• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Activision to Sue Console Gamer Pirates

Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Text

Activision is seeking statutory damages ranging from $30,000 to $150,000 for each infringement of each copyrighted videogame. They are also seeking reimbursement of legal fees.
Click to expand...

If the people in the case were giving away / selling pirated copies of the game, they deserve to go down. However, I hope that Activision does not turn into the next RIAA. It is not that far of a stretch, considering they are now owned by Vivendi (the parent of Universal Music Group). It does not look like they are going after the torrents, yet. Maybe Vivendi thinks that the only way to pirate games is via copying the physical disc to another disc?
 
I think it's funny how companies claim that "piracy = stealing," yet they go after people for copyright infringement, not theft. If they were going after them for theft (I mean, they do compare piracy to shoplifting), you'd be looking at a small fine (under $1000) and a short period of probation or possibly a few weeks in the clink.

P.S. I know that's not really how it works (civil vs. criminal suit) but I still think it's ironic.
 
Copyright infringement = Stealing..... so piracy = stealing.. always has been, always will be.

The word piracy, in terms of stealing copyright material predates your country (1500's).

I also think that certain cases of piracy (like this one where this guy was obviously part of a release group) they should be considered just as bad as someone who embezles money from their company. Both are stealing, and both result in a bigger loss than just the money (or product) being stolen.

 
Copyright infringement is not stealing. If it was stealing it wouldn't mater how old the idea is, or require it's own set of laws. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

I don't have an issue with companies making money from their IP, but I will ask you why is the punishment worse if you download a song than if you walked into a store and stole a CD?
 
Originally posted by: Pacemaker
Copyright infringement is not stealing. If it was stealing it wouldn't mater how old the idea is, or require it's own set of laws. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

I don't have an issue with companies making money from their IP, but I will ask you why is the punishment worse if you download a song than if you walked into a store and stole a CD?
Click to expand...

Because copyright infringement is so much easier, thus there is a need for a greater deterrent to be effective. Look at how widespread piracy is, and compare it to theft of the same items. Not even in the same ballpark.

The RIAA and MPAA lawsuits really aren't about recovering money - it's essentially an advertising campaign to warn people about the consequences of piracy to deter them from doing it.
 
The amount of money they want to get from these lawsuits or settlements just doesn't fit the crime IMO. I could see them asking $500 - $1000 for each copied game but anything more than that is nuts.
 
is this even worth it? the console pirate market really isnt that big compaired to the number of people who pirate PC games for example

i dont personally know anyone who has modded their xbox or whatever to play pirated games, i know lots of people who DL stuff for their computer
 
I hate when people start arguing semantics when it comes to this stuff. I don't care what you label it--piracy, copyright infringement, or stealing, it all comes down to one thing. Someone else owns this property, be it digital or physical, and if you distribute it yourself or download it without giving what the owner is asking for in compensation, then you deserve to be liable to the fullest extent of the law. It's really easy to avoid these lawsuits. Legally purchase your stuff. If you don't, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you.
 
They are going after those that distribute games not those that just download them. Of course if you're using a torrent then you probably are both downloading and sharing.

Moral: If you're going to steal, just steal instead of making more copies for other mateys.
 
Originally posted by: blurredvision
I hate when people start arguing semantics when it comes to this stuff. I don't care what you label it--piracy, copyright infringement, or stealing, it all comes down to one thing. Someone else owns this property, be it digital or physical, and if you distribute it yourself or download it without giving what the owner is asking for in compensation, then you deserve to be liable to the fullest extent of the law. It's really easy to avoid these lawsuits. Legally purchase your stuff. If you don't, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you, but I want to see the RIAA and MPAA provide some justification for why they're pushing for tougher laws governing the handling of IP. It's already illegal to download most stuff from file sharing networks, and they've already proven they can go after you for it successfully. The fact is that the RIAA/MPAA are trying to erode "fair use" down to nothing while also introducing draconian copy protection schemes and buying legislators to make it illegal to break said copy protection on media that you legally own.

At the moment, it's actually much more convenient to steal all your music and movies than it is to buy it. I remember several years back when the iTunes music store opened, Steve Jobs said something to the effect of, "to combat music downloaders, we have to compete with them by providing a superior product." While I don't think iTunes provides an entirely superior product to what's available from file sharing networks anymore, he did have the right idea.
 
Originally posted by: blurredvision
I hate when people start arguing semantics when it comes to this stuff. I don't care what you label it--piracy, copyright infringement, or stealing, it all comes down to one thing. Someone else owns this property, be it digital or physical, and if you distribute it yourself or download it without giving what the owner is asking for in compensation, then you deserve to be liable to the fullest extent of the law. It's really easy to avoid these lawsuits. Legally purchase your stuff. If you don't, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you.
Click to expand...

OK, then if we have justice, the fullest extent of the law is a $2 fine.

Dead serious, either it's a civil suit where the song was a $1 download and we're being ridiculous to charge 200%, or it's not civil and it's a $100 fine link with speeding or jaywalking. If talking about a game, the cost should goe up into the $30 to $60 range.

To say "fullest extent of the law" is basically nonsense. Laws are meant to apply fairly to all, it should never be fullest extent, it should always be the fair punishment everyone else gets, including the context of how such a crime effects society compared to other crimes.
 
Originally posted by: blurredvision
I hate when people start arguing semantics when it comes to this stuff. I don't care what you label it--piracy, copyright infringement, or stealing, it all comes down to one thing. Someone else owns this property, be it digital or physical, and if you distribute it yourself or download it without giving what the owner is asking for in compensation, then you deserve to be liable to the fullest extent of the law. It's really easy to avoid these lawsuits. Legally purchase your stuff. If you don't, I have a hard time feeling sorry for you.
Click to expand...

In Law, it's ALL about the semantics, language is all we have buddy.
 
The more interesting part of the law concept is that the laws are supposed to reflect the beliefs of the majority and yet for everyone who is opposed to copying MP3s, there are probably 100 college kids doing it.

 
Wasn't in this article but if I remember correctly the people they are suing were ripping the games and then selling them for profit. In my eyes that crosses the line from simple sharing of files to downright stealing and I think they are getting what they deserve.
 
Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
Wasn't in this article but if I remember correctly the people they are suing were ripping the games and then selling them for profit. In my eyes that crosses the line from simple sharing of files to downright stealing and I think they are getting what they deserve.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as much as many people like to peddle the viewpoint that "it doesn't matter, it's ALL stealing," this goes beyond it. You could at least argue that many people who download games and other media would never have bought them in the first place. But if they're actually paying money... that's legitimately a lost sale.
 
Originally posted by: CalvinHobbes
The amount of money they want to get from these lawsuits or settlements just doesn't fit the crime IMO. I could see them asking $500 - $1000 for each copied game but anything more than that is nuts.
Click to expand...

Well, thats the really ugly part about this IMO. From the looks of things, they're doing this RIAA style. From what I've read, theyre not asking for the full amount - rather they're taking the persons income and net worth into account, and strongarming them into paying by telling them that if they want to take it to court, itll end up costing them even more.

http://www.gamecyte.com/report...condemns-scare-tactics

http://www.gamecyte.com/second...-settlement-inaccuracy

Asked the extent of his guilt, our source was unwilling to provide concrete details. ?There was some [wrongdoing],? he admitted. But over the course of a brief telephone conversation, he remained adamant that the punishment did not suit the crime. Audibly shaken, our contact explained how he was scared into a costly settlement by attorneys who determined how much to sue based not on the actual material infringed, but on his purchase history, the equity on his home, and the number of cars in his driveway.

If he were to get an attorney, he was informed, he would have to pay even more.

When asked why he chose the sub-par Call of Duty 3 in particular to infringe, our contact told us that the title was not involved, and was something Activision had scrounged up all on their own. ?They told us they had strong evidence,? he said, ?but they never showed it or proved they had it.?
Click to expand...

Those kind of tactics are bordering on extortion, yet are apparently still legal.

You are right, the punishment MUST fit the crime, or this is the kind of sh*t that happens. Its absolutely insane that they could even claim theyre owed $30-150k for this kinda thing.

I'm in no way condoning piracy, but sane laws need to get enacted if individuals are going to get taken to court for pirating a few games. Even assuming for a moment that stealing and piracy are equivalent (which I do not believe they are, beyond semantics), if you steal a physical activision game from a store, the storeowner or activision doesnt (and shouldnt) have the right to sue you for $150k.

