Weaponized Intellectual Property, or WIP, is the latest legal tool to separate you from your money.
In November of last year I wrote "Copyright Trolls" about Righthaven - a company engaged in the mass suing of bloggers who posted copy written snippets from the Las Vegas Journal Review.
The newest scheme (also covered here in Wired) in this new genres of WIP is the low budget "B" movie - in this case "Nude Nuns with Big Guns". The movie, originally owned by Camelot Distribution Group, is currently owned by Incentive Capital in Utah.
Camelot (and subsequently Incentive) have discovered that this type of movie is often watched by BitTorrent users who share pirated versions of the film over the internet (probably pimply-faced adolescent boys and older ne'er-do-wells living in their parents basements). Like the RIAA they figure that you are likely to get a small, say $2,000 to $3,000 USD cash settlement from anyone who you can sue for copyright infringement.
So, calculating that maybe six thousand people might have managed to have "Nude Nuns with Big Guns" on their computer as part of a BitTorrent, these companies have whipped up lawsuits seeking the IP address of anyone sharing said movie. This means a haul of around eighteen million dollars for the owners of the film - very likely worth many more times than the film's gross made during its entire distribution to movie theaters and DVDs.
Weaponized Intellectual Property for movies is the brain child of U.S. Copyright Group - a company explicitly formed to profit from lawsuits against downloaders. Their "settlement" fee, that is the fee whereby they drop their case against you, is typically targeted at around $2,500.00 USD. This amount was not chosen by accident. Its the amount of money its likely to cost you to engage a attorney to defend you in the case.
So there you are - lawsuit in one hand which, as in the RIAA cases, could end up costing you $150,000 USD per infringement, i.e., per movie on your hard drive, or pay $2,500 USD. You call up the local Bar Association who recommends a lawyer. You call the lawyer and find out that its going to cost you $2,500.00 USD just to get started, i.e., have the first meeting - not to mention the fact that you might still lose the case and owe both the lawyer and U.S. Copyright Group big time.
What do you do?
Pay the settlement of $2,500.00 of course.
But settlement money at this scale, like bloody water drawing sharks, draws more lawyers.
And this racket has not been lost on other lawyers, in particular one Graham Syfert. According to this article Graham realized that he could create a kit of standard legal forms (Motion to Dismiss, etc.) for $19.95 USD that would put off the copyright hounds - at least for a while and maybe for good. And for $19.95 USD who wouldn't give it a go...?
While I suppose that he can and does make good money from this Syfert was subsequently sued by the lawyers of US Copyright Group (Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver) because, apparently, the forms work, and cases are being dismissed. (Apparently no one at Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver likes interlopers in a feeding frenzy...)
When you think about this you realize that its completely and utterly insane.
Soon movie houses will realize that the movies they create as bait for this type of sue-fest will not require anything beyond flashing a few naked boobies (total cost of maybe five thousand - not even a respectable budget for a porn film). Adolescents and ne'er-do-well's will happily BitTorrent the film and Mommy and Daddy will field the settlement process actions.
One imagines that US Copyright Group carefully studies the ZIP codes of the intended suit recipients to ensure that the per-household income figures are will above six figures - making that $2,500.00 USD payment a no-brainer. In fact, in a decent, well to do neighborhood, $10K a year is likely a good haul per household - after all, little Jr. is probably quiet and happy in the basement and you could easily spend that same $10K on a hobby or sport (like ice hockey).
No comments:
Post a Comment