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]

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.

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:

[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:

[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: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: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.