Anonymous sources to be taken with a grain of salt to be sure, but thats unacceptable behavior IMO. Whether or not activision has done so remains to be proven, but the RIAA has used these exact tactics, and its an outrage. To my knowledge, the RIAA has never actually gone to court with someone - everything has always been settled out of court because they choose targets they know can never afford to stand up to them in court, while extorting far more money from them then the value of the pirated material.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 
its pretty simple to me:

-if its distribution, then you get a big lawsuit
-if you dl 1 game, it should = theft. Couple thousand at most. There is not a chance in hell they can prove that Joe Blow downloading $30 COD3 = 30k in damages to their company.
 
Originally posted by: ric1287
its pretty simple to me:

-if its distribution, then you get a big lawsuit
-if you dl 1 game, it should = theft. Couple thousand at most. There is not a chance in hell they can prove that Joe Blow downloading $30 COD3 = 30k in damages to their company.
Click to expand...

Theres a problem with even leveling reasonable fines - theres not a chance in hell they can *prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt* without breaking the law themselves, which is why they never let them get to court in the first place.

The concept of $150k+ per damage for copyright infringement for movies, music, games etc was enacted in the age of videotapes in order to deter mass counterfeiting of physical tapes, long before the internet even really existed and changed everything. In those cases, the punishment would fit the crime. Using those kind of damages for file sharers in the internet age is an absolute perversion of the law, but the actual tactics they use is sickening. Its bullying, plain and simple. Obviously theyre going for a deterrent effect, but theyre basically operating outside of the law by choosing defendants who could never hope to fight them in court.
 
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: ric1287
its pretty simple to me:

-if its distribution, then you get a big lawsuit
-if you dl 1 game, it should = theft. Couple thousand at most. There is not a chance in hell they can prove that Joe Blow downloading $30 COD3 = 30k in damages to their company.
Click to expand...

Theres a problem with even leveling reasonable fines - theres not a chance in hell they can *prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt* without breaking the law themselves, which is why they never let them get to court in the first place.

The concept of $150k+ per damage for copyright infringement for movies, music, games etc was enacted in the age of videotapes in order to deter mass counterfeiting of physical tapes, long before the internet even really existed and changed everything. In those cases, the punishment would fit the crime. Using those kind of damages for file sharers in the internet age is an absolute perversion of the law, but the actual tactics they use is sickening. Its bullying, plain and simple. Obviously theyre going for a deterrent effect, but theyre basically operating outside of the law by choosing defendants who could never hope to fight them in court.
Click to expand...

File sharing on the Internet makes the copyrighted item available to far more people than duplicating a videotape. 😕
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: ric1287
its pretty simple to me:

-if its distribution, then you get a big lawsuit
-if you dl 1 game, it should = theft. Couple thousand at most. There is not a chance in hell they can prove that Joe Blow downloading $30 COD3 = 30k in damages to their company.
Click to expand...

Theres a problem with even leveling reasonable fines - theres not a chance in hell they can *prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt* without breaking the law themselves, which is why they never let them get to court in the first place.

The concept of $150k+ per damage for copyright infringement for movies, music, games etc was enacted in the age of videotapes in order to deter mass counterfeiting of physical tapes, long before the internet even really existed and changed everything. In those cases, the punishment would fit the crime. Using those kind of damages for file sharers in the internet age is an absolute perversion of the law, but the actual tactics they use is sickening. Its bullying, plain and simple. Obviously theyre going for a deterrent effect, but theyre basically operating outside of the law by choosing defendants who could never hope to fight them in court.
Click to expand...

File sharing on the Internet makes the copyrighted item available to far more people than duplicating a videotape. 😕
Click to expand...

Theres plenty of differentiating factors. File sharers arent bootlegging for profit, theyre not trying to pass off copy a legitimate.

But thats not the real issue here - no one is saying that bootleggers shouldnt be nailed with serious court cases. Its the little guy who's being bullied here, and while he/she may have committed a crime, theyre not even interested in justice here, otherwise theyd be bringing these people to court. This is about greed and theatrics, and theyre pushing the boundaries of sanity with these outrageous claims.

If this was about justice, the punishment would fit the crime - $150k for downloading a game is absurd. Why dont we just stone him while we're at it, or castrate him so he cant have little pirate babies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top