London Lawyers Demand £600 For One Game

Barence writes "A PC Pro reader has received a demand for a £600 out-of-court settlement from lawyers claiming to have forensic evidence that he illegally downloaded a PC game on BitTorrent. The law firm, Davenport Lyons, is acting on the behalf of German games distributor Zuxxez, creator of the game in question, Two Worlds. The PC Pro reader was given no prior warning to stop file sharing, unlike the usual 'three strikes and you're out' approach adopted by the music industry. The reader says, 'To add insult to injury it [Davenport Lyons] didn't pay enough postage on the letter and I had to collect it from the sorting office at a cost of £1.30. This also used up most of the two weeks that it allowed for a response.'"

Comments

Failure on Postage?

[autocracy]

I would call that horribly ineffective service. I hope the court would agree. You should never pay to know you're sued ;)

Re:Failure on Postage?

[MoonBuggy]

I would absolutely agree that they've demonstrated incompetence at best, and have wilfully wasted time before the deadline at worst - to me this throws into question a lot of things about their case. Where did the evidence come from, for example? I've actually been wondering about that for a while when people are found to have 'x' infringing content on their machine; how do the lawyers know what you have downloaded? At what level are they monitoring us, and who are they cooperating with to do so?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Hatta]

Pretty much any file sharing program (especially bittorrent) shares back what it downloaded. It's pretty trivial for someone to try to download a file, and make a note of what peers are offering up data.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[_KiTA_]

I would call that horribly ineffective service. I hope the court would agree. You should never pay to know you're sued ;) I would call it bloody brilliant by the villains in this story. Give the guy 2 weeks to reply, but make sure it takes him 2 weeks to even get the info? Perfect!

The only way it could be better is if he had to admit guilt to even get the lawsuit information -- but hey, lets face it, not everyone can be as efficient as the US Government.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[JaJ_D]

Just to clarify.... INAL

From my understand a legal document is only considered "legal" when it is signed, sealed and delivered (know this is true for contracts, think it is also applic with documents like this - inferred contract?). So since the letter didn't have enough postage, technically it wasn't delivered

So my gut feeling would be that the letter isn't legally binding. Would be fun to argue in court

Jaj

Re:Failure on Postage?

[MoonBuggy]

This is partially why I was questioning their competence - they aren't trying to sue for distribution, they're suing for the act of having downloaded the game. If they simply jump onto the torrent and write down the IP addresses of the peers they have no evidence of anything other than the fact that the peer appeared to be sharing that file and possibly that they uploaded the sections that the lawyers' machine received. They have no idea whether the file was downloaded or placed there legitimately, and if they want to sue the user for distributing that copy then they should make that clear in their case.

Again, I would question their competence for trying to accuse someone of making an illegal download without sufficient evidence - all that they have evidence of is 'making available' (and we all know that that has been called into question recently) or perhaps of uploading to their machine. If they do, in fact, have evidence of downloading then I would question what further corroborating information the ISPs have been providing.

Reading back this post, I realise how weasel-worded it sounds and how much it is based on seemingly insignificant technicalities, but to be frank that is exactly how litigation is often performed and large companies have proved time and again that they have no interest in the spirit of the laws beyond the extent that they are of benefit to them. All I suggest is that we take the same attitude in return.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[m.ducharme]

In my jurisdiction, service is legal if you can prove that the other guy received it. In this case, the fact that he had to pay for part of the postage would constitute proof of receipt. I know that when dealing with other firms, a fax confirmation sheet is enough to show that the other office received the document, whether or not they ever printed it off their fax machine. The same would apply to e-mails where a return-on-open message is received.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dirt simple.

• Plaintiff sees your IP on the peer or seed list on the tracker for the torrent or generates affadivits for such. (By the way Peerguardian doesn't work; scans can be done from a regular residential IP.)
• Plaintiff locates the ISP owning your IP block.
• Plaintiff subpoenas the ISP to get a record of who was assigned that IP at the time of the infringement. Your name and address pop up.
• Plaintiff files court case
• The burden is now on you to mount a defense, e.g. ISP's records were in error, open access point, a neighbor's kid was using your computer or some other excuse.

I'm honestly surprised that a business hasn't been started to do this en masse yet. (The RIAA doesn't count, copyright enforcement is not their primary line of business, no matter /. would have you believe. They'd do far better to farm things out.)

Re:Failure on Postage?

[autocracy]

Oh, indeed he's clearly been served with notice since he picked it up from the post office. I'm more arguing that there is no way in hell would I have paid the postage or retrieved the stupid thing. If it's important, they'll get the postage right after they get the letter back with a big red "insufficient postage" stamp on it.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Cal Paterson]

It's not incompetence; Royal Mail's postage methods have recently changed, and lots of people have been caught out. I've been caught out twice; once when sending a friend a birthday present (as you can probably guess, someone having to pay to receive their own present didn't go down well), and once when receiving a book from overseas. On the latter occasion, Royal Mail didn't even bother to leave a note to tell me my package had been impounded. I know it's an irritating legal threat, but as much as you dislike the lawyer, he is acting entirely inside the law.

It's not "incompetence at best" to screw up the newly changed postage pricing system, especially if they're when posting from overseas. It's just a mistake.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Meh. Not downloading games via bittorrent is more-or-less guaranteed to ensure that you don't get sued for it.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[n7ytd]

I wonder... is the fact that they can now prove he received the letter the reason that it was sent postage due? Is this the el-cheapo way to prove receipt without paying for certified/registered delivery?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[jamstar7]

Um, no...

RIAA is suing a guy who's homeless. Where do you hook up a computer in a cardboard box?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[LandDolphin]

But then how else do you get free games?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[jamstar7]

Around here (north west Arizona), they refuse to pick something up without sufficient postage.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Reading the details of the homeless case shows that they tried (inadequately and improperly) to serve him when he was homeless; but that the alleged infringement occurred while he was living at the address they tried to use to contact him.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[MoonBuggy]

I've posted my assumptions on why this cannot be a valid method for this particular case.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Reziac]

Making sure the defendant won't have time to respond is an old and oft-used trick. I would guess that's what happened here -- the letters were *deliberately* underpostaged, so that in no case would the defendant have the full two weeks to decide what to do. Whether this is still a binding letter probably varies by jurisdiction. In some areas, merely a "reasonable attempt to notify" is required, NOT an actual delivery.

A similar trick I've personally seen used for a sheriff's sale, where a member of that sheriff's department wanted to ensure that he would be the only bidder present, and that the owner would be unable to redeem his property: Legal notice of sale has to be posted in a public place. So... the legal notice was posted on a building at the fairgrounds. Which are technically "public" but in fact were locked and inaccessable for the whole notification period.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Em Adespoton]

Remember that this is in the UK, not the US, so laws are different. Would anyone from the UK like to weigh in on this?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[MoonBuggy]

I am from the UK! The only reason I brought up the US 'making available' theory was that if I hadn't mentioned it someone else would have and it is by no means proven in either jurisdiction. I didn't think the rest of the post was really related to the specific laws as much as to logic and a basic knowledge of computers.

Since I haven't actually said it yet, IANAL, but I really think that it comes down to the technical details of their argument, not the legal ones. No matter how the law is worded, downloading is not the same as uploading and neither is a willingness to upload. I'm not saying that they couldn't sue him based on the evidence they have, just that if they're going to try, they should at least make sure they're suing him for the right thing!

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Slashdot Suxxors]

Usenet is king when it comes to filesharing.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the notice was posted in the Alpha Centauri office?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[somersault]

So what you're saying is, downloading music makes you turn homeless!! Why didn't the RIAA tell us before???

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Em Adespoton]

If I understand correctly, in the UK, copyright infringement deals with making unauthorized copies, and applies equally to downloading, uploading, ripping, and any other means of duplication.

Seems questionable to me that two entities could be sued for the same duplication however (downloader AND uploader).

This current suit looks more like someone's after a settlement however.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[somersault]

Obligatory ;)

"'...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'
'But the plans were on display...'
'On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
'That's the display department.'
'With a torch.'
'Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'
'So had the stairs.'
'But look you found the notice didn't you?'
'Yes,' said Arthur, 'yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'"

Re:Failure on Postage?

[claytonjr]

If I had mod points, I would hand them over! Great reference!

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Shimbo]

I wonder... is the fact that they can now prove he received the letter the reason that it was sent postage due?

I doubt it: there is no tracking number recorded, so there is no way of the sender knowing whether it was collected or destroyed. The charging for letters got complicated fairly recently: as well as a maximum weight for the letter, there are maximum lengths, widths and thicknesses too. You need scales, a ruler and a micrometer before you can post a letter.

In any case, AIUI, this is just an offer to settle out of court. Is there any need for it to be formally served?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[jimicus]

It's not "incompetence at best" to screw up the newly changed postage pricing system, especially if they're when posting from overseas. It's just a mistake. It is, for a number of reasons:

1. The lawyer, at least according to the summary, is from London. He's not posting from overseas.
2. This "recent change" was well over a year ago.
3. The lawyer is a lawyer. (Well, in UK terms a solicitor, but it amounts to the same thing). They send things of varying size by post all the time. The idea that they're not aware of the rules regarding how much postage has to be paid is for all practical purposes unthinkable. If they are aware, they intentionally screwed up so they're malicious. If they're not aware, that means they don't know how much they have to pay to post any given set of documents. Seeing as these rules have been in place for some time and a large chunk of their job involves posting documents, I think it's fair to describe such ignorance as constituting incompetence.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Tacvek]

I'm pretty sure that the United States Postal service does not allow regional differences in these policies. If you attempt to mail through the Post Office postal employee, then insufficent postage would be refused barring your package's size and/or mass changing during shipping (!?), the employee making a mistake in verifying the postage, or not having the chance to inspect each envelope/package (such as if you handed them a large box full of envelopes whose postage needs differ).

I believe residential mailboxes may also be checked as mail is retrieved. However, those large blue mail bins that are sometimes found on street corners, etc, really could not be refused. What would they do? Leave the mail in the blue bin? They could either attempt to deliver it, or attempt to return it to sender. Anything else would legally be theft.

Now my understanding is that a recipient of postage due mail has the option to refuse to pay, at the cost of not receiving the mail in question. Then the post office must attempt to return the mail to sender. Mail returned to sender is another case where postage may be due. I'm not sure if one is allowed to refuse return to sender mail that is postage due.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would suggest that people start getting organised i am sure there is something somewhere on (Davenport Lyons) that they would not like made public knowledge that could affect there very existence
something that would persuade them to change there line of business , The same thing would be very effective against many of these rouge cowboy outfits
in fact the bigger the company the more likely it is the dirt will be rather substantial and more damming ..

Pete .

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Tacvek]

A similar trick I've personally seen used for a sheriff's sale, where a member of that sheriff's department wanted to ensure that he would be the only bidder present, and that the owner would be unable to redeem his property: Legal notice of sale has to be posted in a public place. So... the legal notice was posted on a building at the fairgrounds. Which are technically "public" but in fact were locked and inaccessable for the whole notification period. I'm pretty sure that in those cases any interested party could get the sale reversed as invalid under an equity ruling. The posting may meet the legal requirements, but the posting alone does not make the sale valid. Rather the lack of posting makes the sale invalid. The sale could be contested on the point of not being a public sale, as the public was not capable of being aware of the sale. The notice being posted may however prevent the ability to receive damages beyond the injunction forcing the re-sale.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Forum-Matter]

Lack of sufficient postage was not an oversight - it was a strategic move. By paying for the delivery, proof of receipt is not in question. Sons of bastages!

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not suing at all; they've said they WILL sue unless he coughs up 600 quid.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty easy.
When you open up your p2p client, look at the list of peers/seeds for a torrent you're downloading/uploading. Anybody in the swarm sees that list, so all they have to do is join and not upload, and they can log every IP that joins the swarm.
Then they send a threatening letter to the ISP's that own those addresses and demand to know who was using them. (this process varies depending on the ISP and the country)

Or maybe there was some kid from China seeding a torrent, so the Chinese government called the US or UK,etc. and said "hey you download Jackie Chan Illegal stop now". The government tells the ISP, the ISP releases the info.

There are other scenarios as well, just use your imagination.

And always, ALWAYS remember- Just because you know you're overly paranoid, doesn't mean that they're NOT watching you...

Re:Failure on Postage?

[pjt33]

From my understand a legal document is only considered "legal" when it is signed, sealed and delivered (know this is true for contracts<snip>

That's not true for contracts under English law, which is what's relevant here. All that's needed for a contract to be valid under English law are offer (one side proposes terms), acceptance (other side agrees), consideration (both sides benefit) and intent to create legal relations.

That's not to say there's no point signing a contract with witnesses: an oral contract may be valid, but proving that it exists can be tricky.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[bugnuts]

If I had mod points, I would hand them over! Great reference! I have some not mod points, which I'll award him.

They increase his score almost, but not entirely, exactly unlike a +1.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Reziac]

Probably so. But pretty hard to do in a small town where everyone knows everyone else's business, and handshake deals are the norm.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[turgid]

But then how else do you get free games?

Write your own?

Languages and toolkits are so high-level nowadays, and computers are so fast, that you could write real-time shooters in the most inefficient, clumsy interpreted language and have it run on all unixes (including Apple) and the dreaded Windows.

The only obstacle is that it actually involves thinking about things.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[julesh]

From my understand a legal document is only considered "legal" when it is signed, sealed and delivered (know this is true for contracts, think it is also applic with documents like this - inferred contract?). So since the letter didn't have enough postage, technically it wasn't delivered

So my gut feeling would be that the letter isn't legally binding. Would be fun to argue in court

Jaj

This is a legal notice, which is slightly different from a contract because it's expected that the recipient might try to claim that it was never received, whether or not it actually was. Therefore, the court will generally assume that it has been delivered as long as proof that it was posted is available.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Cal Paterson]

It's a joke to suspect a lawyer will attempt this kind of scam. It's _totally_ hilarious to assume malice before mistake for something as simple as posting a letter.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plaintiff sees your IP on the peer or seed list on the tracker for the torrent or generates affadivits for such. (By the way Peerguardian doesn't work; scans can be done from a regular residential IP.)

The burden is now on you to mount a defense


How about "any idiot can write down a list of IP addresses. Doesn't prove anything. See, I wrote down a list that comtains the IP address for the WHite House, RIAA and MPAA headquarters. Don't mean shit."

Re:Failure on Postage?

[namgge]

From my understand a legal document is only considered "legal" when it is signed, sealed and delivered (know this is true for contracts, think it is also applic with documents like this - inferred contract?).

In England it is not necessary for a contract to be signed or sealed or delivered. You are probably thinking of 'deeds' and even these do not normally need to be 'sealed' these days.

So my gut feeling would be that the letter isn't legally binding. Would be fun to argue in court.

Good luck with that.

namgge

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hush, you fool! You'll give away all our secrets!

Re:Failure on Postage?

[dbcad7]

Sure.. just pay the damages they seek.. homelessness sure to follow.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless duh.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[KDR_11k]

Can a private organization really get a subpoena like that? I thought to create a subpoena you first have to open a court case?

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Making available" has been called into question in cases in the US. This is about the UK. Different legal system, different laws.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[KDR_11k]

Better to think your enemy evil than stupid.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Cal Paterson]

Well, I don't think you're evil.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Fifth Earth]

I'm reminded of a case from when I was staying in the dorms in college. While downloading some (unlicensed) anime, some friends noticed one of the IP addresses in the swarm had the right prefixes to be a computer on the school's own network. A bit of hackery later (I don't pretend to understand what exactly--I was just an observer in the room) we figured out what room the guy was in. So naturally we went over, knocked on his door, and scared the shit out of him.

Good times.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would call that horribly ineffective service. I hope the court would agree. You should never pay to know you're sued ;)

Why did this fucking moron pay the postage due? He should have refused to pay it and the delivery would not have occurred.

Sending a legal notice of any kind with postage due should be considered equivalent to making an attempted "delivery" by tossing the letter into the street in front of the sender's building with only a to-address on it.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

umm, clearly you are not qualified to offer an opinion - stick to what you know and are probably good at doing. First of all, forget the "inferred contract" nonsense, second, it sounds like this is just a demand letter - suppose I sent you a letter saying you owe me $5 for giving silly advice, and you have 10 days to pay. So what? In 10 days (or 10 minutes) I can file suit, send you another letter saying your time is up, take a nap, or pirate someone else's advice over bit-torrent. And if you ignore my letter nothing will happen except that I might do one of the things mentioned above - or not. In other words, the significance of such time limits is not huge. In individual types of issues (evictions and foreclosures for example), and specific jurisdictions, there may be procedures to be followed, but otherwise, in general, you are just creating a paper trail to memorialize your actions and say "here is why we had to file suit and we were very reasonable and deliberative in reaching this point" Some of you guys watch way too much Judge Judy. If these guys want to make an example of this poor chump they may take him to court - if this was a consumer credit case I would tell him to settle for half of the retail price of the game as "settlement in full", but this is instead a "scare the pirates" case, so rational behavior is off the table. If this is a one time thing, they probably will have a hard time prevailing, or showing that level of damage, but the fact that you are reading about it means they have already succeeded in the real goal - generating FUD. Of course, I have no sympathy for software pirates - Zero, None, Nada. Roast their thieving cheap-ass hides, and roast them long and hard I say. I'm damn tired of dealing with the software protection measures which get justified by the selfish "entitled" behavior of a bunch of spoiled narcissistic snot-headed brats.

Re:Failure on Postage?

[Anonymous Coward]

cardboard doesn't stop the tin-foil on his head from picking up wireless. (unless it is really good cardboard)

Two Worlds

[Bloke down the pub]

Is the name by any chance related to certain wars that they lost? Refer them to Arkell v Pressdram.

Hmm

[Amiralul]

killall -9 *orrent*
rm -rf /mnt/storage/downloads/*

There, I should be safe now.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget /tmp!

