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.
Proudly trying to match or outdo the US in hostility towards own citizens, since 2001.
But... They include copy protection on their games, and continue to make it more and more aggressive.
How is this software piracy of which they speak even possible? I mean they wouldn't include the protection and ruin gaming for their legitimate customers if it didn't work... Would they?
*quietly waits for the sarcasm tag to be added to the html standard*
What a racket the copy protection business is. What other industry could thrive so much on failure?
Shared methodology of most content makers lately:
Old plan: Compete and make a better game. Get people to part with their money on the basis that your content is best. Convince them your game will improve their life.
New plan: Produce garbage no one wants. Restrict it so much it's unusuable. Treat your customers like criminals when they don't buy. Sue people almost indiscriminately (on the flimsiest evidence) to make up for short fall.
What the fuck happened? It feels like I'm in the twilight zone!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"...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
What other industry could thrive so much on failure?
Weather forecasting
What?
I BUY all my games. I even have games that were only installed for an hour or less and are sitting on my shelf. This DRM crap, these accusations, this treating the customer as a criminal is fucking outrageous. I bought Far Cry 2. I could have downloaded it at least a week before it was even released. And, yet, me--the legal customer doing the right thing--has all these stupid DRM restrictions. I can accept that. If worse comes to worse I will get a pirated version of the SAME GAME, because I paid for the damn thing and I will play it on my computer any damn way I fuc*ing feel like. Why am *I* being punished for giving the game companies money? It's one of the most ridiculous situations in the gaming society. My LEGAL copy of Doom 3 I cannot play online 'cause someone (probably using a keygen) has MY serial number. I am sick of it. I am sick of the game companies hiding behind this masquerade. I am sick of being treated like a 2nd class citizen because I do the right thing.
I'm gonna sue because someone else used my IP address of 127.0.0.1 in their anti-piracy logs.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
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.
What, precisely, is the downside for ATARI's troll? Yes, they could have to pay [taxed/controlled] defense legal costs. But the defendant would have to put up all the money first, then try to recover the judge's award included in the verdict.
Please tell me again, what is the downside? Judges may well fume. But they can do nothing. The letters are not extortion, but an "offer to settle" that might even be excluded from evidence as such!
The UK legal system mostly works because of self restraint. And poorly when that fails. Sometimes you can find a barrister who doesn't mind egg on his face. Solicters live there.
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.