First published July 21, 2015 on LinkedIn.
In a world where increasingly publishing houses are recognizing the value of community outreach to tackle piracy (such as the now much revered CD PROJEKT RED’s approach to tackling piracy for their new game Witcher 3), and where there are now increasing pressures on the free usage of images, the occasional story of an outlier does arise.
In this case, Voltage Pictures had quietly been gathering the details of purported BitTorrent sharers through subpoenas in the US, then threatening the individuals with hefty fines of up to $150,000 – resulting in frequent settlements out of court for $5,000 or less. Some could argue this is scaremongering – an attempt to smash and grab the market for what it’s worth in an area where otherwise legislation and litigation have seen limited success. It seems to be working though, as while only American ISPs had previously been cooperating with Voltage, it now appears that they have successfully applied in Australia by winning a Federal Court order forcing the six largest ISPs to hand over details of approximately 4,700 customers alleged to have illegally downloaded their last awards-heavy flick Dallas Buyers Club.
While Voltage are well within their rights to seek details of relevant defendants where an intention to claim is present, and if shown that a breach of Intellectual Property can be proven, the most interesting issue to arise is that Voltage are seeking court approval for a specifically worded script that shall allow them to seek details from alleged defendants of what their download histories may contain, and if they are “serial downloaders” (or if cleverly re-phrased, serial-IP right infringers). Cries of overreach and bloody inquest have been raised, while Voltage’s counsel has shrugged, stating they would be negligent were they not to ask such questions. Indeed the implied wording of the message conveyed to potential defendants seems along the lines of “you have infringed our rights, pay up” as opposed to “a possibility of infringement exists, we seek cooperation to investigate”.
There is also speculation as to the specific model being used to appraise the value of the settlement pursued from each target; worryingly, it may be a case of the wealthiest of Voltage’s ‘pirates’ that are targeted for the lion’s share of the settlement value, while smaller fish may be let off in a similar manner to what happened in the United States (though $5,000 is still a lot of money for most people).
Voltage’s actions have given rise to a truly mixed bag of opinions. Traditionally approached, where there is a fault at common law established, the aggrieved deserves redress for the wrong. The progressive side to internet piracy says that inherently it is not the intention of downloaders to deprive the IP holders of their due revenue, but rather to gain access to content that would have otherwise been difficult in their respective regions.
A 2013 study by Columbia University on copyright infringement found that 45% of US citizens polled and 46% of German citizens polled admitted to casual and frequent breach of copyright infringement through downloading. The percentage rose to almost 70% when looking at younger demographic users (arguably the more ‘tech-savvy’ part of the population). The study further showed that while there was a slim majority in both countries in favour of punishing copyright infringement (this again slumped in the younger demographics) both countries showed high receptivity to a nominal fee charged alongside broadband fees to compensate infringed parties in return for unlimited access to content and file-sharing. The figures are definitive – 61% of Germans agreed, and 48% of Americans agreed that a fee in the region of $18.79 in the US or €16.43 in Germany would be an acceptable amount per month.
This would sound like good news for the likes of Netflix and Amazon’s Prime Video, whose bread and butter is focused on regular member subscriptions. Indeed with Netflix launched in Australia in March of this year, boasting a healthy 1,500+ titles for viewers, there may be a more natural decline to internet piracy in the works. Perhaps Voltage may have an effect with their punitive approach – any clever PR department would pin any decrease in piracy on their legal strategy to promote a similar culture from other studios, after all. But it will remain to be seen if Voltage is the Robin Hood of the Story, or perhaps they may well be the Sheriff of Nottingham instead.
In other related news, what some may call an ironic twist has occured, with the creators of Godzilla, Toho, filing cease and desist orders against Voltage Pictures for promoting their new film Colossal (starring Anne Hatheway) using intellectual property from the Godzilla movies, including publicity shots from the 2014 reboot licensed by Toho, as well as material from several of the older films. It remains to be seen how the matter is resolved before the California Federal Court, though it may well be that Toho will seek settlement from Voltage Pictures. Will they ask to have a look at Voltage’s wallet before they do so though?
Sources:
- http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/19/dallas-buyers-club-plan-to-ask-suspected-pirates-to-reveal-incomes
- http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/23/netflix-australia-launch-will-viewers-be-lured-to-its-streaming-service
- http://www.dailytech.com/Nearly+Half+of+Americans+Pirate+Casually+But+Pirates+Purchase+More+Legal+Content/article29702.htm
- http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/20/godzilla-toho-sues-over-anne-hathaway-rival-movie-colossal
- https://themelissakeating.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/the-dallas-buyers-club-effect/