Re:Hmm

[Plaid Phantom]

You should probably use shred, just to be sure.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

killall -9 *orrent*

rm -rf /mnt/storage/downloads/* Pffftt... assuming you're running Linux, I bet their shitty forensics software (and their shitty forensics team) assumes you're running Windows and doesn't even take account of ext3/ext4 paritions :)

Re:Hmm

[blueg3]

Actually, all standard computer forensics software support ext2/3, at least, and every forensic examiner I've met could tell you if the subject was running Windows or a Unix.

Never mind that using "rm" to delete all of the downloaded files has bought you almost zero protection.

Re:Hmm

[backwardMechanic]

So if I use a file system developed by a convicted murderer, is that going to be a problem?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you dolt! You're running Azureus.

Re:Hmm

[claytonjr]

I believe Linux has a shred command, that would probably help.

http://linux.about.com/library/cmd/blcmdl1_shred.htm

Re:Hmm

[beckerist]

torrentspy.com admin I presume?

Re:Hmm

[Amiralul]

Amateurs...
Mininova, The Pirate Bay and sometimes, for stuff really hard to find, IsoHunt (ugly interface). You wouldn't see any of those ones closed in the foreseable future. (Hopefully... keep your fingers crossed, just in case)

Re:Hmm

[pwizard2]

killall -9 *orrent* rm -rf /mnt/storage/downloads/* There, I should be safe now.

Personally, I would prepare and then light some thermite on top of the hard disk and wait for the resulting white hot iron to burn through the case and melt the platters before I would rest easy.

Re:Hmm

[billcopc]

Better yet: leave the files there. Act as though you didn't even know they existed.

Destroying evidence is proof that the evidence existing AND that you were aware of its illicit nature. It's far more effective to play dumb.

Re:Hmm

[KDR_11k]

But ReiserFS gives plausible deniability if they want to get you for destruction of evidence.

Tell them this

[77Punker]

Tell Zuxxez you'll pay when they make something that's worth money. At the moment, they can starve for all I care.

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed...even after getting through the initial buggy-ness, this game was about as much fun/playable as masturbating with a cheese-grater...I quit after a very short period of gametime.

Re:Tell them this

[trolltalk.com]

agreed...even after getting through the initial buggy-ness, this game was about as much fun/playable as masturbating with a cheese-grater...I quit after a very short period of gametime.

Tell Zuxxes: Zuxxez to be you

... Or Zuxxes Suxxez;

Perhaps they're doing this because it's the only way they'll make any money, since the game itself is a flop?

Of course, if the game is a massive flop, they can't really claim much in the way of real damages ... since it obviously has no value.

Re:Tell them this

[tompaulco]

If you don't think it is worth the money, you just don't buy it. You don't obtain it illegally. I don't think Ferraris are worth the money either, but I can't just go take one from the dealership or someone else that has one. I know we're not supposed to compare physical objects when discussing music, but this is software and comes in a box when purchased legitimately.

Re:Tell them this

[digitig]

Quit with the game or quit with the cheese-grater?

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, unlike with Ferraris, if you make a copy of a game without purchasing it no one is (usually) the wiser. What they don't know can't hurt them, in this case.

With a Ferrari, if you steal one from the dealership, the dealership needs to buy another one.

Re:Tell them this

[eldorel]

Yeah, but you can go to the dealership and take the Ferrari for a test drive. If they don't have a demo available, I'm not paying unless word of mouth makes it seem worth it.

I have pirated games to try them, and if they are good, I buy them. Usually multiple copies for myself and my friends. (We have weekly lan parties, and I supply the extra systems for new people)

I'm not about to buy 4 copies of a game, and have my friends buy copies, just to discover that the multiplayer sucks horribly.
As a matter of fact, I purchased a game just a few weeks ago that played great up until we hit 3 players on the network, then the game bogged down and lagged itself to death. Fortunately, I had only purchased the one copy, and no-cd cracked it on the other systems for testing.

Software retailers don't take games back. I'm not gambling $100+ on something that I can easily test out first.

Re:Tell them this

[CogDissident]

Additionally: Many times the demo is fake, or a misrepresentation of the game's quality. For the best example of this, play Dungeon Lords (or better yet, don't. Also don't buy Dungeon Lords 2). They finished exactly as much content in the game as was in the first dungeon+town. Later towns lacked anything except a random structure with a NPC in it, and at least two times during the story the player had to enable no-clip to proceed due to unfinished parts of the game.

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!! I'm amazed!! You used a car analogy on /. to speak out against theft^Willegal filesharing and you actually got modded up!!

Maybe the mods aren't as stupid as we previously assumed.

Re:Tell them this

[mrchaotica]

I don't think Ferraris are worth the money either, but I can't just go take one from the dealership or someone else that has one.

That's a bad analogy, because if you took a Ferrari then the previous owner wouldn't have it anymore. Now, if you could replicate the Ferrari a la Star Trek, the situation would be entirely different, and the ethics of it would be much less clear-cut.

Re:Tell them this

[Original Replica]

"Oh no your Honor I didn't steal the game, I simple facilitated an unintended demo release." Good luck with that one.
For the lawyers out there, Is there any kind of requirement to allow for a return of an untestable product if it proves unsatisfactory? Honest game reviews are only written by consumers and are often overrun by paid reviews and marketing postings in "Consumer Review" listings, so a worthless product is quite difficult to detect and as the parent post points out "software retailers don't take games back." Is there a way to demand a refund from a software company in exchange for invalidating our license?(which we don't need because the software isn't worth using)

Re:Tell them this

[NeutronCowboy]

The reason you're not supposed to compare physical objects and digital objects is that they're nothing alike. It's like comparing a Ferrari and a dodo to figure out how mass transportation ought to work. It's complete nonsense.

Re:Tell them this

[nuzak]

How about a more apt analogy: you don't feel like paying for a concert, so you don't pay. After all, it's not like the other people can't hear. Yes, I know space in the concert hall isn't infinite. You think paying customers are? Games are a multi-million dollar performance.

As for this case, looks like a German IP lawsuit mill has found an abundant new racket. Amazing how black and white things aren't, isn't it?

Re:Tell them this

[Em Adespoton]

That argument will work when you can stumble across a Ferrari on the internet and download it out of curiosity.

A better comparison would be money itself. I don't really need any Pesos, so I don't buy any on the foreign exchange. If I come across an unsecured account online, I can't just transfer some of it over to my own name, no matter how worthless it is. I also can't launder my own (although money laundering another country's money is a bit of a legal grey area I guess).

Hard currency is one of those things that it is perfectly possible to duplicate (sometimes at low cost) but also completely illegal to duplicate.

In the future, let's switch from car analogies to currency analogies. They make more cents :)

Re:Tell them this

[deesine]

I have pirated games to try them, and if they are good, I buy them.

Me and everybody else I know who downloads them, too. Pity, the amount of energy expended wanting to ignore that.

Re:Tell them this

[krazytekn0]

This Legal firm has a documented history of sending these letters out to people who have never even HEARD of the software that they are accused of stealing. This isn't about stealing or not stealing. This is about a legal firm trying to make money for nothing...

1. Find a crappy software company and become it's legal counsel.
2. Send scare-tactics settlement letters out to random people.
3. Don't prosecute the people who refuse to send money in.
4. PROFIT!

Re:Tell them this

[somersault]

They make more cents :) *groooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooan* wow that was bad/good :P

Re:Tell them this

[Bryansix]

Nope. You CAN legally download games now too. The box and optical media is worthless now.

Re:Tell them this

[apt142]

Thanks for the visual. A traffic jam of jockey's on dodos made my day.

Re:Tell them this

[jimicus]

Now, if you could replicate the Ferrari a la Star Trek, the situation would be entirely different, and the ethics of it would be much less clear-cut. If you could replicate any given item of value a la Star Trek, the basic assumption that all Western economies are built on (there exist products that are not plentiful in nature, and value can be created by making these products available in exchange for other products which are not plentiful in nature, viz. cash) would evaporate overnight.

I'm not sure such a replication device is such a great idea.

Re:Tell them this

[pjt33]

Nonsense. The Chinese economy is predicated on the need for manufacture. Western economies are increasingly based on services, and there would still be a limited number of university graduates.

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason why filesharing is a completely separate issue from stealing is that infinite copies of software or data can be made at no cost to anyone. Stealing a Ferrari incurs cost on part of the creator. Stealing an mp3 incurs no such cost, the box it comes in may cost the manufacturer something, but no box is being stolen so that is a moot issue. The only thing that might effect the manufacturer is the potential "opportunity cost" of if I had instead purchased it, which in theory I would have done but will not do now since I have it illegally.

The thing is, legitimately, it is feasible for someone to not be willing to pay for something, but still be willing to try it out for free. By doing this, they are in fact NOT costing the creator anything, and really should not be illegal. The problem is that it is nigh on impossible to prove whether or not someone would have purchased something had they not been given the choice to download it illegally.

You CAN NOT compare file sharing to theft. It just isn't, and that metaphor is going to continue to do irreversible damage to people's understanding of these situations if anyone keeps using it. Stop. Now.

Re:Tell them this

[jimicus]

Nonsense. The Chinese economy is predicated on the need for manufacture. Western economies are increasingly based on services, and there would still be a limited number of university graduates. And there would be no need to manufacture beyond the first few items once we've all got replicators in our kitchen which can replicate any given object with perfect precision, so that's the Chinese economy screwed.

Re:Tell them this

[neverutterwhen]

Why?

Re:Tell them this

[pjt33]

Sure. But China isn't Western, which is my point.

Re:Tell them this

[tompaulco]

Well, actually it does cost the company hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to develop the software, which they plan to share out of a certain number of users. If the users decide to download it because they believe it costs the company nothing when they do that, then the company's business model fails. Instead of spending all that money on development, they should just be spending maybe 1/10 of the amount on development and sell it to a few thousand people who will then distribute it for free to everyone else. The fact of the matter is that people who choose to download software illegally cause prices to go up and/or quality to go down for those of us who purchase it legitimately. Or even worse, companies have an excellent software idea, but look at the amount of illegal filesharing and decide not to develop the software. How much innovation is stifled by illegal filesharing? I'm sure it is quite a lot.

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

so this game wasnt worth the money, but it WAS worth a court appearance and fine to get a stolen copy?
You file sharing people have a fucked up sense of priorities.
Amazingly, the guy broke the law, and got caught. Big fucking deal. maybe he will learn to BUY games he wants to play in future.
I have NO SYMPATHY for this guy. What next? slashdot defends people breaking the speeding limit? shoplifting? tax evasion?
pathetic...

Re:Tell them this

[mrchaotica]

the basic assumption that all Western economies are built on (there exist products that are not plentiful in nature, and value can be created by making these products available in exchange for other products which are not plentiful in nature, viz. cash) would evaporate overnight.

Exactly! And that assumption, where it applies to things like books, movies, music, and software, is already evaporating as we speak due to the Internet!

I'm not sure such a replication device is such a great idea.

And yet, once it existed, it would be impossible to suppress or destroy, just like the Internet. Therefore, we're really going to have no choice but to deal with it. The Internet is incompatible with copyright law as we know it; therefore, copyright law must change.

Re:Tell them this

[billcopc]

I find that entirely depends on whether all the uppity little copyright bitches are on the rag any particular week.

Re:Tell them this

[billcopc]

Ok y'all shut up before I smack ya.

If/when Replicator technology happens, China will probably get it first. Actually let me specify: some other nation will invent it, but they will outsource the manufacturing (ironically) to China. China will take the design, like they do everything of value, and use it to secure their dominance.

The so-called Western economy will fail, not because of mass replication, but because China will make us their bitch.

Re:Tell them this

[jerrold]

If you could replicate any given item of value a la Star Trek, the basic assumption that all Western economies are built on (there exist products that are not plentiful in nature, and value can be created by making these products available in exchange for other products which are not plentiful in nature, viz. cash) would evaporate overnight.

I think they'll still exist products "which are not plentiful in nature" if replicators are ever invented.

From my understanding anyway, a replicator won't be able to create things out of thin air, but will requires raw materials to put together the new (replicated) object (not plentiful in nature). Also it'll also require power to run while replicating (another non-plentiful thing in nature)

Re:Tell them this

[totally bogus dude]

How much innovation is stifled by illegal filesharing? I'm sure it is quite a lot.

I'm sure it's quite a lot less than the amount of innovation that is stifled by patents and even copyright laws, particularly within the various computer software industries. The problem with blaming piracy for everything is that they fail to account for the fact that there's many, many people who are willing to try something for the cost of downloading (i.e. virtually zero) who would otherwise not be interested.

People argue that patents and copyright, despite the costs to society, have a nett benefit. I believe this is likely true, although we probably don't have the optimal solution at present. But have you considered that some piracy is also of nett benefit to society? It certainly improves the quality of my life!

Most of the games I play are pirated, but I only buy a handful of those for the simple fact that many don't represent sufficient value for money. Sometimes they do, though. I recently bought The Orange Box after finally getting around to pirating and playing Portal. This is actually a great example of a game I not only wouldn't have considered buying based purely on word of mouth, but even if I'd played the demo, since it was only the last level that turned it from "an okay way to spend some time" into "holy freaking jesus this is the greatest thing ever". I had played a pirated Half Life many eons ago, and I tried Half-Life 2 when it first came out, but unlike the legions of Valve sycophants I find them to be pretty run-of-the-mill shooters and never bought any before. I didn't even bother finishing HL2. However now that I own them, I figured I'd give them another chance and have played through HL2, Episode 1 and Episode 2; so now I'm hooked on the story (particularly with the references to Aperture Science).

Okay, that was a bit rambling, but the point is I now have a Steam account and am interested in the continuation of HL2 purely because I pirated Portal. Certainly not everybody who pirates games ever buys the ones they really liked, but it's not a rare phenomena.

The fact of the matter is that people who choose to download software illegally cause prices to go up and/or quality to go down for those of us who purchase it legitimately.

I don't see how you can state this as "fact". Every piece of software, be it an application or a video game, is unique unto itself. This effectively creates a monopoly market. Sure, you can play other games instead, but if you want to play a particular game and piracy isn't an option, your only choice is to pay whatever the publisher has decided that game is "worth". This isn't a situation that naturally leads to lower prices or improved quality.

The increasing cost of games is more an indication of an industry caught in a feedback loop of unrealistic expectations, resulting in spiralling costs of development in an effort to try to meet those expectations. The games market is massively larger than it was 10 or 15 years ago, and there's massively more "competition" amongst producers. In a normal market, the retail cost should have plummeted.

Re:Tell them this

[Artuir]

Nobody was arguing the legality of it. It is very much illegal, but the fact that a better system is not in place is what is stupid. I'm not a lawyer of course but I'd imagine there would be some sort of legal statute to give the consumer the right to get a refund if the user refuses to accept the EULA - but because you must accept the EULA before you play any game nowadays (during install, typically), when you find the reviews and press coverage totally hid the fact that the game was a complete turd, too late. And of course, stores won't allow open software packages for a refund due to the easy nature of copying discs.

Like the poster prior to you, I pirate games before buying the good ones - not all games have demos out and I'm not going to spend in upwards of $40 because reviews from game sites were positive. Videos on youtube or the like are a start but ultimately don't give you the real feel of the game.

I might blindly shell out the money if a good friend of mine suggests the game to me - but then that's not going into it blind. I've got several shelves worth of games sitting about four feet away from me - so the whole "pirating hurts game companies!" isn't completely true. It only hurts the companies who produce utter shit.

I pay for content worth the price. I wholly believe a team that has worked insanely hard and produced a great game deserves tons of money and nice cars and houses and vacation property in Hawaii. However I don't believe that any company or team who produces something that looks like a colostomy bag attacked a tomato deserves to waste my time. And no - unless you're willing to take it to small claims court, I don't know of any way to return a game after you've opened the package. At least any way that's less time consuming than arranging a court date and doing it that route.

Re:Tell them this

[KDR_11k]

If EULAs are considered valid you can be pretty sure you won't get to return anything as they circumvent the laws by claiming no sale ever happened (we really need a Digital Millenium Law Act that would penalize using technical measures to circumvent the law...).

You could try renting the game though.

Re:Tell them this

[KDR_11k]

I'm not sure such a replication device is such a great idea.

Why not? If the device obsoletes the entire economy, isn't it time to drop the economy and replace it with something more fit for the changed situation? What kind of sane morality could endorse forfeiting the solution to all shortages just to maintain a system creating suffering for those who don't have and a great inequality in quality of life? If we can have the products of an economy without the human labor why would we keep the economy? The economy is a necessary evil to get stuff done but if we can get stuff done without it, why keep it? Sure, it'd reduce the incentive to research but it would fix all the basic needs for everyone, especially the third world.

Re:Tell them this

[KDR_11k]

That is, unless it's the DARPA or something inventing it (possibly as a field resupply system for the army) and the thing gets considered a military secret.

Re:Tell them this

[pimpimpim]

Actually, German law should allow for you to return a product ordered over the internet within something like two to four weeks, no questions asked. Digital media might be an exception there, though, due to copying. Then again if the company provided the game with copy protection you might be able to show that ,due to it not being copyable, it should be treated as any other good ordered over the internet.

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

Morally (which is subjective) speaking, your argument makes sense. The problem is that the law says this is not legal, so unfortunately, if you want to take this approach and make your own demo, you are accepting the risk and consequences associated with breaking the law.

In basic small words this boils down to: "quit your bitching if you get caught"

Re:Tell them this

[brkello]

Argh, always the stupid justifications for it. If they don't have a demo and you are unable to find a friend who has it to try it out, don't get the damn game. I know the odds are on your side on getting in trouble for it, but that doesn't mean it is right. And I know, just because it is illegal doesn't mean it is a good law, but I think obtaining software illegally is a law that makes sense. Don't give some justification for it so that you feel all warm and rosy inside. What you are doing is wrong. Just admit you are cheap and that you don't care about the effort people put in to their product because you feel yourself above them (or something like that).

Re:Tell them this

[brkello]

No, not really. Obviously, they are different things. But both are products you can buy. They both can be obtained illegally. There is a bigger loss for one than the other. One probably won't get you in trouble. But it is still wrong to do either. Except if you are on Slashdot, then it is ok to pirate everything because EVERYONE here buys the games that are good. Sure.

