Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I would call that horribly ineffective service. I hope the court would agree. You should never pay to know you're sued ;)
SIG: HUP
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.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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.
And Americans tend to swap the currency signs when pricing things for sale over here ...
"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...
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Or maybe you have shit for brains (what would I know?).
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
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?
For great justice.
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.
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.
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
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No, your argument is bullshit.
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai