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
Is the name by any chance related to certain wars that they lost? Refer them to Arkell v Pressdram.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
killall -9 *orrent* /mnt/storage/downloads/*
rm -rf
There, I should be safe now.
Tell Zuxxez you'll pay when they make something that's worth money. At the moment, they can starve for all I care.
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.
That, I was not wondering. I do wonder what the retail price for the game might be.
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.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Or in other words they're full of shit.
And, of course, £600 is way out of line with the cost of a game.
Return to Sender. Then disappear and join the Foreign Legion.
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.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Thanks for the postage price conversion, but what about the demand itself?
At today's exchange rates, £600 is about $1,173.15. How old are your figures?
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Damn, I didn't realize the lines there were that bad.
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I accidentally converted to Euro. Thanks for correcting my mistake.
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
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?
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
The game is worth much of course
My Blog | Badsh
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
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Nearer $1170 these days actually. The US$ isn't worth as much as it used to be worth.
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.
And Americans tend to swap the currency signs when pricing things for sale over here ...
Oh come on. Everyone knows dead baby jokes are ALWAYS fair game. +5 Funny.
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!
____________________
Clouds in the Sky,
Water in a bottle
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.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
"Prove it."
Future events such as these may affect you in the future!
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?
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
That company name looks more like "teh Zuxxerz" to me... or something...
Yeah, I'll get mi coat.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
"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.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
This is Slashdot. News for nerds. Don't multiply by two - just bitshift left by one.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
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.
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.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
If you're American, Read the Comstitution. Intellectual pooperty is un-American. You are either a foreigner or a traitor to your country.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
or by the actual exchange rate $1,170
Blazing Spiders
...actually its a pretty good analogy for "intellectual property" the ...it's like a derivative work.
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.
Disney has setup strip mining in Yellowstone and has decided to
chase all of the nature lovers out.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Couldn't resist the bad pun, sorry.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
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?
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
Dear Davenport Lyons,
Eat shit.
Sincerely,
Me
Kickass Cheap Web Hosting
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".)
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.
Just want to point out that the "copyright clause" is also the "patent clause."
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?
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.
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
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.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."
Most likely yes. By the way, it's not "Euro dollar", it's just "Euro".
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
Love the use of "offal" instead of awful too.
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.
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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
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.
/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.
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
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"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.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Clause 8:
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
There is a war going on for your mind.
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?
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.
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.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
"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.....
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.
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.
no, you got the last one wrong, it's not a straw. It's tortilla chips.
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.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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.
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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..
which is totally what she said
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.
There has to be a reason I don't come to Slashdot any more.
Obviously not a very compelling reason, since here you are.
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.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
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.
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.
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.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Then I suggest you learn how to write what you are actually trying to say instead of just whatever spews out.
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
...never play (or steal) games made by ze Germans.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
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.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
"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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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.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.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
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.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
O RLY?
Actually, I have read up on it. Thomas Jefferson, for example, completely opposed it:
James Madison supported it, but only due to assumptions he made which are no longer valid:
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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...)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.
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...
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 ;)
which is totally what she said
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.
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.
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.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
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.
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.
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.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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..
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?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Would both of you take your little flamewar to Usenet where it belongs?
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.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
(are you the guy that made the hilarious joke about "intellectual pooperty"? if so, congrats!)
Yeah, that's me, and thank you.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
It's good to be passionate--it's also good to have civil conversations!
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!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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!
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".