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that entirely depends on whether all the uppity little copyright bitches are on the rag any particular week. The proponents of illegal P2P are on the rag every week. :P I haven't noticed them being to uppity, though.

Every fucking story about the RIAA/MPAA ends up in the same old discussion, where where a bunch of non-lawyers, who have no clue how to interpret the law, try to justify amongst themselves that breaking the law should be legal.

Re:Tell them this

[Anonymous Coward]

comes in a box

I came in a box the other day and it had nothing to do with the law.

Slashdot.co.uk?

[AutopsyReport]

It's around $930 bucks for those wondering.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

That's some offal expensive intellectual pooperty!

-mcgrew

(Yes, boys and girls, today's new word is "intellectual pooperty". Because anybody who thinks that something intangible is "property" has shit for brains.

yesterday's word of the day was "cyburglar".)

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[DanWS6]

Thanks, now I can compare this to the $110 million dollar TorrentSpy ruling. [quote]Nevertheless, he feels the £600 "settlement" is "highly disproportionate" for the download of a single game.[/quote] $930 isn't that bad really. It could be something like $30k+ like here in the US of A.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[oneiros27]

I have moderator points, but there's no option for 'wrong'.

The current exchange rate is almost US$2 per 1 british pound. At the current exchange rate, it'd be $1158.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Mr Smidge]

Thanks for the postage price conversion, but what about the demand itself?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Ford Prefect]

At today's exchange rates, £600 is about $1,173.15. How old are your figures?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[MagdJTK]

Who modded the parent informative?

As of one minute ago, 600GBP = 1173.03USD.

As an Englishman, I also ought to point out that we seem to manage dividing by two when we see prices in dollars, so I don't see why Americans need to moan when the occasional thing is priced in Sterling.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

930 US dollars is about 600 euros. Coincidence? I'm guessing GP knows less about European currency than he thinks.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[craagz]

The game is worth much of course

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[jonbryce]

Nearer $1170 these days actually. The US$ isn't worth as much as it used to be worth.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats almost 3000 quatloos.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[wattrlz]

Well, $1,173.15 US dollars. Perhaps GP poster is converting to euro dollars? In AUD, CAD, HKD, and pretty much every other dollar I could find it's closer to the US figure than the GP's.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[jonbryce]

And Americans tend to swap the currency signs when pricing things for sale over here ...

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[FnordX]

You're forgetting... The US Public School System.

Multiplying by 2? I didn't know I had to do ALGEBRA to understand the story! And don't even get us STARTED on Metric!

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[clifyt]

"Because anybody who thinks that something intangible is "property" has shit for brains."

Bull fucking shit.

I believe that trees are common property of everyone. It is good for the world and I don't care who's land it belongs on...thus anything made of wood should be up for the taking. Anyone that thinks something tangible should be property has shit for brains. I don't care how you frame it, the only thing that belongs to any of us are our thoughts. As such, the only real property is intellectual property.

You see how this works?

Just because you can create an opinion doesn't make it so. Property is a social contract in ANY sense of the word. You don't believe in it. So what. Doesn't matter. You belong to a society that has enacted rules and regulations that say it is property, thus it is. Again, it is a social contract. As a part of society, you can disagree with a rule, but that doesn't make it any less of a rule unless that rule is changed.

So the point is, grow the fuck up. You want YOUR intellectual property given away for free, GPL it. Or CC it. Or otherwise. Maybe if enough others feel the same, you can turn the tide, but that doesn't make the fact that you own your ideas any less significant.

There has to be a reason I don't come to Slashdot any more. It is pretty bad when Digg and Reddit has more mature comments these days...

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[jyunderwood]

That settlement seems reasonable compared to the RIAA ones. Had this been in the US it would've a $6,000 settlement. Well with the conversion rate today maybe it is.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Because anybody who thinks that something intangible is "property" has shit for brains.

Like, for example, your bank balance? Well, if you don't think you own it, I guess you wouldn't mind me using it every now and again.

Or maybe you have shit for brains (what would I know?).

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Jaysyn]

I believe that trees are common property of everyone. It is good for the world and I don't care who's land it belongs on...thus anything made of wood should be up for the taking. Anyone that thinks something tangible should be property has shit for brains. Wow, that's the absolute worst analogy I think I've ever read.

There has to be a reason I don't come to Slashdot any more. It is pretty bad when Digg and Reddit has more mature comments these days... Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[iapetus]

This is Slashdot. News for nerds. Don't multiply by two - just bitshift left by one.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[mikael]

Too true - it always amazes me how a $1000 laptop in the USA (manufactured in the Far East) somehow manages to transmogrify the price into £1000 in the UK (despite still being manufactured in the Far East) and even then, there will probably be some feature missing like video-in or DVD writing.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

If you're American, Read the Comstitution. Intellectual pooperty is un-American. You are either a foreigner or a traitor to your country.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

That settlement seems reasonable compared to the RIAA ones.

Yeah, and gas prices here seem "reasonable" compared to UK gas prices. But they're still over three times as high as they were when those two oil men first took occupancy of the White House.

It's a ripoff (well, at this point still an attempted ripoff) despite the fact that these bozos are trying to legally steal a lot less than the RIAA legally steals. Just because a bank robber gets away with a $10,000 heist doen't mean the guy who robs a liquor store for $100 isn't stealing.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[theeddie55]

It's around $930 bucks for those wondering.
or by the actual exchange rate $1,170

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[jedidiah]

...actually its a pretty good analogy for "intellectual property" the
rube OP just came to the wrong conclusion. If you use abuse public
property then the end result is not something that you can claim as
your own personal exclusive property. ...it's like a derivative work.

      Disney has setup strip mining in Yellowstone and has decided to
chase all of the nature lovers out.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

My bank balance isn't intangible. I put my cash in the bank for safekeeping. In fact, I loan money to the bank at interest. There's nothing intangible about it, save your grasp of the situation.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[jedidiah]

The US Dollar has never been "worth too much" when it comes to Pounds.

It's the Dollar to Euro exchange rate that's taken a pounding. Although
there is no history there to create a frame of reference. It's hard to
judge really.

At least you had a little bit of history with Francs.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see how this works?

People chain themselves to trees to stop the bulldozers when they don't like what's happening to them. Chain yourself to a copyright to stop the pirates, and let us know well that works. Your "argument ad reversum"(?) doesn't help your cause: if the only property is whats in our head, copyright still wouldn't work, since having heard your song, it'd be in MY head now and therefore mine (in addition to your house).

unless that rule is changed.

And when enough people get affected, the rule will get changed.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

If you're American, Read the Comstitution. Intellectual pooperty is un-American. You are either a foreigner or a traitor to your country. Please list where in the constitution intellectual property (ROFL ROFL, "pooperty" -- hilarious!!) is declared un-American. Bonus points for forgetting the copyright clause!

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

Yeah, and gas prices here seem "reasonable" compared to UK gas prices. But they're still over three times as high as they were when those two oil men first took occupancy of the White House. Do you expect gas prices to go down under President Obama?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Tangible obviously does not mean what you think it means.* You can't touch your bank balance, you can't taste your bank balance, you can't keep your bank balance under lock and key. A bank balance is intangible, and I, for all my shit-for-brains, still believe it counts as property.

* Certain definitions fit bank balance, but they also fit IP equally well

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[DustyShadow]

Just want to point out that the "copyright clause" is also the "patent clause."

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Doug Neal]

Most likely yes. By the way, it's not "Euro dollar", it's just "Euro".

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

The analogy is bad, but the rest of the post makes sense. Society has MANY rules that are by agreement, convenience, or otherwise unrelated to innate rights. I'm not convinced that breaking such rules solely because of one's own opinion, to the financial detriment of others, is in any way virtuous. "Well IIIII think it should be so, and look it happens to benefit me! I guess I'll do it." That's how we get Tragedies of the Commons.

I'm not sure what the resolution to this is. 200 years ago one would say democracy, but look where that's gotten us...

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

A troll post ending in:

There has to be a reason I don't come to Slashdot any more. It is pretty bad when Digg and Reddit has more mature comments these days... ... on slashdot ... I'm truly impressed at your inability to self-censor

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe he was talking in canadian dollars???? .-)

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Culture20]

Love the use of "offal" instead of awful too.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the Americans doing it, that's the effect of the UK's high import duties and taxes. How do you think your "free" health care gets paid for?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[NeutronCowboy]

Just because you can create an opinion doesn't make it so.

Funny how your opinion seems to be exempt from this rule. I'd point you to civil disobedience and lack of ability to influence rules made by a ruling elite for cases where your model falls apart, but I think you're too busy reading digg comments.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[mrchaotica]

No, your argument is bullshit.

Just because you can create an opinion doesn't make it so. Property is a social contract in ANY sense of the word.

On the contrary, property is the natural consequence of the physical fact that two people can't use the same tangible artifact at the same time. This is exactly the opposite of so-called "intellectual property," which not only naturally duplicates itself and is almost impossible to prevent from duplicating itself, but also only becomes valuable as a consequence of the duplication itself! (For example, would Shakespeare's plays have had any value whatsoever if he had never communicated them to anybody else? No!)

In other words, real property is based on, and compatible with, physical reality. "Intellectual property" is based on lawyers' imaginations and is incompatible with physical reality.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you get paid for writing programs for your employer? Why should they pay you at all? It's not like you gave them anything of any value.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[cHiphead]

Applying a concept of 'property' to 'thought' does not compute if you look at it logically. Everything you see, hear, and experience affects what you think and how your perceive. The very concept of property is a mental construct. My point is, the essence of the argument is beyond simple 'its the law' or 'get paid for your work' ideas of our society, especially with the half-assed example you provided about trees. Its a very philosophical argument, and just putting your hands over your ears and going 'LALALALALALA' does not address the real 'WHY' we need the system like we currently have it.

That said, I'll jump into grownup, working man shoes now and take a stab at it from a more conventional, socially 'acceptable' argument. Copyright is about the right to copy a work, its original purpose been hijacked to become copylimit, a 14 year term, after which copying IS allowed, is a WORLD apart from Lifetime of author + extensions that we are facing. Perhaps its the overextended rights of a Corporation to act as a single entity with control of so many legal tools, such as copyright, that has ultimately tangled up the whole system in the first place.

I'd bullshit more, but I have to go back to working on copyrighted server software to copy a clients copyrighted propriety application to additional machines running copyrighted OSes.

By the way, if you claim you don't come to slashdot any more because reddit and digg have more mature comments, you are out of your fucking mind. The comments on slashdot are about the only reason I come here these days to have any remotely relevant and intellectually enjoyable discourse. Reddit is /b/ without the nsfw pics, and Digg has always been all troll all the time. The problem I have is the cynical yet hilarious comments on reddit that I take part in tend to creep over to my /. comments.

Cheers.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Browse at +4, and don't read until the story has gone at least one day. That way, you never see comments like these.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Miseph]

"Just because you can create an opinion doesn't make it so. Property is a social contract in ANY sense of the word. You don't believe in it. So what. Doesn't matter. You belong to a society that has enacted rules and regulations that say it is property, thus it is. Again, it is a social contract. As a part of society, you can disagree with a rule, but that doesn't make it any less of a rule unless that rule is changed."

Pet peeve of mine that 'social contract" theory... see, contracts have to be voluntarily entered by all parties, and last I checked, we're all held to social contracts whether we want to or not. Even for those of us happy to "sign", the social contract is being changed unilaterally, which with normal contracts is something that is almost never permitted. Point being, I doubt Hobbes, Locke, or any of the social contract canon philosophers would actually support your assertion that current copyright law is valid within that frame.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[mrchaotica]

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Clause 8:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Note the bold part. That's the thing that Congress is given authorization to do: "promote progress." Not to compensate creators for their effort due to some kind of moral obligation, and certainly not to obstruct progress by preventing people from building on previous works! Now, see the word "by?" That means that the remainder of the clause is nothing more than an example of the way in which the writers of the Constitution imagined accomplishing the previously stated goal. It doesn't mean that Congress must do it, especially the way it's implemented nowadays such that it acts contrary to its purpose; it just means that Congress may do it.

The idea of copyright as an entitlement to artists was imported via the Berne Convention, which should never have been ratified because it is, as I just explained, unconstitutional.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[cHiphead]

Copyright, Copy Right. Implies a right to copy. The 14 year term was just fine, and allowed us the right to copy after that term was up, all for the sake of the promotion of arts and sciences, NOT for the sake of economic enrichment (profit).

"Intellectual property", the idea that the thoughts you have come up with are yours alone, is a Corporate lobbyist scam. I'd tend to agree the the very concept is disgusting and is the antithesis to a free society that promotes free thought and expression. Everything you see, hear, touch, taste, and experience affects what you think, the only intellectual 'property' you really have are private thoughts in your head, once you speak or write, you have affected anyone that can hear you or see what you wrote.

Cheers.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Jaysyn]

Breaking the rules is the only way the rules have ever been changed. BTW, the U.S.A. is a Federal Republic, so I'm not sure where you are going with your last comment.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

Ahh, a textualist and originalist--you must be a huge fan of Justices Thomas and Scalia and despise Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, etc?

However, I don't think your analysis is correct. The copyright clause is, as you cite, part of section 8. Section 8 enumerates the powers of congress. The text you managed to find (the copyright clause) clearly allows congress to "Secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." There is very little to interpret in that part of the clause, it's clear.

On the other hand "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" is up for much greater interpretation. How exactly does one promote the progress? You and I might have very different ideas about how to do this. Congress might have other ideas. Congress has the clearly enumerated mandate to do so, and the way to do so.

So what exactly is unconstitutional?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Surt]

The problem with that argument is that a social contract is invalid since neither party signed. Violating a social contract is not in any way wrong just because it is a social contract. The act itself actually has to be wrong. Now it may subject you to fines or imprisonment, but that's not the same thing as wrong either, that's just risky.

If I choose not to play by your rules, live with it, or call the gestapo.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

Copyright, Copy Right. Implies a right to copy. The 14 year term was just fine, and allowed us the right to copy after that term was up, all for the sake of the promotion of arts and sciences, NOT for the sake of economic enrichment (profit). If it could without a doubt be shown that 100 year copyrights/patents/etc improved the progress of arts+science, would it then be ok?

Your confusion seems to stem from two things. First, you blindly assume that the promotion of arts and sciences is not at all linked to creating profit. I would strongly disagree with you here--the drive for capital and profit has indeed been the engine behind much technological and artistic advancement throughout human history!

Secondly, the fact that you don't like actions congress has taken in the name of promoting arts+science. You don't agree that they are helpful. I actually agree with you to some extent--I think with modern media and modern lifespans, 14 years is not enough, but 100s+ years is far too much. However, just because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

badanalogyguy? Is that you?

You can use as much of that money as you like, for what anyone cares. The bank has a contractual obligation to give me as much money back, as I have deposited there. Property doesn't really enter into it. And to expand that further, the banks do with the money as they like.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[clifyt]

"Pet peeve of mine that 'social contract" theory... see, contracts have to be voluntarily entered by all parties, and last I checked, we're all held to social contracts whether we want to or not. Even for those of us happy to "sign", the social contract is being changed unilaterally, which with normal contracts is something that is almost never permitted."

Social contracts are enforceable by those in power. In a democracy, it is simply the majority. In other systems, it may be chosen by other means.

I'm not a big fan of democracies...I'm not a big fan of 'one man, one vote'. But at the very same time, it is much more preferred than almost any other system to date. As such, as much as I disagree with a lot of rules, I don't see how being limited to not downloading games or popular music is infringing on my right to life, liberty and happiness (of which this actually meant more about 'home ownership' by the founding fathers than an emotion).

Personally, I think the copyright laws ARE out of wack...but I also believe that as a content creator, I have expectations about my work that I wish others would follow. I wouldn't want someone using my works to advertise something I didn't care for. I wouldn't want someone I disagreed with to associate themselves with it. But these are my own rules and I can't expect to be able to force others into this...even if it were nice. Society has come up with a way to set standards on what can be expected...in the US it was done with a majority of the representatives we elected.

Anyhooo.....

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Ametatsu]

It is intangible. The money you get out of the bank is tangible, but all your balance is is a number. It only becomes tangible if you get it out as cash which you can hold in your hands.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[mrchaotica]

The text you managed to find (the copyright clause) clearly allows congress to "Secure for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." There is very little to interpret in that part of the clause, it's clear.

Yes, but only for the purpose of supporting the former part of the clause. The second part explains the "how," but the first part explains the "why," and it's the "why" that's important for interpreting the law.

So what exactly is unconstitutional?

Any copyright or patent law that fails to promote progress. I agree that this is open to interpretation, but it at least should be required to be considered. Unfortunately, every part of government (including the Supreme Court) fails to do so.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[somersault]

With the rate that technology is advancing these days, 14 years is enough to dominate the world! At least there's usually more than one method to accomplish the same objective, and licensing rates for others' technology is usually reasonable..

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing that belongs to any of us are our thoughts. as long as you keep them to yourself. but once you release those thoughts to the wild (so to speak) in the form of words, or music, or art, they CEASE TO BE YOURS.

there's nothing social or contractual about it, that's just a fact of nature. you don't own those thoughts any more than the sun owns the light it emits. once those things are out there, you can't call them back, any more than the sun can call back its light.

if you value your ideas so much that you don't want anyone else to use them, then keep them to yourself where they'll be safe.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Feanturi]

There has to be a reason I don't come to Slashdot any more.

Obviously not a very compelling reason, since here you are.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[tepples]

You want YOUR intellectual property given away for free, GPL it. Or CC it. Or otherwise. So how should I react if somebody claims that something I wrote is a plagiarism of something that somebody else wrote?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Miseph]

My point is that if the enforcement of the social contract is not the responsibility of the state, which in the case of copyright it is not, and that if the rules are being set by people with the most money and the longest lives (publishers are wealthy and immortal), and that our democracy has failed to give the other side a voice at the bargaining table due to widespread corruption, then the social contract is substantially violated. Part of the social contract theory is that, as with a legal contract, once broken by one party it no longer needs to be regarded by the other, and in such an asymmetric system it can be easily argued that the contract is simply null and void in this respect.

