Slashdot Mirror
Activision Goes After Individual Game Pirates
brunascle writes "Activision has begun suing individual pirates of console games. Edge Online is reporting that they are going after a New York resident for allegedly copying Call of Duty 3 for the Xbox 360 and other games, seeking $30,000 to $150,000 in damages for each infringement. GamePolitics has also uncovered six other lawsuits with settlements between $1,000 and $100,000, in five of which the defendant was unrepresented."
Activision's lawyers specifically told GamePolitics that the lawsuit wasn't targeting file-sharers, so they probably mean that the alleged pirate was reproducing and distributing physical copies of the game. The court complaint is available here (PDF).
Well, they are not file sharers and we don't really know what they did.
Although that said, it isn't just a file sharer. This may actually be a major large scale for-profit piracy organisation, in which case this could be quite reasonable.
The idea is that it's meant to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the action not occurred.
What ever gave you that (incorrect) idea? Seriously? They're called punitive damages for a reason. Here - I'll make it easy for you and not even link to Wikipedia - I'll just post the definition for you.
Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.
The point is to _PUNISH_ the offender sufficiently that they are discouraged from the act. It has nothing to do with putting the plaintiff into the position they'd have been in had the act never happened. It's a PUNISHMENT to the offender intended to discourage them from committing the offense in the first place.
Personal-use pirates, who make a copy of the game for themselves, and perhaps a few friends, do it because they don't want to pay for the game. They might be able to afford it anyway, but (at least a fair number) will purchase at least some games legitimately.
Assuming Activision's info is correct, this guy is more likely a sidewalk vendor who made dozens of game copies to sell for his personal profit.
While both are committing the same violations of the law, the intent of profit in the second case makes it much more likely that the court will find in Activision's favor, and that they will get a big pile of money (or, at least, all the money this guy has.) Moreso, while you can find wishy-washy support for the first class of pirate all over the place, only a very tiny segment of people are going to tell you the second guy isn't doing anything wrong.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
"On the other hand, this doesn't seem the case here (assuming the information from Activision is correct)."