guy was doing, which is understandable.

But I do agree with DD that the amount of the award was way out of line for what he'd done.

[alexandrudan]

i think is to much .. 10,5 million...they better put him in jail for several mounts, maybe a year.but 10,5..seriously ,it's funny ))

[BartSimpson]

The award being so large is not going to be a deterrent to individuals of modest means but it will be a deterrent to companies and corporations that might've elected to do what this fellow did on a more commercial scale.

[Thiizic]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Thiizic Thiizic:

I dont understand how this is an issue for big companies like Fox.

Charging someone millions of dollars for letting people watch OLD EPISODES is pathetic.

In nature you see many animals using each other for benefits.
Example: The Polar Bear and the Arctic Fox.

The Arctic Fox often follows polar bears and takes whatever is left of their kill.
It isn't hurting anybody.

He was using their product for profit. He wasn't just streaming the video's for free he'd taken on advertisers and was making money off of the things he streamed.

$1:

“Nick” said he did make money off the sites, but not enough to make a decent living. He says he was struggling with credit card debt while running the sites.

Irrelevant. It's stealing plain and simple and your income level isn't an excuse.

If I came to you house and took your second car without your permission and then used it as a taxi to make myself some money would you be happy. I doubt it and neither was Fox when they found out what this guy was doing, which is understandable.

But I do agree with DD that the amount of the award was way out of line for what he'd done.

That analogy doesn't work.
Fox doesnt just own 2 cars and they arent making a modest living.
They own cars just so other people don't get that car and they are manipulative.

I wouldnt mind stealing from big companies to support myself and they shouldnt either.

Another example: Those fish that stick to sharks. Remora's I believe is what they are called.

Small fish use the big fish for nutrients and for the necessities of living.
The shark doesn't really notice them, but I guess stealing the sharks leftovers is a bad thing.

[Public_Domain]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The award being so large is not going to be a deterrent to individuals of modest means but it will be a deterrent to companies and corporations that might've elected to do what this fellow did on a more commercial scale.

Except they'd be able to afford getting just a slap on the wrist

[Freakinoldguy]

Thiizic Thiizic:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Thiizic Thiizic:

I dont understand how this is an issue for big companies like Fox.

Charging someone millions of dollars for letting people watch OLD EPISODES is pathetic.

In nature you see many animals using each other for benefits.
Example: The Polar Bear and the Arctic Fox.

The Arctic Fox often follows polar bears and takes whatever is left of their kill.
It isn't hurting anybody.

He was using their product for profit. He wasn't just streaming the video's for free he'd taken on advertisers and was making money off of the things he streamed.

$1:

“Nick” said he did make money off the sites, but not enough to make a decent living. He says he was struggling with credit card debt while running the sites.

Irrelevant. It's stealing plain and simple and your income level isn't an excuse.

If I came to you house and took your second car without your permission and then used it as a taxi to make myself some money would you be happy. I doubt it and neither was Fox when they found out what this guy was doing, which is understandable.

But I do agree with DD that the amount of the award was way out of line for what he'd done.

That analogy doesn't work.
Fox doesnt just own 2 cars and they arent making a modest living.
They own cars just so other people don't get that car and they are manipulative.

I wouldnt mind stealing from big companies to support myself and they shouldnt either.

Another example: Those fish that stick to sharks. Remora's I believe is what they are called.

Small fish use the big fish for nutrients and for the necessities of living.
The shark doesn't really notice them, but I guess stealing the sharks leftovers is a bad thing.

You seem to think theft is okay and can be justified by the level of income by the victim? If that's the case why not just find a good neighbourhood in your town and break into the homes and rob those evil rich people or better yet why not just wait outside their front door and rob them at gunpoint?

As for the remora's. They perform a vital function for the shark and without them the sharks would get sick and die. So, could you explain to me how stealing someone else's property for personal gain is performing a vital function for them?

Like I said before the award was way out of line but then again, so it the idea that just because it's a corporation that they shouldn't be afforded the same basic rights under the law as the person who's stealing from them and their shareholders.