I'm not actually saying you're wrong, per se, just that this whole thing isn't so open and shut as you seem to think it is, even by your own philosophy.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but what YOU can't see is that the social contract where we all agree not to steal each other's "property" exists purely because when someone takes something of yours that is tangible, physical, you LOSE something. You are injured by that action. The same applies to some intangibles, such as intellectual property. By someone stealing your IP, they profit and you potentially lose profit.

But with filesharing this is not the case. I can download every freaking file on the internet RIGHT NOW and it won't cost anyone a single freaking dime, except maybe my internet bill. Thats why this has nothing to do with property law, and filesharing isn't stealing. Its its own separate case, and should have its own separate laws, and we should all think of it separately and stop trying to come up with useless metaphors to real-life terms that only bring in incorrect assumptions.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't nitpick. I was "going with" rule via the consent of the governed. But that seems to devolve into bread and circuses, or at best, a large number of problems, the most important of which are eventually grudgingly dealt with, but distract us from the less apparent systemic problems.

I don't think there's any satisfactory way to govern 300M people. I just don't think it's possible. Maybe it's time to revisit weak confederalism?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Red Flayer]

In other words, real property is based on, and compatible with, physical reality

And this in no way contradicts gp's point that it's a social contract.

Regardless of what it is based upon, it is a social contract... and like it or not, there is a social contract (though disputed by yourself and others) regarding intellectual property.

As the gp said, you may disagree with the contract... but as part of society, you are bound by it unless you can overturn it.

To sum up, you're both right -- IP and RP are fundamentally different (for the reasons you state) but they both exist (for the reasons he states).

I think maybe you missed his point entirely in your eagerness to devow intellectual property, because you never addressed his point, which was to define what the concept of property rights is (a social contract), and then extend that to IP as is currently in effect.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be a good thing?
If the American gas price does not go down again, the USA stands a good chance of making the kyoto agreements CO2 levels.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[mrchaotica]

I think maybe you missed his point entirely in your eagerness to devow intellectual property, because you never addressed his point, which was to define what the concept of property rights is (a social contract), and then extend that to IP as is currently in effect.

No, I got his point. My point is that that extension is stupid because the underlying analogy is invalid.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

You know, in computer tech, I agree with you. I think almost all software patents are horrible.

On the other hand, what about a work of art, something like Harry Potter? Harry Potter is coming up on 14 years, and the movies won't be done by the 14 years. IF there's no IP, no protection for Harry Potter, Is that a good thing? If there's 14 years, is that a good thing? I don't know.. plenty of authors don't finish series within 14 years (Robert Jordan?).

I think we agree there are clear differences between art + technology at the least.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Red Flayer]

Why do you limit yourself to one valid basis for the social contract of property rights?

The problem with your logic is that it presumes that for intellectual property to exist, it MUST mirror real property; and that because the foundation of the concept does not mirror, it invalidates the concept of IP.

There is no logical reason (though there are philosophical ones) why we can't have an IP social contract in addition to a RP social contract; furthermore, we can say that due to the fundamental differences between RP & IP, the social contracts should be different (and guess what, they are!). The concepts can be parallel without being equal, and this removes the constaint of needing equivalent bases.

Also, property is not defined by the fact that only one person can utilize it at the same time. Otherwise there would be no concept of ownership in absentia. If you own land in Montana, but reside in New York... do I have every right to use your land in Montana, since I am not depriving you of the use of that land?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two people can easily use the same tangible artifact at the same time depending on the artifact. For example, a table.

A developer who writes his own program to get his work done has created intellectual property by doing so, and though he may not share this program, he gets his work done because of it, therefore giving it value. If his competitors were to steal it and have the same advantage that it gave him, but for free and no work, then they've stolen his intellectual property.

In most cases, intellectual property does not 'duplicate' itself. Usually it is shared by people. CDs are physical objects that can be duplicated and shared by people, but you do not claim that they are based upon imagination.

In any case, a file, program, game, etc. IS a physical object, contrary to your simple-minded beliefs. In the case of a burnable disk, it is tiny pits which indicate a 0 or a 1 that are read by a laser. In the case of a hard drive, it is magnetically flippable bits whose orientation makes them indicate a 0 or a 1. It's highly similar throughout the rest of the electronic world that you seem to be claiming to be 'imaginary'.

Good luck in life, kid, enjoy your cave, club, and your everlasting wonder at the phenomenon of fire.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[geekoid]

"Not to compensate creators for their effort due to some kind of moral obligation, and certainly not to obstruct progress by preventing people from building on previous works! "
If you read up on why that is in the constitution, you would see that you are wrong.

BY = "with respect to" in this case.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Ryan A]

All property is physical, true, but how can you claim that anything is truly intangible?

Anytime someone thinks, a series of tangible neurons are fired off in the brain, and connections are made/crossed/broken/etc. Therefore you can argue that thoughts are tangible.

Anytime anything is written in any format, via paper, computer, typewriter, etc., it creates physical property. Be it electronically stored or mechanically stored, its still out there in the real world.

Intellectual property is when something is written into existence by someone who thought it up themselves. Say you're in a group of 4 people and you're the only one doing any work, but everyone else copies your work and makes A's off of your back, then goes on into the world to make total incompetent fools of themselves. They've taken your intellectual property and fronted it as their own, getting credit for your work. In the case of a class that uses a bell curve to curve grades, they've also reduced the value of your work by bringing it closer to the mean grade of the class as a whole.

Copyright IS the right to copy. Notice, anyone who holds copyrights has the right to copy whatever they hold copyrights to. Only in the case of no one being designated as having the exclusive copyright is everyone allowed to copy.

This entire tangent thread describing intellectual property as an intangible thing that should be freely shared between everyone is silliness. It sounds like a bunch of kids trying to justify taking things that aren't theirs. Yes, I've taken things that aren't mine before, but I'll tell you right now that it's stealing. Downloading things that are meant to be bought, for free, is stealing unless you have a legitimate license. You can justify it all you want by saying that you just do it to test, and that you buy after you know you want it, but it's STILL stealing. There is a marketing department out there who went through a lot of work to make that product seem like the most amazing thing ever after the devs gave them the product and the "oh shit...this sucks" thought went through their minds.

It IS illegal to download games, even crap games. It is NOT illegal to make a shitty game sound awesome. Therefore, you cannot say you are not doing something illegal when you download a game, no matter how crappy it is and/or how much it was built up in marketing.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[mrchaotica]

If you read up on why that is in the constitution, you would see that you are wrong.

O RLY?

Actually, I have read up on it. Thomas Jefferson, for example, completely opposed it:

"The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."

-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Madison dated 31 July 1788.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

-- Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.

James Madison supported it, but only due to assumptions he made which are no longer valid:

"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many."

-- James Madison, in a letter to Jefferson dated 17 October 1788.

I'm not going to bother looking up a quote from Ben Franklin, but you can bet he'd have agreed with Jefferson -- he, after all, refused to patent any of his inventions and invented the public library!

I have no doubt whatsoever that, if they had seen the situation today, where the existence of the Free Software movement, blogs, YouTube, etc. make it patently obvious that the "encouragements to literary works" are in fact not "too valuable" and the danger of the "few... sacrific[ing] the many to their own partialities and corruptions" has, in fact, come to pass with the rise of organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc., all of the Founding Fathers including even Madison would have instantly and heartily agreed that the Constitution should have abolished "monopolies" altogether.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[dshadowwolf]

According to the US Patent Office until the early twentieth century you had to provide a model or functional prototype of your device in order to receive a patent. Until the late 1970's/early 1980's a patent could only cover a physical device.

That is exactly what the patent system was designed to cover. Processes were added at some point, though I'm not exactly certain when, and almost assuredly because of businesses. Writings, data and artwork were to be covered solely by copyrights.

(Not a quote, but I had to set this aside somehow...)

If I begin working on an operating system that is multi-threaded, uses multiple processors and such, there are very few methods of having shared data structures safely. The safest and most efficient would be to read the data, make a copy of it that isn't shared, work on the copy, then update the shared original from the copy. This is extremely obvious and almost anyone would arrive at the same conclusion given the same requirements.

However, it is patented. It's the "RCU" - or "Read, Copy, Update" - method of safely having pools of shared data in a multi-threaded environment. If I implemented it I could be sued over the patent violation. It doesn't matter that I have never seen or read the patent. It doesn't matter that the system seemed painfully obvious to me. What matters is that it wasn't obvious to the people at the US Patent and Trademark Office.

My example above isn't to show that all software patents are bad. What it's doing is showing that the USPTO (and presumably other countries patent offices) need to start using people who understand the field that the patent is in. If you try to patent something like the RCU method, it goes to someone who has experience with programming. If it is a patent on a firearm, it goes to someone with experience as a gunsmith (or similar).

That alone - using a person or group with experience in the field that the patent applies to to examine the patent and make sure it's 100% valid before granting it - should cut down on the number of bogus patents. Truthfully, there should also be limits placed on what can be "claimed" by a patent - to stop someone from patenting a never-produced design for something and then suing when someone produces something that is only marginally related.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[somersault]

Yep I think copying others' characters from a novel or TV series for example is rather lame. In Harry Potter's case I'm not too bothered, the last few films seem to have been getting worse. I loved all the books though. I doubt most people would be too interested in books on a series that were purposely created without the consent of the original author - not to such a level that they wouldn't buy the originals anyway. If however the copy turned out to be better.. well.. you could say that that is 'progress' of a kind, isn't it? I'm not saying that's how it should be, I just tend to play devil's advocate whether I believe in what I'm talking about or not ;)

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

There has to be a reason I don't come to Slashdot any more. It is pretty bad when Digg and Reddit has more mature comments these days... Maturity, huh? When the first words you come back with are:

Bull fucking shit. Mature comments indeed.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

I'm not saying that's how it should be, I just tend to play devil's advocate whether I believe in what I'm talking about or not ;) Hehe, I'm with you on that one! It's fun being a gadfly!

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

There has to be a reason I don't come to Slashdot any more. It is pretty bad when Digg and Reddit has more mature comments these days...

... he says -- in a posting on Slashdot.

Talk about your shit for brains.

BTW, shit-for-brains judge of "mature" -- Digg and Reddit have.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want YOUR intellectual property given away for free, GPL it. You want me to refrain from reproducing YOUR intellectual property, you can pay me to do so. Starting price is one million, doubling in each subsequent year.

Intellectual 'property' rights cannot be enforced without infringing on people's natural right to free speech. Therein lies the difference.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[RichiH]

This is because no one wants you to just mod something 'wrong'. Either reply to it with a well-phrased counter-argument or don't. But just saying 'no' and walking by is not considered good style in most discussions.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Aapje]

see, contracts have to be voluntarily entered by all parties

That's just nonsense. In every society, children enter into a 'contract' with their parents upon birth, who can make many decisions for the children until they are adult. Similarly, those parents enter into a social contract with society how they may treat their children. It's just an anarchist/libertarian fantasy that people are completely free to choose the rules they will obey and may ignore all others. I don't think we want incestious parents to get off free just because they don't accept the rules of society, for example.

Even for those of us happy to "sign", the social contract is being changed unilaterally, which with normal contracts is something that is almost never permitted.

It's not unilateral in a democracy, where the people (including you) decide the contents of the contract. You can try to opt out completely by emigrating to some remote piece of land without any inhabitants and giving up all contact with others. Most of us do want to live in an advanced society and prefer to use democracy to shape society into something they can live with.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[brkello]

So, does that make it right not to pay people for their efforts because it isn't defined as property? You guys argue in circles over definitions and you all miss the point.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

First, you blindly assume that the promotion of arts and sciences is not at all linked to creating profit.

And you blindly assume that it is linked to creating profit, contrary to all evidence. "If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

Art comes from art, and science comes from science. If you "own" the art then you take away the ability of anyone else to make art from that art. If you "own" science (and patents only last 20 years, unlike copyrights) then you own the ability to make further discoveries based on the discoveries you "own".

Only a liar or a fool would take your stance.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

Oh, 20 years on a software patent is horrible, but 175 years copyright is OK? Typical "intellectual pooperty".

I'm proud to have you on my "freaks" list, freak.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

I expect gas prices to at least stabilize, whether it's President Obama or President McCain (and I expect McCain to be the next president).

Every thing Bush and Cheney have done since getting into the white house has been purposeful, and that purpose has been raising gas prices. The Iraq war was started to destabilize the middle east. Bush and Cheney should be impeached and tried for treason, putting their own financial gain above the interests of the US.

The Republicans should hope that Obama wins the election, because I think that whoever gains the White House is the next President Hoover. We are in for a depression to make the Great Depression look like prosperity.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

Oh, 20 years on a software patent is horrible, but 175 years copyright is OK? Typical "intellectual pooperty". If you'd like to actually read my posts instead of just post rants, I said "almost all" software patents are horrible. To clarify, I think they shouldn't exist. Likewise, I never once said 175 years copyright is ok, nor advocated that. I think a balance needs to be found between your, imho, completely unreasonable position, and the way things are now. (are you the guy that made the hilarious joke about "intellectual pooperty"? if so, congrats!)

I'm proud to have you on my "freaks" list, freak. Hurray for friendly posters! You actually should be flattered--my friends, foes, and Fof/fs each get +1. I'm not sure why you're on my list, but it's possible you said something interesting once!

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

And you blindly assume that it is linked to creating profit, contrary to all evidence. "If I have seen further than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." How does your Newton quote at all invalidate any linking of scientific/artistic progress and the pursuit of profit? Your theory would eliminate many works of the Renaissance. Dickens? You would eliminate Edison because he was a businessman as well an inventor. Ford--just a hack who wanted to increase efficiency of his wageslaves. Walt Disney--no talent capitalist. etc, etc. Why would you remove from the ranks of great artists and inventors all those who pursued profit? I don't get it...

Art comes from art, and science comes from science. If you "own" the art then you take away the ability of anyone else to make art from that art. If you "own" science (and patents only last 20 years, unlike copyrights) then you own the ability to make further discoveries based on the discoveries you "own". Not really sure what the point of what you're saying here is. The goal of patents is to make it so that people WILL release products and inventions knowing they have some protection against their hardwork+ideas being copied right away.

Own art--you're right. Otherwise I could just go out and publish spinoff Harry Potter novels without giving a dime to JK Rowling and potentially diminshing the value of her books. Yes, this is limiting my actions, but I feel it's a good thing. Give it some amount of time before opening it up. You seemed confused in a separate post that I was advocating 175 year copyright--I am not.

Own science--I'm not sure you have it quite right here. It's not science that is owned, it's implementations. As I said before in another post, which you also misread, I think software patents are horrible and 99% of them should be abolished. If a drug company sinks millions (billions?) of dollars into inventing and testing a drug, and then anybody can replicate the chemicals in a week or a month and produce dirt cheap generics, it makes it a lot harder for big companies to do the requisite pharmaceutical testing and trials. Should I be allowed to copy a drug the day it comes out and sell my off brand for pennies on the dollar? That doesn't seem fair to me, even though it limits what I can do.

Only a liar or a fool would take your stance. What kind of person would get so worked up on an anonymous internet forum that they go around flinging ad hominems at every opportunity? Seriously, what is this, highschool? Your personal insults don't really reflect positively on your abilities at debating issues..

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

But I can touch my bank balance. In fact, I just did so this morning when I took some of it out. Or are you saying that your house is intangible when you're at work?

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

I get paid for my time.

I never posited that creative works were valueless, I said they were not property. Just as time is not property.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

How does your Newton quote at all invalidate any linking of scientific/artistic progress and the pursuit of profit?

First, that quote wasn't original with Newton. One of the giants whose shoulders he stood on first said it a thousand years earlier.

Second, the meaning of the quote itself. No learning can be done in a vaccuum, art and science are built on previous art and science. If those previous works are "owned" then they can neither be used or built on.

If the story of the seven dwarves were the "intellectual property" of the Grimm Brothers' heirs, Disney would not have been able to make the cartoon.

The public domain is precious. Without it there can be no progress.

Your theory would eliminate many works of the Renaissance

There was no copyright during the Renaissance. The first Renaissance works were known as "neo-classical" and attempted to copy the work done by the ancient Romans and Greeks. If the ancient works were "intellectual property" there would have been no Renaissance art.

Not really sure what the point of what you're saying here is. The goal of patents is to make it so that people WILL release products and inventions knowing they have some protection against their hardwork+ideas being copied right away.

That's right, and it's exactly my point. You're given a limited time monopoly. When the limited time is up, so is your monopoly. The work then goes into the public domain, where anyone can use it as they see fit.

It's not science that is owned, it's implementations.

Engineering is what the corporations claim as "property". Engineering is often the end result of science, and engineering, like art, is based on previous work.

What kind of person would get so worked up on an anonymous internet forum that they go around flinging ad hominems at every opportunity?

Someone who was passionate about the subject, and who sees the world going to corporate hell in a gold plated handbasket. I can see where th ebest art of the 20th century will be lost forever due to the insane copyright laws. I see my country sliding into an artless corporate cesspool, and that's not the world I want to leave my decendants.

I get worked up because it's important.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

(are you the guy that made the hilarious joke about "intellectual pooperty"? if so, congrats!)

Yeah, that's me, and thank you.

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Moridineas]

Second, the meaning of the quote itself. No learning can be done in a vaccuum, art and science are built on previous art and science. If those previous works are "owned" then they can neither be used or built on. The American patent system has existed for over 200 years. Computers and software have been interacting with the patent system for over 40 years. The last century--even the last decade--have seen a more explosive growth of technology (and software) than could have been imagined. Even while under the constraints of the patent system. Maybe, BECAUSE of the patent system. I don't even understand how you can claim that if works of science and art are "owned" no progress can be made. It's clear that you're wrong--else we wouldn't be seeing so much progress being made!

Engineering is what the corporations claim as "property". Engineering is often the end result of science, and engineering, like art, is based on previous work. I don't know what that means. Are we still talking about patents? Implementations and methods are patentable. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "engineering" is what the corporations claim as "property."

