Slashdot Mirror
Game Makers Accusing Innocent People of Piracy In the UK
eldavojohn writes "It's a topic that a lot of game makers like Atari don't want the public hearing: game makers wrongfully accusing clearly innocent people of piracy. From the article, 'According to Michael Coyle, an intellectual property solicitor with law firm Lawdit, more and more people are being wrongly identified as file-sharers. He is pursuing 70 cases of people who claim to be wrongly accused of piracy and has spoken to hundreds of others, he told the BBC.' If only a few are coming forward after receiving extortion letters ('Pay £500 OR ELSE!'), what's the actual number of those out there being wrongfully accused?"
Lawyers figured out this is a way to print money. Why am I not surprised?
Its cheaper to pay them off than hire a lawyer and defend yourself. Many have no other choice.
Send out letters, receive money. Such a deal. Par for the course for for lawyers.
I am truly no fan of the US' politics and haven't been for, err, about eight years, but in my opinion, the UK has let the US cough on their dust, they're so far ahead in this.
Seriously, they just need a curfew and they'll be 95% done with getting to what we've seen in V for Vendetta. At this very moment, I'm actually less inhibited against traveling to the US than I am against traveling to the UK.
Crazy isn't it. It's like they've looked at the RIAA, seen the public attitude toward them and said "Yes! We want a slice of that animosity and hatred!"
Stuff like this is why I've largely stopped buying anything from mainstream publishers. I refuse to enable their greed and avarice anymore.
Support the independent game developers!
"...more and more people are being wrongly identified as file-sharers..."
Copyright infringement is not theft, is not "piracy", and file-sharing is not automatically copyright infringement
Were they pirates - no
Were they stealing - no
were they infringing copyright - no
were they sharing files - no
were they using P2P technology (yes it is built into the game)
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Why should all minors suffer just because some are idiots? If some are doing something illegal, you can give them a selective curfew, if not, then they should be allowed to go out whenever they wish.
You know you are getting old when your instinct is to argue with that. And then I remember how much fun I had as a highschooler after midnight and then I side with the kids--and then I *really* think about how much fun I had as a kid after midnight and then I realize that there is no way they need to be out that late.
Just callin' it like I see it.
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
There is also no way that I need to decide what clothes I want to wear. Someone else could do it for me and I still wouldn't suffer cold or make a fool of myself by walking around in the nude.
The fact that someone LIKES to do something should be enough of a point not have a discussion about who needs to do what. As long as a person, no matter the age, does not influence someone else's life overly negatively, they should be allowed to do whatever they please.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
You certainly aren't a lawyer. "Only the CPS can prosecute anyone"? WTF? That's the most retarded statement I've ever heard in my life. The CPS prosecutes on behalf of the state. Anyone else can privately prosecute. You can also be sued. Back to IANAL 101 for you.
-10 points for accusing the BBC of "misinformation" when you're talking total shit yourself and the BBC are accurate. And -5 for everyone who modded you up.
First, it's for teenagers. Then it's for sex offenders. Then it's for convicted felons. Then you need to carry your identification papers with you at night to prove you're not one of them. Then being seen far from your house at night is grounds for arrest due to reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good. Then far means anywhere outside your front door.
Sometimes, the slope really is slippery.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You know you are getting old when your instinct is to argue with that.
Actually, the older I get, the more strongly I believe in opposing measures like that [the curfew].
Whether or not any one person enjoys or otherwise benefits from something is not the point, and must never be allowed to become the point. The important thing is that everyone should be free, by default, to do absolutely anything they like. Restrictions should only ever be imposed by law on behaviour that is actually harmful in some way, and any restrictions that are imposed should only ever be proportionate to the harm that would be done.
This is probably the important principle of any fair justice system, because without it, governments are free to set arbitrary laws for their own political (or worse) purposes. This leads to blanket laws, such as (to pick some common, controversial examples): speed limits and banning mobile phones while driving, instead of prosecuting dangerous or inconsiderate driving; trying to ban whole electronic communications networks, rather than either going after people who abuse those networks to infringe copyright or mandating restrictions on the networks that are reasonable and consistent with prohibiting just the illegal behaviour; or, as in this case, restricting the freedoms of a whole group of people on account of the unacceptable behaviour of a small minority (which is effectively guilt by association).
In each of those cases, the law probably does do some good, in the sense that it does inhibit harmful behaviour by some people. The problem is the collateral damage: the law also catches people whose behaviour would not have been harmful and punishes them anyway, which is unjust. Of course, it's easier to impose blanket laws, both for enforcement (increasingly mechanically; whatever happened to "man shall not be judged by machine"?) and for scoring political points ("Speed kills! Look, we imposed a new low limit to make the road safer outside your home, so now your kids don't have to stop, look and listen before they cross").
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.