Someone who was passionate about the subject, and who sees the world going to corporate hell in a gold plated handbasket. Every generation always thinks as they get older that the next generation is going to hell and the world is ending. It's just one of those facts of life! I could give you some fascinating examples from a range of ancient->medieval->current civilizations from across the globe, but that's really neither here nor there. I mean really, how can you claim America is artless when we have piss christ and students pretending to abort fetuses as art? clearly we've got something!

It's good to be passionate--it's also good to have civil conversations!

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[sm62704]

The last century--even the last decade--have seen a more explosive growth of technology (and software) than could have been imagined. Even while under the constraints of the patent system. Maybe, BECAUSE of the patent system.

I am not against patents, and in fact think that mostly (with exceptions; patent trolls, software patents, patents on the obvious) the patent system works well.

But a patent does not conefer ownership. In twenty years your invention goes into the public domain. You own the patent but NOT the invention itself.

If I buy a house, it's mine. I can leave it to my heirs. If I rent a house, I have a monopoly on its use until the lease runs out.

If I own a patent on an invention, I have a monopoly on its manufacture until the patent runs out. It is more akin to rental than ownership; it is temporary. It's not even like a carton of milk that can go bad; you still own the spoiled milk.

Copyrights were originally 14 years in the US. How can you call a limited time monopoly "ownership"?

More things have indeed been invented because of patents, and especially the fact that patents run out after 20 years and the invention enters the public domain. Were patents to last 175 years like copyrights, you would have seen very little invention during the last century.

how can you claim America is artless when we have piss christ and students pretending to abort fetuses as art?

One of my art instructors was fond of saying "I know what art is, but I don't know what I like".

It's good to be passionate--it's also good to have civil conversations!

Agreed!

Re:Slashdot.co.uk?

[Kalriath]

Same way as ours (in New Zealand) - with a higher income tax rate. It's absolutely not the effect of high import duties and taxes, since American companies do it in every country , except where the exchange rate equals something like $0.75USD / dollar - then they double it first. Apple, I'm looking at you!

Here's your warning:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Don't do it. Don't engage in the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. No joke, no troll. It's an expensive offence to commit, due to its often exponential growth in damages, and most people can't afford it. If you can't afford the thousands it takes to settle these cases, then just stop doing it right now. Go on. If you "need" a game, have a look at some of the free (in either sense) games floating around on the internet, or buy some quality second-hand, or older, cheap, but still very good games at your local games store. It's going to be a helluva lot cheaper than paying any settlement, believe me.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Ssshh now. Rest your weary head Stevey B. It'll all be alright in the morning.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Chrontius]

Show me where I can still buy secondhand PC games.

Re:Here's your warning:

[diskofish]

If you read the article, the reader claims he never downloaded the game in the first place, nor can he find an evidence of it.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that won't be enough.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that someone's guilty just because they receive a letter from a lawyer. The guy hasn't even been sued yet - not that it would be evidence of his guilt if he were, of course, since as we all know, even homeless people who have never owned a computer at all have been dragged into court over alleged illegal distribution of music.

At the same time, this also shows that even when you don't do anything illegal, you won't be safe from litigation. You can share only legal material on edonkey or whatever, and you may still get SLAPPed with a lawsuit. For that matter, you don't even need to run edonkey or anything. Actually, for that matter, you don't even need a computer. You don't even need a place where you live.

No matter what you do and don't do, you could be the next target, and apparently, merely being targetted is enough for some people to consider you guilty.

Re:Here's your warning:

[metlin]

Craigslist, eBay, garage sales etc.

Re:Here's your warning:

[clickclickdrone]

>Show me where I can still buy secondhand PC games.
My (smallish) town has 2 shops plus there's Ebay, charity shops, boot fairs etc.

Re:Here's your warning:

[montyzooooma]

Show me where I can still buy secondhand PC games.

Ebay?

Re:Here's your warning:

[Jaysyn]

Amazon I know for sure. Ebay & Cragslist as well.

Trodo if it is still around.

Re:Here's your warning:

[wattrlz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to resell or redistribute IP? From what I've read several famous organizations that end in, "AA" seem to think so.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Chrontius]

My biggish town has no shops - and believe me I've looked - and while there's Ebay, I usually find everything I play while browsing through the shelves. No charity shops here sell anything newer than Quake 3, and I'm lucky to find anything that isn't bottom-shelf (Cabbage Patch Girls games &c) at garage sales.

Re:Here's your warning:

[mulhall]

The parent is quite right.

There is so much wrong here it's untrue. This is essentially a threat, unknown evidence (that most recipients wouldn't even understand) that you are liable for something you didn't do. And the implied threat that denying it will cost you a good deal more than £600.

I don't see how ISPs can provide irrefutable "forensic" evidence in any case.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

Earlier today I was looking at albums by a certain duo (who will remain anonymous here, it's not relevant to the post) and ended up flabbergasted by the prices. £15-20 each! If I wanted all ten that are available, I'd be talking £150-200, which is easily my entire bank account right now. But within minutes on a torrent search engine, I found all ten in a single torrent with some seeders online. What the hell do you expect me to do?

I want to support them, I really do, and I'll probably buy whichever album ends up being my favourite, but it took me less than two seconds to decide I couldn't square up the price to what I'm getting. I'm looking at a fair stack of anime and manga right now, and I could get the whole fucking lot for £200 with enough change left to get that digital camera I've wanted for a while now. Why is the music so god-damned expensive? They may say it's because of the piracy, but that gets them in a classic catch-22. I'm pirating it because I looked at the price, said "Fuck that" and resorted to BitTorrent where I can get the lot for free! With that kind of competition, there is only one solution: Lower prices.

Re:Here's your warning:

[bamwham]

Bookmans in Tucson, AZ. I sell them my games whenever I'm out there as well. They even by the $hitty old stuff. Give you extra bucks if you still have the box and manuals etc...

Re:Here's your warning:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Music is prohibitively expensive right now, thanks to declining sales, not completely the fault of piracy.

I'm currently enjoying Rhythmnbox's direct connection with Magnatune and Jamendo. There's a fair bit of rubbish, but there is certainly a fair amount of talent as well.

If you really want to hear music from this mysterious duo, then perhaps search ebay/amazon for second-hand CDs.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me where I can still buy secondhand PC games. Amazon.

GTA: San Andreas.
Halo 2

Re:Here's your warning:

[kestasjk]

You're very unlikely to have to pay a settlement. The cost of paying a settlement is (Chance of being sued)*(Average cost of settlement), if that is less than the cost of the game it's a sound "gamble" to download the game instead of paying.

This is just looking at the "it will cost you" argument, I'm not making any comment on the ethics.

Re:Here's your warning:

[the brown guy]

or move to Canada w00t.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do it. Don't engage in the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. No joke, no troll. It's an expensive offence to commit, due to its often exponential growth in damages, and most people can't afford it. If you can't afford the thousands it takes to settle these cases, then just stop doing it right now. Go on. If you "need" a game, have a look at some of the free (in either sense) games floating around on the internet, or buy some quality second-hand, or older, cheap, but still very good games at your local games store. It's going to be a helluva lot cheaper than paying any settlement, believe me. I think your advice sucks.

Maybe that's true where you live, I don't know. Still, the risk of getting caught is minimal and I doubt I'd stop filesharing if I moved to where you live.

Someone here just got 45 day-fines for sharing 4500+ songs and 30+ movies. I could live with that considering I've been downloading stuff since Napster was around. I _never_ buy movies, music, software or games so I've already saved enough to pay those fines several times.

It's going to be a helluva lot cheaper for the majority to just download everything they want and stop buying stuff.

Re:Here's your warning:

[JustinOpinion]

It's an expensive offence to commit Interesting. I had the opposite reaction.

A £600 fine? That's nothing! Think about the probability of being caught. If you look at the number of users on a typical torrent site (tens of thousands for a popular file), and the number of torrent sites (dozens)... and then compare that to the number of cases actually being brought against suspected infringers... Well, the probability of being accused is quite low.

That low probability multiplied by a ~$1,000 fine is, really, not much (certainly much less than actually buying the game for the retail price). So the expectation cost for illegally downloading it is lower than the expectation cost for buying it from a store. And most people could pay off a fine that like quite quickly (I'm not saying they would be happy about it, but it wouldn't ruin them).

The scarier stuff are things like the $220,000 fine the RIAA managed to get. Court fees and fines like that (multiple infringements at $9000 each) can indeed ruin a person's life. But if copyright infringement were just treated as a minor infraction with a capped fine (like how speeding is), then it really wouldn't be dangerous to infringe.

(No doubt that's one of the reasons that most people do violate copyright at some point or other; the enforcement is, in reality, so sporadic that there's almost no chance of getting caught.)

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Music is prohibitively expensive right now, thanks to declining sales So you claim that reduced demand causes higher prices?

Re:Here's your warning:

[radish]

So because you can't afford something it's OK to not pay for it? Try explaining that to your local supermarket. You know what I do when I can't afford something? I live without it.

Re:Here's your warning:

[penguinbrat]

Are you new to all this?

 

Go on. If you "need" a game, have a look at some of the free (in either sense) games floating around on the internet, or buy some quality second-hand, or older, cheap, but still very good games at your local games store. It's going to be a helluva lot cheaper than paying any settlement, believe me.

You must be - I'll give you a hint, this is *NOT* about some idiot teenager getting caught pirating a game - it's about *HOW* the powers at be are abusing the legal system, and twisting facts and figures to only line the fat cats pockets that much more - and consequently, only because they are too old and stuck in there ways to understand nor know how to use the internet.

Re:Here's your warning:

[teh kurisu]

Just about any video game shop. GameStation in particular have huge pre-owned sections.

Re:Here's your warning:

[MBGMorden]

You're wrong. Gamestop and Blockbuster would have been sued into oblivion if it was. You'll notice that their shelves are stocked full of used games, and Blockbuster sells off 90% of their used movies after they pass out of "new release" status (afterall they may need 150 copies of a hot movie the week it's released, but then a year later they can make due with 2 or 3 copies). Most pawn shops are full of used movies/games/cd's too.

As to the "AA's", evil as they are, I've not heard them challenge reselling of media like this before. I think Sony has grumbled before bout people reselling games, but that's about it.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Jason Levine]

I'm going to agree with the general advice of not pirating a game (or anything else for that matter). If you *NEED* something, pay for it or find a freeware alternative.

However, just because you live your online life on the up and up doesn't mean you won't be sued. All it takes is one ISP typer transposing some digits and you can find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Then you have to spend your time and money defending yourself and proving your innocence. If you and your lawyer don't do a good enough job (or the judge is biased against "copyright infringers" whether proven or not), you could be fined thousands of dollars. Or you could pay thousands of dollars in a settlement because it's cheaper than fighting the lengthy fight to clear your name. Even if you win, you then have to counter-sue for legal fees, fight that fight, and then try to get them to pay. (Oddly enough, big copyright holders tend to be big fans of courts awarding them money but hate it when courts tell them to pay legal fees of people they wrongly sued. I guess the copyright holders figure an "Oops. Our bad." should be enough and everyone should go on their merry way... With the sued individual possibly going on their merry way to bankruptcy from the lawsuit.)

Re:Here's your warning:

[gad_zuki!]

>If you read the article, the reader claims he never downloaded the game in the first place, nor can he find an evidence of it.

Your honor, the gloves clearly dont fit! Putting the defendant in charge of evidence usually produces the same results.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Nimey]

Would the defendant admit wrongdoing, though?

Re:Here's your warning:

[jedidiah]

In order to take something from the local green grocer I have to DEPRIVE HIM OF IT.

I don't have to do that with the latest PC game.

Might give the studio owner an ulcer because his sense of control is offended but that's about it...

Re:Here's your warning:

[tompaulco]

If you can't afford or don't wish to pay the the brand new price and you can't find a place to obtain it secondhand, then you don't get the game. You aren't entitled to what you want at the price you are willing to pay. When buyers and sellers can't agree on a price, a transaction doesn't take place.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

I've also been downloading a fair few anime fansubs recently, but do you know what else I've done? I've bought a total of eight anime DVDs in the last few months. After looking back at my past, I see one invariable constant. More downloads = More purchases*. If the fansubs hadn't given my anime on the brain, I wouldn't have bought any of this. It's the same story with music and the same with games. The assumption that I won't buy anything because I'm downloading stuff is unfounded and often incorrect.

*As a neat piece of irony, one of the anime series I bought after watching was Rozen Maiden. I grabbed the region 1 release (God rest your soul Geneon) after watching the fansubs and played it on my multi-region British DVD player. It never got an English language region 2 release. Now my new fansub obsession is Lucky Star. That recently got a region 1 release too, but I don't have any immediate plans to buy that. Why? Well it just so happens that my new home theatre system is locked to region 2 and seems to be a bitch for changing to multi-region playback. So there's no point in getting Lucky Star until it either gets a English language region 2 release or I unlock my new DVD player. Getting rid of silly restrictions like that would certainly help if you wanted to reduce my level of piracy...

Re:Here's your warning:

[ShadowsHawk]

I prefer the Chewbacca defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Re:Here's your warning:

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

If you really want to hear music from this mysterious duo, then perhaps search ebay/amazon for second-hand CDs.

When it comes to the original artist, I fail to see much difference between second-hand CDs and just downloading the music for free. Only first-hand sales actually count towards anything, and I'll openly admit that I see my buying CDs as a charity case these days. When it takes a few minutes to find a ten CD torrent and few hours to download that torrent, I'm only buying CDs because I want to support the original artist.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go blow Michael Jackson, you copyright loving, insensitive clod?

Re:Here's your warning:

[KGIII]

It makes me wonder if we can coin the phrase "RIAAed" or "RIAAslapped" or insert any ol' name in there. "What happened to Bill, don't see him online much any more?" "Bill? Meh... He got RIAAslapped."

Re:Here's your warning:

[Chrontius]

this is why I haven't bought any games without repeatedly being kicked by friends AND catching them on >50% off sales for Black Friday. And that was still a one-time event. I used to buy the better part of my games used - picking up things like Oni and Deus Ex 2 after the reviews have had time to have their say (and the game has gone out of print, usually). Now, I buy... a game a year? I'm sick of this. I hate it that the entire market in my region has dried up, and I've basically had my favorite hobby starved out from under me. And Robert Jordan managed to kill my desire to read for the last few years, so I'm... losing hobbies left and right.

Re:Here's your warning:

[jcgf]

You know what I do when I can't afford something?

http://thepiratebay.org/

Re:Here's your warning:

[WDot]

I don't download games on P2P clients, but at LANs my friends and I will install each other's games and play. More often then not I've purchased games that I've "pirated" at these LANs, and the ones that I didn't buy I deleted and don't play anymore anyway. Here's an interesting idea for handling piracy: If your game has online stats, delete the stats of users who have played for a while on a pirated copy. My friend is obsessed with Call of Duty 4, but he didn't want to pay for a copy. He unlocked all sorts of stuff by playing online, and then found out one day that he was back at square one. He was furious, but he begrudgingly bought a copy and even bought a used copy for someone else to coerce them into trying it. Whether Infinity Ward did that on purpose or not, that was an amazing anti-piracy feat.

Re:Here's your warning:

[NeutronCowboy]

50% of the drive towards hard-core DRM is the removal of the 2nd-hand market.

Piracy is a drop in the bucket compared to the legal 2nd hand market. Gamestop's percentage of revenue from used products was 32% last year, with 44% of its overall profit coming from there.

Publishers would love to get their hands on that market - even if it is not the same market as the new market.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Deltaspectre]

I don't know what you know, but in the case of the homeless person getting sued... well, he wasn't always homeless ;)

They just delivered him the notice/whatever while he was homeless.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Buran]

What the hell are you expected to do?

Save the money and THEN buy it.

Duh.

Re:Here's your warning:

[chuhwi]

The expected cost (probability of being sued * penalty) of a pirated game is still lower then the cost of buying the game. Unless they start suing several orders of magnitude more people, they will have to jack up the penalties pretty high to make it piracy have a higher expected cost. These expensive penalties always get publicized, but people forget that you have to consider the chance of getting sued as well.

Re:Here's your warning:

[DMUTPeregrine]

No, buying them isn't the hard part. Using them is. Show me an online game where the CD key will still work used. Then buying the game won't be a massive risk of having an expensive coaster.

Re:Here's your warning:

[WK2]

Your post isn't going to be popular around here, but I'm totally with you. People don't seem to realize that copyright is unnatural. It might have worked before the digital age, when most people weren't going to hand-copy their books and sell them anyway, and mass publishers weren't expecting to be able to publish in mass and make a profit off of somebody else's work.

But now that things are so easy to copy, it's hard not to. It's unnatural and counter-intuitive. People make small sacrifices for their friends and family, such as giving them birthday presents. Why wouldn't they do something nice for them when it means no sacrifice? Why would I go all the way to the store and pay for something when I can just download it off of the internet? To sponsor some faceless corporation?

Copyright law was established a long time ago, in a different world. It just doesn't work any more, at least not in its current form.

Re:Here's your warning:

[wootcat]

You are depriving the game studio of the compensation for that PC game. Yes, thousands of others ponied up the cash to buy the game, but why should it be them and not you who helps pay for the work that went into producing that title?

Re:Here's your warning:

[jez9999]

You know what I do when I can't afford something? I live without it.

Please tell me more of your ability to live without food and water. :-)

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking gay browser, I tried to answer this post with a long fucking post but gay Safari in OS X on crappintosh are so fucking slow and their fucking keyboard layout are fucked up so I always have a trouble typing a fucking dollar sign. I tried to switch it with backspace but for some gay reason the browser went back instead, and the gay web2.0-bullshit or whatever it's called on Slashdot made me lose my post.. That and Safaris retarded back/forward compared to Opera which keep your information (won't work with gay2.0 apps thought.)

Fuck this bullshit, I get so fucking tired of this piece of fucking shit bloatware and gay webpages. /aliquis

Fuck! I really wanted to say how I feeled about your post but I'm to lazy and tired to rewrite it all. GAAAAAAAY. MPAA AND RIAA AND ALL RECORD LABELS CAN SUCK MY ASS ASWELL.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing I don't get though... If i buy a game from a ebay, or a garage sale NONE of that money goes to the developer of the game, how is that different from downloading it? What if i list the game for 1 penny, or decide to give it away to some kid at my garage sale. I can't sell copies of my games, but i can sale the game itself. BOTH take a sale away from the developer, albiet, selling copies takes away more sales depending on how ambitious you are. But ultimately, you could install it, sell it to your friend for a penny, he installs it, and repeats untill all of you have the game, and it would be legal?

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again you couldn't be more wrong. Stop comparing information to physical products.

If your friend bought a Ferrari and said "Hey, would you like me to make you a copy?" would you say no?

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are depriving the game studio of the compensation for that PC game."

No, he isn't. He's not paying for it either way, because, as detailed explicitly in the GP and GGP, he can't afford it.

So, by definition, he is depriving the game studio of nothing. The game studio gets nothing whether he pirates the game or goes without it.

No matter what happens, the studio will not get money from him. He will not pay for that game, that is a constant factor in this equation. Money given to studio for that game = 0. Copies of game played can equal any real-number integer including zero, but no matter what that number is it will have no effect on the constant.

Pirate + Doesn't Buy = $0.00. No Pirate + Doesn't Buy = $0.00. Both are identical to the accounting department, they enter a "0" into the "money gotten from this person" field under either circumstance.

Is it clear yet? Do you honestly need it explained again in new and different ways? Are you just being obstinate, or are you actually hopelessly stupid about this subject?

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right! Thats why if I can't afford to buy a book, I have absolutely no business whatsoever going to a library to read a book for FREE! How dare I try to get something for nothing in America!?!

Re:Here's your warning:

[BDZ]

Quite true.

I've downloaded a number of things to check them out, found that I liked them and that led to sales. Anime and music primarily.

Though one thing that I have downloaded and liked a lot, but did not buy was some soundtracks to various anime. The only legal way I could find to buy the recordings was as Japanese imports and that was mighty costly.

Today I received an email from Amazon asking me to take a survey about their MP3 store as I've been purchasing a good deal from there. One of the things I mentioned when asked about what I would like to see more of is things just like that. I'd pay a fair price for that music if it was offered. Gladly.

RS, by the way, I believe both DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink will break region encryption for you. I use both for ripping and backing up DVDs I purchase (also clears away unskippable bits too)

Re:Here's your warning:

[tompaulco]

If you buy a game from ebay or a garage sale then the company has already made their money on it. There is the matter that they would rather sell you a brand new one, which I am sure they would fight to outlaw secondary sales if they could, but I'm sure Ford Motor Company would like to make it impossible for you to buy a secondhand car as well, and that ain't happening.
Now if you are buying a game off of ebay that someone still owns the original for and has just made a copy of, well that is illegal and whoever is selling it needs to be punished.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Snuz]

Honestly I just can't bring myself to give a damn about music pirates . . . but people who pirate PC games . . . String 'em up! Or just cut off their hands or something.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

For the most part the company has already made their money off the pirated version (someone had to buy it to crack it), and again for the most part, will make their money from those that download the pirated copy. I know that I will ALWAYS buy a game that is well made, not buggy to hell, or just plain interesting. But i'll be damned if I am gonna pay full price for something that I can NOT return, will not enjoy or will not run on my pc. And no agruments about "the recommended specs" Crysis had a hell of a time playing on a TON of computers that met the reqs. So yes, I will download a game to see if it runs and give it a quick test session or two, and if it catches me I will happily go pay for it. Even the MPAA will let ya watch 3-5 mins of their movie before it comes out, and hell you can listen to songs on internet radio.

The current model is broken and Game companys are doing themselves more harm then good. Copy protection hurts the legitimate user and at worst slows down the pirate by a day or so. if someone was not going to pay for the game they would never have gone out and bought it, even if it was unavaiable from the pirates. At least this way they might develop some interest in the company's future games and maybe even sway them into thinking it is worth purchasing to keep them working... just my 2 cents but pirating is just free advertising.

Re:Here's your warning:

[ananix]

Dont do it... its and expensive offence to commit, so on so on. Not in scandinavia! And its seems to me the conclution of bulletin is the same. All they have is scare tactics and they have such a bad case they have to cheat to try and win. Your post sounds totaly like one from the antipirat group. Not that i have any need to take from people who dont want to give. Why steal apples from a dealer when you can plug the best ones for free of the trees. PS terrorism is a form of govern!

Re:Here's your warning:

[sanosuke76]

Or, there's always Gamefly and rentals. When you've just rented a game, you really don't care if it only lasts a few hours before you beat it.

Re:Here's your warning:

[atraintocry]

I'm not saying I haven't downloaded music, but it's not a catch-22. If you think it's overpriced, you always have the option not to buy it. Nobody put a gun to your head and said "hop on that torrent". Maybe if it was bread to feed your starving child I'd say, OK, rationalize away. But for pop music? And manga? You can't possibly be trying to argue that it's ethical in this case.

Re:Here's your warning:

[AK Marc]

You are depriving the game studio of the compensation for that PC game.

So, they had that compensation in their hands, then I pirate it and the compensation is gone? Or is my choice to not see Iron Man last night actionable because I didn't give them money? Deciding not to buy is depriving them of compensation, so whether the choice is because I'm going to buy the DVD later, whether I'm going to borrow a friend's DVD later, whether I'm going to see it next week, whether I'm never going to see it, or any other combinations you can think of, I should be prosecuted for depriving them of their God given right to profit.

Every argument I've ever seen of your type either boils down to the Right to Profit requiring you to buy things you don't want, or that things that don't exist can be withheld (some mythical "compensation" for something that would never be bought). There is no loss. There is nothing they had yesterday that they don't have tomorrow. No loss means no lost revenue, no loss of compensation, no loss of anything. They agreed to give it for free into the Public Domain to receive copyright on it. They no longer own it. It's owned by the public, but with an artificial government regulation designed to encourage such releases that violating this law is completely unrelated to "theft" or denying anyone anything.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Score Whore]

And yet everyone insists that "their" data not be shared. Data such as search history, purchasing history, credit history, payment history, etc. I mean most of that isn't even yours in the first place, it's collected and collated by someone else. But we insist that we "own" that information and get to control how it's disseminated. How curious.

Re:Here's your warning:

[Anonymous Coward]

Would a business lie to get your money?

Re:Here's your warning:

[OverlordQ]

I don't have to do that with the latest PC game.

This is what I don't get. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? The "Well I wouldn't buy it in the first place" argument is full of shit. If you wouldn't buy it in the first place then obviously dont put much weight in it so why do you just *have* to download it? Can people just not go without? Has society turn into a bunch of self-entitled assholes?

Re:Here's your warning:

[brkello]

You are depriving him the cost of the game. If enough people think as you, no one would make software anymore.

Price to buy the game?

[kiwimate]

That, I was not wondering. I do wonder what the retail price for the game might be.

Re:Price to buy the game?

[peragrin]

you can download it free off the internet.

seriously though in the UK it goes for 19.99 pounds. and is avaiable for preorder only. They want $49.99 for the boxed version and $39.99 for the download version in the USA.

Re:Price to buy the game?

[archammer2]

Don't forget that it's also available for the XBox 360, which is about $20 more and gets a whopping 3 frames per second when trying to play with another person. 3 FPS if you're lucky.

For THAT!?

[superbus1929]

Zuxxez wants 600 quid for TWO WORLDS!? They should be paying US to play that piece of shit! Not only was that game completely unplayable, it was buggy as shit as well!

They whined that it was improperly compared to Oblivion. If it wasn't for those comparisons, no one would have even cared about their piece of shit game in the first place. So since they care more about punishing the few people that download the game (or not; we don't know what these "forensics" are) a lot more than making a game that doesn't suck, they can fuck off.

Re:For THAT!?

[geekoid]

"..compared to Oblivion"
compared in what way, bug count? Cause I find it hard to believe it had more bugs then Oblivion!

Re:For THAT!?

[GuyverDH]

The game sold for 4.99 at the local best buy, or at least it did before they pulled it from the shelves...

Re:For THAT!?

[GyroLC]

I rented Two Worlds (Xbox) from Blockbuster. It froze twice during the first 20 minutes of gameplay. It was promptly returned for CoD4. The gameplay itself also sucked hard.

Re:For THAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing about the Oblivion comparisons? THEY'RE the ones who started them. This game was touted as the "Oblivion killer" prior to its release. Many an interview claimed that it would put TES4 to shame in every way.

What they delivered was a game utterly broken in terms of fundamental design and gameplay, not to mention stability. It was ugly as hell and the dialogue consisted of cringe-inducing YE OLDE Fakespeare-style dialogue. Shit, I don't blame the guy for pirating it. To appreciate just how broken and shitty it is the demo won't suffice.

Re:For THAT!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which offers up a quick fix to the reader's dilemma.

Buy a copy of Two Worlds second-hand (for about a fiver). Photograph the box next to his computer. Put the photo, along with a letter explaining that he has 'forensic evidence' that he legally owns this game, in an envelope. Attach insufficient postage and return.

Not just evidence... FORENSIC EVIDENCE!

[Kenoli]

Or in other words they're full of shit.

And, of course, £600 is way out of line with the cost of a game.

This is where you say...

[Puffy Director Pants]

Return to Sender. Then disappear and join the Foreign Legion.

Re:This is where you say...

[urcreepyneighbor]

Then disappear and join the Foreign Legion. Nothin' wrong with that plan.

Two worlds?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like 2worlds1cup.avi

That game was crappy.

Sorting office

[Have Blue]

I had to collect it from the sorting office at a cost of £1.30. This also used up most of the two weeks that it allowed for a response.'"
Damn, I didn't realize the lines there were that bad.

Re:Sorting office

[wattrlz]

Well, "If There's One Thing an Englishman Knows, It's How to Queue."

Re:Sorting office

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant figure out why he even bothered to collect it. If I was told some random company had tried to mail me I would assume it was crap and leave it.

Re:Sorting office

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I didn't realize the lines there were that bad. You mean QUEUES, mate.

This reminds me of a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's black and bubbly and taps on glass?
A dead baby in a microwave.

What's black and bubbly and taps on glass ... every few seconds?
A dead baby in a turntable microwave.

What's the only thing worse than a dead baby in a garbage can?
Ten dead babies in a garbage can.

What's the only thing worse than ten dead babies in a garbage can?
One dead baby in ten garbage cans.

How do you get 200 dead babies into a phone booth?
With a blender.

How do you get them back out of the phone booth?
With a straw.

Re:This reminds me of a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. Everyone knows dead baby jokes are ALWAYS fair game. +5 Funny.

Re:This reminds me of a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

no, you got the last one wrong, it's not a straw. It's tortilla chips.

Re:This reminds me of a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

(At least, I know if I blended my daugher up, she would fit nicely inside a 800 in^3 space. I don't get it, why are you blending your daughter up? Couldn't it just be any baby?

Q: What do you call a nigger with two golf balls in his left hand? A: A nigger. I don't get it, is that an attempt at being funny?

I think you said it best:

(Hint: If ya gotta explain the punch line to your jokes, well then they're probably not funny to begin with.) So try again, or get off the stage...cause even the GP was funnier than you.

Re:This reminds me of a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How many dead babies does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Depends on how hard you can throw.

Dead baby jokes are always on-topic.

Re:This reminds me of a joke!

[Anonymous Coward]

(At least, I know if I blended my daugher up, she would fit nicely inside a 800 in^3 space. I don't get it, why are you blending your daughter up? Couldn't it just be any baby? 1) I'm not trying to make a joke here, so trying to reverse the logic, by having me explain it to you doesn't work. In other words: Y0U FAiL 1t!! Miserably.

2) I'm not blending my daughter up - you do understand what if means, don't you, asshole? Yes, it could be just any baby. I'm using her as a reference, since I know approximately how big she is.

Q: What do you call a nigger with two golf balls in his left hand?

A: A nigger. I don't get it, is that an attempt at being funny? No. Now it would be called a successful attempt at being funny. And don't pretend you're stupid and didn't get the joke. I doesn't work, because everybody knows you really are stupid. I mean, that would be akin to me pretending that I'm not an astronaut. (Another hint: I'm not really an astronaut, so pretending I'm not an astronaut is pretty pointless.)

I think you said it best:

(Hint: If ya gotta explain the punch line to your jokes, well then they're probably not funny to begin with.) Of course I said it best. I certainly wouldn't trust you with that task. You're not smart enough. And note I said "your" jokes. "My" jokes are always funny.

So try again, or get off the stage...cause even the GP was funnier than you. What an obligatory fucking lie.

Re:This reminds me of a joke!

[chrome]

HA HA HA thanks for the second best laugh I've had all day.

The first best laugh was cats running on a treadmill; I'm easily amused in my old age.

How does he know it's not a scam?

[Penguinisto]

Demand a copy of the "forensic evidence" in full, then double-check it with your ISP (and if you can, your own computer). Not 100% sure ab't the UK, but in the US, you do have the right to demand this.

/P

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[g0bshiTe]

I don't see why it would be any different in the UK.

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[growse]

If you do that, then that proves that you got the letter.

These particular guys are a joke. If you were really sent a "give us money or we're going to court", you can be damn sure that it'll go via courier or special delivery. They're not going to drop it in the mail and hope.

This is mail-and-pray. People who get these letters should just drop them in the bin and forget about them.

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[plague3106]

Well, if someone sent something to me and the PO said I had to pay for part of the postage because the sender underpaid, I'd tell them to return whatever it is to the sender. Why would anyone pay to have anything unsolicited to them?

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's why they came up short on postage. If the letter doesn't come back, then it's because the recipient paid the overage, hence they received the letter.

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

These particular guys are a joke. If you were really sent a "give us money or we're going to court", you can be damn sure that it'll go via courier or special delivery.

I have no idea how it works in other parts of the world but in Spain you must use correos (ie regular mail), because they are authorized to certify contents of notifications if needed (not just that something was sent but what was it).

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only have the right once its filed in court

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Royal Mail won't return it. They'll destroy it.
You could pay for it, then slap 'return to sender' on it and dump it back in a letterbox, leaving them to pay to have it returned, but you can't just have an unpaid letter returned.

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[enjo13]

Its not uncommon for someone to have a small breadcrumb of evidence that would not likely result in penalties in court. However you send an ominous letter threatening to sue counting on the fact that the defendant knows that he is guilty. They'll pay up now, rather than risk bigger problems and costs in a court trial. In this case your gambling: Do they have worthwhile evidence or not? They're not going to tell you one way or the other.

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[arth1]

Place the unopened envelope inside a new envelope. Address it to the sender, affix a penny stamp, and drop it in a mailbox.

Re:How does he know it's not a scam?

[UKRevenant]

To over simplify things ...

Under the data protection act it is a criminal offense to knowing or recklessly try to obtain information that you are not legally entitled to.

I would contact the lawyers and point out that unless they have a court order demanding the release of the information that has lead to the recipient being sent the demand that they and the ISP are in trouble as they have committed a criminal act that may result in prison sentences or a very hefty fines.

I would also state that I had never been anywhere near such a file and look forward to receiving a copy of their evidence so that it can be refuted. I would also point out that when they send the evidence that they should include £5 to cover the costs you incurred to receive the outrageous allegations in the first place.

I would then finish by stating that a copy of the letter has been sent to your ISP and to the information commissioner as I take my privacy seriously and believe that someone has been granted access to information that personally identifies me without my consent in breach of the Data Protection Act.

If they refuse to provide the evidence write to them again, registered and include a cheque for £10 and a request under the data protection act for a copy of all information that they hold regarding him. They then have 38 days to comply, if they do not anything they produce would put them in direct and probably willful breach of the law. Possibly rendering any evidence not valid anyway. They have to include any internal emails, absolutely everything that has your name on it. (Although not sure how this works with legal actions, there may be some parts of the legislation that mean full disclosure does not apply.)

Just my thoughts

Worthless

[esocid]

Everything I've read about both Davenport Lyons and Zuxxez makes them look pretty shady since they are using MAFIAA tactics to extort money from people, many of whom are innocent but their guilty until proven innocent outlook doesn't help. They went after 500 people last year for that stupid pinball game, and even went so far as to ask people for details/documentation about their computers and routers, all outside of court mind you, so it's another story of IP renegades run amuck.

Mod me down please

[AutopsyReport]

I accidentally converted to Euro. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

Eh?

[neokushan]

Perhaps I need to RTFA a bit more closely, but I thought the logic (for lack of a better term) behind the RIAA/MPAA's claims of thousands of $$$ per item was because that was a rough estimate of the amount they've lost based on the number of people that downloaded said item from them (So at say $15 per film, they're saying that 20,000 people will have downloaded it, thus $30,000), but it seems they're demanding he pay £600 for the game itself, not what they'd lost due to him distributing it?
I don't see how that works at all, surely the most he should be liable for is the £40 the game could cost? Or better yet, the £10 or whatever it is that the DEVELOPERS lost out on?

Re:Eh?

[actionbastard]

You should download a calculator, maybe?

Re:Eh?

[neokushan]

I meant 2,000 people, not 20,000.

Re:Eh?

[pxuongl]

i would then say that the RIAA's losses would be $0.00. Those same people who downloaded that music never would've bought to begin with.

Re:Eh?

[neokushan]

Well yeah, most of us here believe that as well. What's more, their figure of X amount of people being able to download it is completely arbitrary anyway.

Re:Eh?

[Colonel Korn]

The damages they claim have never been based on logic. The RIAA's claimed damage per .mp3 shared (per person) was what, $91000? Something around there. As has been done in the post discussing that, work out the number of sharers, the number of files being shared per sharer, and that figure, and the total damage the RIAA claims per year is something like 10 trillion (or was it quadrillion?) dollars per year. You know, more than the GDP of the US. Also ludicrously more than the $10B in revenue they have each year.

It's not about logic. It's about intimidation.

Re:Eh?

[tompaulco]

surely the most he should be liable for is the ã40 the game could cost?
Well, 40 may be the advertised price, but if you choose to obtain it outside of their normal commercial terms, I would expect that they should be able to set their own price for this other transaction. I am selling one of my cars for $23k, but if someone came and stole it, I think I should be able to recover whatever I wanted it for it, up to and including $1 Trillion, because they didn't obtain it on terms that I agree to.
Or perhaps I would be limited to the asking price, but I get to negotiate the payments, say $22,999.99 a month for 84 months, but the price still is only $23k.

Re:Eh?

[neokushan]

If that were the case, then surely anyone stealing anything is liable to pay a stupid sum of money for it?

Re:Eh?

[SecurityGuy]

Not remotely. Statutory damages are deterrent, not compensation. You can also bet that the cost of finding and successfully prosecuting or suing someone is well in excess of the cost of the game. You can bet they're going to try to recover more than their actual cost of recovery, or it isn't even worth doing at all. Your average, or even below average, lawyer isn't even getting out of bed for £10.

Content rights owners aren't suing you to make themselves whole from the lost sale. They're doing it to prevent future lost sales. If you're preparing to illegally download some £40 game, but your buddy got caught, sued, and lost 15 times that for doing the same thing, you're going to think twice about doing it. The higher the cost and greater the likelihood you're going to pay it, the higher the disincentive. It's the same reason you can get a $1,000 fine for littering when the actual cost of having some prison inmate clean it up later is near zero. It's supposed to hurt enough that most people won't do it.

Re:Eh?

[tompaulco]

Sounds reasonable to me. With the possibility of extenuating circumstance, such as hunger or some sort of emergency, I don't see any legitimate reason for people to steal anything.

Re:Eh?

[PieceofLavalamp]

No it shouldn't be new retail value. It should be how much you can find the product for out in the wild, and thats it. No "Extra Damages" no "potential losses" no bonus multipliers, Just the cost straight out of the market. And that includes second hand.

Re:Eh?

[aaron.axvig]

I don't think they should be sueing for the amount of damage only. If you only got sued for $60 for a $60 game, then wouldn't you just chance it and download it, and then pay the money if you happened to get sued? So they charge a lot more. As in, a FINE, not recovery of damages. Should the money go to the IP owner though? Probably not.

I seem to remember the beginnings of movies containing warnings about copyright infringment resulting in up to $250,000 or some years in jail.

What proof

[Karem Lore]

I would ask them for their forensic evidence it was you that downloaded the game. I would also request your ISP for the information that they provided to the company against the Data Protection Act and politely inform them that if they did provide this information then they would be next in line for divulging your personal details. I would request from the lawyers copies of all the details provided by your ISP. I would also be informing them that their collection and use of your personal details without your approval will be met by even more stringent regulations under British law. I would also contact the Citizen's Advice Bureau to discuss with them how you should proceed and for them to put you in touch with a lawyer/association. At the brunt of this, you have to pay for your ISP to have provided the information. This means that your ISP charged for providing them the information, ergo they sold the information to a third-party. I would have their necks if my ISP did this. Karem

Re:What proof

[mgblst]

Yeah, but clearly the guy is guilty, and they know that. They also know that he is unlikely to have £1000s to fight for his rights in court, as well as all the stigma invovled if the papers get interested, affecting his future job. Whatever he demands from them, he has no rights until it goes before a judge.

You really shouldn't be downloading illegal stuff anymore.

Re:What proof

[growse]

The other, easier, option is just to forget about it. From what I gather, Davenport Lyons have a 100% not-following-up-on-people-who-don't-pay record.

Re:What proof

[Uncle Focker]

Yeah, but clearly the guy is guilty, Based on exactly what do you make this definitive statement of his guilt?

Re:What proof

[mgblst]

Sure, if he is innocent then there is no problem. He denies that he did, they take him to court, he wins and they pay all the costs. Or they don't even bother taking him to court.

If he is innocent, then this is just another scam, similar to ones that have been going on for years. It is a non-story.

I get bills sent to me every so often, asking me to pay some money that I don't owe. This is not a real problem.

I think that this is a story because he is guilty.

Re:What proof

[Karem Lore]

Do you realise the disruption going to court over something like this is, including the cost of lawyers? Besides, since when has it been the job of lawyers to inflict fines and penalties? Surely this is the job for the police and judiciary. Karem

Re:What proof

[AK Marc]

Yeah, but clearly the guy is guilty, and they know that.

Why is he clearly guilty?

Re:What proof

[Karem Lore]

Whatever he demands from them, he has no rights until it goes before a judge.

And this is equally true of the lawyers.

Actually, he does have a right to know, from his ISP, the details unde the data protection act of what they supplied, this is a basic UK right. And if the ISP is deemed to have profited from an unsolicited sale of your personal details (which your name and address is), then this is taken very seriously. Lastly, if this does go to court, the prosecutors are required to hand over all the information they have on you prior to the case before the judge, so that your lawyers can mount a defense. If they don't, they risk the case being thrown out for withholding information from the defense. I am no lawyer, but I know more about my rights than most people because I ask.

And what if the files were downloaded and never used, is that still infringement? For example, If I randomly say download everything from newsgroup a.b.c, and the game is in there and I delete it after seeing it, have I actually infringed on copyright? I don't think so, just like I don't believe having an mp3 is copyright infringement...Distributing and listening (or broadcasting) it is, but actually having the bits on my computer...questionable IMHO

Karem

One dickhead lawyer isn't the same as Law

[Anonymous Coward]

What you really mean is: "Don't engage in the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials if you support the application of copyright to freely replicable digital information and wish to preserve the standing of completely ridiculous laws in this area and seek to safeguard the power of pocket-lining lawyer dickheads as rulers of the world."

Yes indeed, if you like the system as it stands, then you must obey it. But if you don't, then you really should fight it instead. It would be a civil suit based on extremely tenuous legal concepts, so you should be able to get a lot of support for your cause. However, it hasn't even reach the point of being a suit yet.

Instead, this is just a case of one dickhead lawyer trying to demonstrate to the world just what a dickhead he is. Until the dickhead reimburses the postage on his own letter, ignore it entirely as incomplete communication. And after he does reimburse it, then deny the alleged occurrence. There is no way in hell he has court-level evidence, unless he's actually planted a spy camera in your room and can display the video.

To add even more to the injury...

[marco.antonio.costa]

The letter goes on to claim that its "client is prepared to give you the opportunity to avoid legal action" provided it receives compensation of £600 plus £8.18 to cover the costs of obtaining the user's details from their ISP.

8.18 for the ISP for my personal information? I'd be insulted.

Re:To add even more to the injury...

[IBBoard]

£8.18 to retrieve information? That's nothing. British Telecom wanted at least twice that from us to get a copy of a single line engineers report so that we could get the Sky TV installer to pay for the damage he did to our phone line!

Having said that, that was a charge under the Data Protection Act (where you're allowed to demand your information, but they're allowed to charge you a 'reasonable' administration fee) where as I'd expect lawyers might have had another method to get information.

Re:To add even more to the injury...

[s0litaire]

Under the "Data Protection act" in the UK a company can only charge a Maximum of £10 for providing information stored on it's computers about a person. it probably cost the lawyers a whole lot more but can only pass £10 Including VAT @ 17.5% on to the person the letter is addressed to.

I'd respond with two words...

[dino2gnt]

"Prove it."

Why pay to get the letter?

[ktappe]

Odds are that he paid to receive the letter out of curiosity 'cos he had no idea what was in it. But let's say for the sake of argument that he did know it was a copyright notice....could he have let it sit in the post office and then claimed later he had never formally/legally received their notice?

Re:Why pay to get the letter?

[Cal Paterson]

You can't get out of that thing on the letter of the law (no pun intended). It's a common law offence, and it is (very wisely) widely defined. Any funny business is an offence.

Re:Why pay to get the letter?

[Gutboy]

This wasn't a notice of service, it was just a letter saying they could avoid being sued. There is no legal requirement to make sure this letter was received.

Re:Why pay to get the letter?

[Anonymous Coward]

>This wasn't a notice of service, it was just a letter saying they could avoid being sued. There is no legal
>requirement to make sure this letter was received.

There's no legal meaning to the letter *at all* aside from the fact that it gives notice that material was subject to copyright protection. Such notice is a requirement in order for a copyright holder to seek statutory damages in court. There is nothing special about the notice being in the form of a letter, and nothing special about the letter being signed from a lawyer. In fact, it's not necessary in the first place, since the required notice is (almost certainly) properly affixed to whatever tangible medium the copyrighted material happens to be in, that is, it has a line somewhere that reads like "Copyright (c) $DATE $AUTHOR". And probably in the case of a commercial release there is also evidence of notice to be had from some registry of copyrights ("Notice" is the whole point of copyright registry.)

There seems to be a natural disposition for people to comply with "letters" simply because those letters were signed by lawyers, regardless of their merits. But I think a letter like this shows a weakness on the part of the plaintiff. If their case is sound, why haven't they filed a suit so they can start sending correspondence that has legal meaning?

So?

[Hythlodaeus]

What, aside from the lol forgot stamps bit, is the point of this story. Guy infringes copyright, gets sued. So? Are we supposed to be conditioned to find every case of copyright enforcement to be outrageous?

Re:So?

[gowen]

No, we're supposed to be conditioned so that every case of copyright enforcement is outrageous, unless its in defence of a GPL violation, in which case its the copyright infringers who are unalloyed evil.

Rule Of Thumb: Geeks good, non-Geeks EVIL!

Re:So?

[jedidiah]

Copyright enforcement against individuals for non-profit purposes is outrageous.

The social cost of the activity far outweighs the value in "protecting" the relevant authors.

Re:So?

[dave420]

He didn't download the game. No copyright infringement took place.

Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[PhreakOfTime]

Seriously, anyone can send you any letter they want. There is no requirement for it to be based on truth.

I received one of these demand letters a few months back. In it, a commercial company was demanding that I turn over domain names that I owned legally, to them because of claims of trademark infringement. Nevermind that the domains didnt point to a website that actually sold any commercial product or service of any kind to base a claim of trademark upon. The company that sent the letter was Caton Commercial

After talking with a handful of lawyers to see what my rights were, it basically boiled down to all of them telling me what I told you in the first sentence.

"All you have there is an angry letter from people who sent it to you because they themselves know that a court of law would not uphold their claims, and are hoping for you to make a decision in their benefit because you are scared."

Me personally, I just ignored the letter and plan to let the domains expire since they are worthless to me in the first place. If this company is so interested in the domains, they can buy them with their own money. I sure dont plan to give them away for free as the letter demanded.

Re:Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[bamwham]

Exactly what I would do. If the letter wasn't certified and didn't clearly arrive with ample assurance that I would have to receive it, I'd just recycle it. Maybe I'd call up one of my friends who went to law school, but only if we had something else to talk about anyway.

OTH it might be amusing to send them a bill for the balance on the postage. I never would pay to receive a letter.

This thing was sent from one country to another, anyone who has sent important documents to another country knows you send them by private carrier not the gdam government service. More so if there is a deadline involved.

Re:Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[Reziac]

What about selling them the domains now? if you don't plan to keep them, you might get something from these jerks for wasting your time. You might ask your lawyers about that.

Of course, if you just let them expire, chances are they'll be snapped up by some squatter, and then they'll never get 'em ;)

Re:Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[PhreakOfTime]

In all honesty, selling them was never an option to me. The domains were never bought with the intention of 'holding them for ransom'. And I dont want to give the appearance that I will accept any form of compensation for owning the domains. They were purchased for my personal use, and that was all they were used for.

The last thing I want to do is fall into the same trap of making myself look foolish in the same way the C&D letter that was sent to me makes those parties look foolish.

Either they will stop wasting their time on $9 domains, or they will send me more annoying letters. I dont respond to threats, it only makes one look foolish :)

Re:Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[Reziac]

Ah, an honest man :) Well, they certainly won't be able to pin any "appearance of wrongdoing" on you!

And yes, chest-beating competitions make no one look smart. :)

Re:Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[Insightfill]

Me personally, I just ignored the letter and plan to let the domains expire since they are worthless to me in the first place.

Personally, I'd hold onto the domains for the $10 or so per year it takes just to screw with them. It probably cost them more than $10 in employee time to write the letter. Maybe set them up to redirect to some off-shore gambling, spyware or porn haven. Heck: route them back to Slashdot!

For entertainment value, you could have them route to their own company site one or two days per week- check your logs for the Google bot and redirect back to the porn site after Google has visited. Hilarity ensues!

Re:Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[Anonymous Coward]

make sure to give those up to a domain squatting service

Re:Dont forget to recycle that paper!

[initialE]

You may not be able to extort any money out of these people, nor would you want to, but releasing the domains back to the public would be the worst scenario for them, especially if you were to post the addresses up somewhere public, allowing them to be caught up by some spammer or real domain squatter. Especially if they were outside of your local jurisdiction. So even when you're not holding them for ransom, in essence, you are. And of course, it's not really your fault. But don't worry, I expect this scenario would go away when domain tasting is finally revoked.

What if he did the following:

[Bulba]

I suggest he goes out and finds a second hand version of the game (irony dictates it should cost less than £1.30). Then he should write them a letter claiming he does own the game but since the gamedisc was scratched he downloaded it so he could play the game which he legally bought (Do not forget to scratch the disc badly, also throw away the ticket!). Doesn't this clear him? If only it were possible to forget sticking a £600 poststamp on the reply letter.

Opportunity cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Opportunity cost would like to argue with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Given the low rates of successful persecution vs the number of illegal file sharers, your individual chance of having to pay a settlement is rather small. Thus the opportunity cost of illegally copying a game over buying it or other games is small. Most people commit many finable offences (littering and traffic violations being the major ones), most just have a minuscule chance of being detected.

"Demanding money with menace"

[s0litaire]

In UK law If someone demands money from a person and threats at further hostile action it's termed "Demanding money with menace" and is a criminal offence. The Lawyer is basically saying "Pay my clients the money or we'll take you to court and take more money off of you." he has not provided any evidence other than "we got proof" which could mean anything from a bit of paper with the words "he's guilty!" scrawled on it in crayon, to a full IP tracking of every data packet too and from his machine. Best thing the guy can do is contact the Lawyer and ask for proof...

Is the company name misspelled ?

[TractorBarry]

That company name looks more like "teh Zuxxerz" to me... or something...

Yeah, I'll get mi coat.

From TFA

[L4t3r4lu5]

"client is prepared to give you the opportunity to avoid legal action" provided it receives compensation of £600 plus £8.18 to cover the costs of obtaining the user's details from their ISP. "

Hear that? Sounds like a bucket full of water being thrown around?

That's the sound of his ISP shitting their pants, as they're being sued for breach of the DPA for providing personally identifiable information to a third party without prior permission or court order.

If this guy hasn't already, he needs to go talk to CAB and get legal representation.

This case could help a lot of people out in the UK beat these strong-arm extortion tactics.

Funny post on the support board...

[sarkeizen]

Now by the users join date I'll assume that this person is from /. baiting them but it's still kind of funny.

Join Date: 09.05.2008
Posts: 1

Subject: When will I get sued?

So hypothetically...

If I were using this game illegally...how long before you guys sue me. Just wondering since you seem to be pretty eager to do this kind of thing.

Thorina.

Two Worlds of Crap

[Doshin]

I'm fairly certain you couldn't pay me 1170$ to download the game. If more than a hundred people downloaded the game off him he should be hired by them as he managed to double the games global distrobution.

The loss was £600

[Anonymous Coward]

The game itself was £30 - yet after playing for a bit they told friends about it and no one bought the game.

Torrents share both ways

[Skraut]

If their forensic evidence was that he was sharing it on BitTorrent, how did they find it? If they connected to the same torrent as him, they would have been sharing it the same as him, and thus guilty of the same offense...

How can you complain about somebody on a torrent sharing your IP, if you're on the same torrent also sharing your IP.

Re:Torrents share both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

They own the copyright, so they can share it if they like. That's legal. He does not own the copyright so his distributing it is not legal. Even if they didn't own the copyright, their offence would not excuse his. Their actions are irrelevant to his responsibility; hypocrisy might make you annoying but it does not make your claim false. To argue so is fallacious.

Re:Torrents share both ways

[Cal Paterson]

Because it's your IP and you're allowed to do whatever you want with it? Probably with a specific exception in national laws to allow you to police your own IP?

What a foolish way to try and be a smart arse.

Re:Torrents share both ways

[The_mad_linguist]

But wait! They're sharing it themselves! If they are willing to give out free copies of their game, who are we to dispute this?

That Really Zuxxez

[Prototerm]

Couldn't resist the bad pun, sorry.

Secondhand vs Sharing?

[Bragador]

In either case, the developpers don't make any more money. Now, if you were to give me your game instead of selling it to me, what would be the difference? You could always tell me that you would not have a copy yourself, which is fine, but you still played the game. In that case, what would be the difference in giving one game to one person after another after they finish it and giving digital copies to everyone at the same time? After they are done, the copies will eventually be erased anyway and the final result is the same: We all played and didn't pay.

I'm not making an argument to support filesharing, I'm just saying your suggestion wasn't completely thought through.

Also, it's not because you don't pay for a game that you would have necesserely bought the game in the first place. There are a couple of zelda games that I'd like to try but unless I find free copies or extremely cheap secondhand copies, there is no way I'm paying for that. Especially since I'd need to buy a gamecube and a wii. The result? I never played them and I don't care that much.

Re:Secondhand vs Sharing?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

In that case, what would be the difference in giving one game to one person after another after they finish it and giving digital copies to everyone at the same time?

It's all about supply vs demand. If you buy a game second hand, you deprive the original owner of the game, you receive a used copy which is likely to have a shorter lifespan, and you have only one copy. It's essentially (but not completely) equivalent to the same person owning it the whole time. If you share the game, well, that's however many copies created eaten out of the potential market for that game.

Just so you know, my positions are very well thought through. :)

Re:Secondhand vs Sharing?

[Bragador]

Ok, but not everyone will necesserely want to keep a physical copy of the game after they played it. Look at the video games rentals. People are renting games for a very cheap fee and finishing them. They don't care about playing them again later. All that money goes to the video store and not to the developpers.

Also, there are a couple of movies that can be rented online or on your tv. (ex: http://www.videotron.com/services/en/television/vod-guide-vsd.jsp) You can watch it for x amount of time and then it's over. Since it is a digital product, it doesn't get a shorter lifespan. Is filesharing really that different? You get to keep the product if you want but aside of that, the downloader likely would not even have bought the game in the first place.

Re:Secondhand vs Sharing?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

All that money goes to the video store and not to the developpers.

That's actually not true. You need permission to rent (it's not classified as personal use if you rent it out to strangers for a fee), and that permission costs a pretty penny. Some of that pretty penny will go straight back to the developers.

You can watch it for x amount of time and then it's over. Since it is a digital product, it doesn't get a shorter lifespan.

I think you just contradicted yourself there. I think the point here is that they can sell it to you in whatever form you can mutually agree on, you just can't copy it.

Forensic Evidence From Non-Law Enforcement?

[jerryodom]

Is forensic evidence from a non-law enforcement entity worth anything as evidence? Given that in any given office you've got someone capable of re-creating just about any sort of software output what good is it unless it's collected by a government agency?

Re:"Demanding money with menace"

[Anonymous Coward]

Be aware that if a groundless legal threat is made, under the Civil Procedure Rules they may be themselves liable for action.

My reply

[MahariBalzitch]

Dear Davenport Lyons,

Eat shit.

Sincerely,
Me

"Money with menace" & I have bought the game

[Le_mini]

All you have to do in such a case is wait wait & buy a legal copy of the game. The day they actualy bring you to court, just show them a damaged copy of the game & say: it's lawfull the play a game I paid for. But you threated me ... & I beleive I should have 2.000 â for the moral damage. I such case they should be able to show you bought THAT copy after downloading. (Otherway you can say : "yes I bought one after... but it was a present,I love your game".)

Exchange rate vs. Purchasing power parity

[Steve Hamlin]

True, based on current exchange rates, £600 = US$1,168. No wait, $1,173...uh, $1,195. Whoops - now $1,225.

But for a Londonder, £600 today is basically the same as £600 two months ago, or from now. £600 hasn't 'gone up' for THEM, only for people wanting to use US$ to pay that £600.

This illustrates Purchasing Power Parity, a concept that is similar to foreign currency exchange, but that looks at the long-term relative purchasing power of a currency.

Not "how many Pounds Sterling can I buy with 1 UD$", but "how many units of ProductX can I buy with 1% of local per capita annual GDP." Theory says that goods should have identical relative prices in every market, or else there are arbitrage opportunities that people will take advantage of until the prices in all markets are the same (after accounting for transport, etc.)

What happens, however, is that identical goods are NOT priced at the same relative level after currency conversion, because a lot of short-term change in the ForEx markets is due to market movements, not underlying fundamental changes in purchasing power.

The Economist magazine publishes the 'Big Mac Index', which humorously uses the Big Mac as the good to compare relative purchasing power around the world.

So a Big Mac costs 4GBP in London, and based on the exchange rate, it looks like it costs US$8.00. But it really doesn't, because Londoners aren't paying US$, but with GBP, and the Big Mac costs the same to them that it did a year ago, even though a year ago exchange rates would have said the Big Mac costs $6.50.

Did the price of a Big Mac go up? The price of a Big Mac in the U.K. didn't go up for a Londoner, but did for a U.S. visitor. The price of a Big Mac in the U.S. didn't go up for a Floridian, but fell for a U.K. visitor. But in each case, the cost in the local currency was and is 1/10,000th of per capita income. That is purchasing power parity, and shows that shows changes in exchange rates are not the same thing as changes in relative purchasing power. On a PPP basis, U.S-U.K. currencies haven't moved against each other even close to the amount suggested by market currency exchange rates.

Re:Exchange rate vs. Purchasing power parity

[Sentry21]

Don't forget the iPod Price Index (and Swivel has the numbers). A more 'modern' version of the Big Mac Index.

Re:"Demanding money with menace"

[mephistophyles]

IANAL, but can he not counter sue them if they take him to court under the law you're describing, not to mention the whole postage issue?

Can you even prove someone downloaded something by torrenting that will stand up in a court of law?

Plus, from TFA it reads a lot like this law firm acts like those spam emails you get from the Nigerian business man who needs help getting his money out of the country.

Oh and is there any kind of presidence like this in the UK or anywhere else?

not a lawyer but...

[Coraon]

send them a 900 pound out of court settlement for harassing you and claiming forensic when, without a copy of all information on your hard drive and the logs from your router and proof that you where the one who started the download, They don't have. I'm not a lawyer, but I have had one of these before and I got them to leave me alone fast.

Threatening to sue isn't extortion - just silly

[monktus]

In Scots law at least (and I think it's the same in England and Wales/NI - IANAL though), threatening to sue someone doesn't amount to extortion. Given that the article suggests the evidence is pretty dubious though, I'd guess that any civil court in the UK would throw the case out, even if it got that far. Even though you can send a letter saying "I'll sue you!" to whoever you want, I think most judges/sheriffs/magistrates would expect the pursuer/plaintiff to have made reasonable efforts to resolve the issue before claiming, and that their claim has some merit.

Of course we don't know the full facts in this instance but it sounds like there pretty much isn't any evidence, and if there is, that it was obtained in a dodgy way. I'd type more if I hadn't just cycled back from work (I'm about as fit as your average Slashdotter)...ask for proof as mentioned...ISP...Data Protection Act.. etc etc.

Re:Threatening to sue isn't extortion - just silly

[s0litaire]

IANAL but Scot's law is different than English law. But demanding that the person pays money with no evidence of a crime presented to him, to stop them going to court is technically extortion. Basically "pay us or else" The lawyer should have phrased it differently i.e. "We have evidence you have illegally obtained software using a P2P client. Please contact the lawyers to discuss this matter and see if an amicable arrangement may be worked out." or words to that effect. That way he is giving the client an opportunity to provide evidence to the contra and to disclose evidence of the crime in question. But what do i know I ain't a solicitor / lawyer or a legal dude....:D

Nope, didn't do it officer.

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

...many of those targeted claim they didn't download the game they were accused of illegally sharing, according to multiple posts on internet forums. Nope, didn't do it officer. I would /never/ download games, honest! You can trust me on that one, yessir!

Another link...

[JaJ_D]

From: - http://virtuallawatlse.blogspot.com/2007/03/davenport-lyons-pursues-500-file.html
and
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/03/28/uk_share_hunt/

The interesting bit is "In relation to your claim that your computer was hacked into, we regret that the security of your computer is not our concern. It is your responsibility to ensure that your computer is protected at all times."

WTF!! Does that mean if someone is stabbed on the street then it's the victims fault that (s)he wasn't wearing a stab-proof vest? Or do we sue car manufactorers for making cars that can go faster than the national speed limits (aiding and abeting a crime)? Or if someone steals your credit cards and uses them then it's your fault for not keeping them secure?!!??

Where do you draw the line?

Jaj

Re:Another link...

[Grimbleton]

Well, "they" (Since I can't name anyone specifically offhand, sorry) are already suing gun manufacturers because their products are being used in crimes..

Dream Pinball 3D

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not the first time this law firm has done something like this. Reports like the following have been popping up on the slyck.com user forums for quite some time. One example here: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31051

Usually on Slyck it is for Dream Pinball 3D, which is not made by the same people, but it is the same law firm. I would wager it's just another scare tactic some unscrupulous lawyer(s) dreamed up to make themselves a quick buck. Of the 600 GBP, how much you want to bet the creators of the game are actually taking home?

Avoiding inadvertent plagiarism?

[tepples]

Don't engage in the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. If I write and record a song, how do I know whether or not someone else has copyrighted its melody? I want to avoid what happened to George Harrison (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music) and Michael Bolton (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton). What is the best practice among songwriters to avoid inadvertent plagiarism?

Small claims thuggery

[JoeMerchant]

This is classic small claims harassment, make the demand so small that it's not efficient to fight it and hope the mark just pays up.

He should be able to effectively stop them by placing counterclaim against them for his expense in fighting them, but that will likely cost him more than they are asking for.

It's a slimy game, and I haven't seen a legal system in the world that's attempting to stop this kind of petty harassment.

Just ignore it

[onida]

A friend of mine got a virtually identical letter for the same offense (downloading Two Worlds). He just completely ignored the letter and has never heard anything back since. This company has sent hundreds of these letters out around the UK. My guess is that they've just cast a wide net and are looking to see what they catch. Anyone who responds to them is actually in more trouble than people who just ignore it.

Never even think about buying this game

[Anonymous Coward]

The really bad thing about this is the fact that this game (Two Worlds) is an absolute bugridden piece of junk that I wouldn't even play if I would get it for free (And yes, I did pay for it).

Self serving much?

[stonecypher]

To add insult to injury? Have we forgotten the way this person got into the lawfirm's crosshairs in the first place?

It is quite common in law to increase the damages to some flat linear multiple of the actual crime, in order to deter crime. If all you had to do was to pay the money you didn't pay the first time, there would be no compelling reason to obey the law. By increasing to a flat linear multiple, the impetus to steal is removed on grounds that it is no longer cost effective.

You warezers need to grow up. This story reeks of bias. Mod me into the ground for sticking up for the law if you want; it happens most times that I have an opinion with which warezers disagree. They don't follow the rules of society, so I'm sure this'll get modded troll, flamebait and offtopic, even though it's none of the three.

But really, insult to injury? All that guy had to do was not steal, and none of this would have happened to him. I notice nobody's particularly worried about the developers who put in all the hard work to make the game in the first place.

What a thought: paying for what you use.

Re:Self serving much?

[Feanturi]

Umm, standing up for the law is one thing, but you seem quite convinced the guy did what they claim, when none of the so-called "evidence" has been provided to the public. This is why we argue about such things, because if we didn't, people like you would have most of the planet in jail based on the possibility they may have done something without any proof.

Re:Self serving much?

[stonecypher]

but you seem quite convinced the guy did what they claim

That's in your imagination. Don't put words into my mouth.

This is why we argue about such things, because if we didn't, people like you would have most of the planet in jail based on the possibility they may have done something without any proof.

Horseshit, for several reasons.

1. You arguing about this will have no impact on the case
2. At no point did I suggest jail time, nor do I think it is appropriate
3. At no point did I make any commentary on the case; I was making commentary on the way the article discussed the case
4. It's too early for the evidence to be provided to the public. I'd say read a book on how court works, but no doubt you believe you already know, and thus won't bother

Please refrain from replying to my posts in the future until you learn to read. It's tiresome dealing with people like you, who become aggrieved over things I didn't say.

Re:Self serving much?

[Feanturi]

Then I suggest you learn how to write what you are actually trying to say instead of just whatever spews out.

Re:Self serving much?

[slimjim8094]

He claims he didn't download the game and didn't have it on his computer.

If he actually did fire up BitTorrent and download the game, he'd probably be better off just dropping the 600 and being done with it.

But, as it is, they claim 'forensic evidence' without having access to his computer... I call bullshit. And, the UK has some fairly strict data-protection laws - if he wanted to fight this, he could get the video-game case thrown out (bad evidence) and make the ISP his bitch for giving up his info without a court order.

But I think they're bluffing. If he actually downloaded a game, you'd expect them to actually deal with significant damages like the RIAA, not so small that it's easier to pay.

The case is a vague 'you downloaded the game and we have 'proof', now pay us £600 to go away'
That's extortion, and probably blackmail.

Re:Self serving much?

[stonecypher]

He claims he didn't download the game and didn't have it on his computer.

Well, if that's true, he's in luck; the offending barristers will have to pay his legal costs and time off work, and he'll be able to dick around at home at his full cost of work. He'll barely even have to show up. (I maintain skepticism: lawyers know how expensive a misfire on these lines is.)

But I think they're bluffing. If he actually downloaded a game, you'd expect them to actually deal with significant damages like the RIAA, not so small that it's easier to pay.

I dunno. Here's the thing. If you were the lawyers here, you could fire off a request for 600lb, knowing the offending party would be likely to pay up, learn their lesson and move on, or you could set yourself in court for weeks over a pissant sum. The RIAA is doing it the way they're doing it for the specific purpose of making headlines, in a sort of draconian and evil advertising mindset. This lawfirm seems to be more focussed on quick results, a reasonable penalty and moving on with life.

To be frank, I think the RIAA's doing it all wrong; if they were asking for smaller sums like this, most people would be paying up, and people wouldn't think of the RIAA as comb mustached goose steppers.

That's extortion, and probably blackmail.

It's neither, actually. This is the leveraging of the law of the land to recoup damages. Even if it turns out the case is bullshit, neither of those terms are appropriate (what you would be looking for is "barratry"); however, nothing in this case smells like that kind of thing to me.

Two cents, anyway; it's a matter of opinion.

Re:Self serving much?

[stonecypher]

I needed no repair to the original text, and the other people who replied got it just fine. Believe it or not, sometimes the fault actually is yours. The "well learn to write" gag is boring; go back to Digg where you belong.

I reiterate: please don't respond to me again. I find you tiresome.

Re:Self serving much?

[Feanturi]

Yeah well the "learn to read" gag is just as boring.. If everybody else got it, why did you get modded flamebait?

All that guy had to do was not steal,

You said the above. You're saying he's guilty, when you have no evidence. But I think I see the problem, my mistake was in assuming that we are both using the same dialect of English. I'm using the form that originated on Earth, so apparently we are not going to be able to communicate properly.

They're screwed.

[Turiko]

Okay, this is plain ridicilous. IF the company has forensic evidence that person downloaded the game, that means they hacked his computer one way or the other, making them liable for a 2000$ or more fee. IF they don't, they could be sued themselves, for the cost of the lawyers etc. involved. One way or the other, that company is screwed unless both sides decide to let it go.

Re:They're screwed.

[canajin56]

Hacking? Are you serious? Just connect to the tracker, you can see who is downloading it. After all, if you couldn't tell the IP addresses of the people in the swarm, you couldn't upload/download to/from them. That's step 1. Step 2 was apparently pay his ISP about 8 pounds, and they turned over his name and address. Step 3 is demand 600 pounds plus the 8 pounds you spend buying his legally protected private customer information. Step 4 = PROFIT!

Why did he have to pay the postage?

[firefly4f4]

He didn't mail it, so why is it his responsibility to pay for it?

Can someone explain how the UK postal service works? I think here the letter would just have been returned.

Re:Why did he have to pay the postage?

[Arimus]

The company sending the letter didn't put enough postage on. The Royal Mail then stick a card through the recipients letterbox saying basically we've got a letter but to get it you need to pay the excess postage+handling charge. Its your choice as to whether you go and pay up to get the letter or say sod it and wait for it to be returned (think its 3 weeks for non recorded items, 1 week for recorded) to the sender.

Re:Why did he have to pay the postage?

[Skapare]

And what of the legal process when that happens? Is it a void notice if it got returned? I know if something like that happened to me (in the USA), I would have not paid and just ignored it, regardless of who it came from (I don't know if they let you know who it came from before having to decide to pay).

The other thing is the time frame issue. At least here, any legal notice sent in the mail has to be sent recorded/certified, and any time frames to respond have to begin when the mail is delivered. If I refused to sign for that mail, it would eventually have been returned to them, and they would have had to retry or send a process server to give me their notice for it to be valid.

ET Phone home

[clickclickdrone]

Not sure if it's the same thing but a collegue at work (UK) got a similar letter (similar damages claim too) but in his case, he downloaded a doctored game put out by the game company that phoned home with his details when he tried to play it.

Good for me I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

As a German I kind of like that they had to look out all the way to Britain to find an ISP that wouldn't just throw their give-us-the-name-and-adress-for-this-ip-letter in the trashcan.

Ohh, bad for that company

[Anonymous Coward]

a) computer misuse
b) trojan (computer hacking/virus creation)
c) since they are the copyright owners, they gave the copy away.

Forensic evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note how they base their claims on this "forensic evidence"... probably nothing more than a deleted file name. Which I know for a fact can be easily forged. They didn't say any game files were found on his machine.

DO NOT DO THIS:

[beckerist]

Put the address of where you want to send the letter as the return address. Then put your own address as the recipient. Don't put postage on the letter and mail it out.

Again, don't do this as it's called mail fraud and will plop you in federal prison for an extended vacation.

Plus it's a bad game

[DarksideDaveOR]

Mind you, Two Worlds is a badly written, badly acted, badly balanced, boring wreck of a game in the first place.

I'm guessing it did so badly that this is a last-ditch effort by someone to actually make some money from it.

Look at it this way...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only the RIAA operated this way - at least £600 is "punitive damages" instead of "in horrible debt for years and/or forfeiting all live savings".

The moral of this story?

[John Pfeiffer]

...never play (or steal) games made by ze Germans.

Listening to a concert

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the concert blaring 1.21 jiggawatts just down the road? You listen but you haven't paid!

So should you turn your ears in before the concert starts?

Why did he pic the letter up?

[fluch]

If I would get a letter with not enough postage paid I would not pick it up (except I know it came from a friend and I was expecting it). They could send it again with the proper postage and from then they could count the days...

I say force it to trial.

[Anonymous Coward]

Force it to trial. I doubt they can prove anything more than a petty theft. A misdemeanor with very little repercussions. Maybe the judge will award the company a fair compensation for their game. So, an additional fine of something like $50?

it is clear YANAL

[dank zappingly]

I too am not a lawyer, but I feel qualified to speak on the topic because you don't seem to understand the difference between a contract and a subpoena and were modded up to +5 interesting. You are wrong on both counts, at least in the US(and probably in England too as much of the common law is derived from England). Legal documents do not have to be delivered in order to be enforceable(which is what I think you mean by "legal"). There is something called the "mailbox rule" which states that an offer is accepted once the acceptance is placed in the mail. Service of process is not a contract. It is a letter telling you that you are being sued and that you have to appear in court. I don't know the rules for effective service in England, but I am guessing that actual service(he actually received the document and read it) is probably sufficient. Fun to argue in court? Hardly. I can't imagine a judge would be too happy when you come to court to argue that you didn't get a letter telling you to come to court. It's been done, but generally with a better argument than "i had to pay for a small part of the postage." While I am not certain, I am going to guess that coming up a little short on postage doesn't render service deficient in England.

MOD PARENT DOWN (offtopic)

[shentino]

Would both of you take your little flamewar to Usenet where it belongs?