Man Fined $1.5 Million For Leaked Mario Game

An anonymous reader writes "A Queensland man will have to pay Nintendo $1.5 million in damages after illegally copying and uploading one of its recent games to the internet ahead of its release, the gaming giant says. Nintendo said the loss was caused when James Burt made New Super Mario Bros Wii available for illegal download a week ahead of its official Australian release in November of last year. Nintendo applied for and was granted a search order by the Federal Court, forcing Burt to disclose the whereabouts of all his computers, disks and electronic storage devices in November. He was also ordered to allow access, including passwords, to his social networking sites, email accounts and websites."

Comments

Pro-piracy

[sopssa]

I often see many pro-piracy comments on slashdot on these things (probably also because pirates are more interested on the matter). But many times these are actual damages caused to companies. Putting out that game a week before surely counted a lot of illegal downloading and people not buying the game. Sure it's bad to for him, but those are the lost money for Nintendo. What's so wrong about them suing him?

Re:Pro-piracy

[anss123]

What's so wrong about them suing him?

There's nothing wrong with them suing him.

The Pro-piracy comments you've seen is (probably) more directed towards "freedom" as the technologies/laws that limits piracy also limits that much valued freedom.

Ergo pro freedom = there will be piracy

Re:Pro-piracy

[Feef Lovecraft]

Having RTFA I'd be more intrested in how he obtained this advanced copy of the game for distribution, was it as simple as importating it from another region where it had been released or was it a lapse in security that enabled him to get hold of this game?

Re:Pro-piracy

[marcansoft]

And yet they still don't give a damn about piracy, technologically speaking, or at least they care about it a lot less than they care to annoy homebrewers and importers.

Proof: the last three iterations of Wii System Updates closed exploits used to run homebrew, but an ancient exploit that is still being used for piracy has remained untouched for that long (and counting). More proof: it would be trivial for them to detect and block modchips at the system update level, but so far they haven't even tried. Even more proof: NIntendo seems to be happy deliberately bricking your Wii if you have imported it, but it certainly hasn't even crossed their mind to do that for people who pirate. Yes, System Update 4.2 deliberately bricked all Korean Wiis that had been switched to the USA or EUR region. And by this I mean an explicit if(korean_detected()) { show_error_code_on_boot(003); }.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

*Counts the posts at the moment*

Nobody said it was wrong? Who are you arguing with exactly?

That said, my personal point of view is that I'm perfectly ok with people like this getting sued, I'm not sure I'm ok with ruining their lives for all eternity as vengeance, and calling it "justice". But that's another issue.

The problem is what then do you charge them? When you burn down a building, and please don't use the tired argument about physical property verses electronic items it's an example, you don't charge them with what they can comfortably pay. You charge them based on what was lost. The second argument is always how do you prove that there were any losses period? Does anyone really believe that people would stop playing games if file share sites vanished? A single file uploaded can result in tens or even hundreds of posts for download resulting in millions of downloads. There's a simple way to avoid this problem, don't do it.

Any hope of a new subject for Slashdot? There's several of these stories everyday and everyone always makes the same tired arguments for both sides. There's never any new ideas floated. It always comes down to the bulk of people arguing how unfairly the downloaders are treated and a couple of people wading into the hornets nest saying maybe they shouldn't do it in the first place. There's got to be better geek subjects than the eternal debate of the right or wrong of downloading. To me it's like debating Duke Nukem Forever three or four times a day. It's all been said so let's move on. The entire thread can be marked redundant.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Alphathon]

Exactly. I don't think I've seen that many people on here advocate piracy, it's usually anti-anti-piracy laws, such as the proposed UK law where suspected filesharers can be cut off without trial, disproportionate fines (especially from the RIAA) or the treating of bittorrent as illigal regardless of what's being shared (open source software etc). This can't really be treated as any of those. It would seem that the fine is roughly equivalent to 15000 copies of the game. That's assuming none is added for the crime, so it seems like a fairly reasonable fine. The only possible problem I can see is that he had to give over access to social networking sites etc. as that has little to do with the crime.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Bert64]

Because it's all about money...

People who modchip their machines to pirate games will either pirate or do without. If you make piracy impossible, your game sales will be largely unaffected but sales of the hardware and associated physical accessories will go down (pirates can't pirate the hardware so they have to buy it).

People who play legitimate out of region games or homebrew are typically not interested in piracy, and want to do legitimate things such as playing cheaper (but still legit) games from abroad, play games which aren't released in their region or even just play games they already had before they moved countries...
These people are more likely to buy new copies of the out of region games they cannot play, or buy additional devices to perform the functions that homebrew would achieve on a console...

Re:Pro-piracy

[Hognoxious]

That said, my personal point of view is that I'm perfectly ok with people like this getting sued, I'm not sure I'm ok with ruining their lives for all eternity as vengeance, and calling it "justice".

Common sense tells you that a release of a new game (or movie or whatever) is a big event, and it goes off to a timetable in order to maximise the hype and all that. Much as we hate those marketing types, that's reality.

Someone who buggers up that timetable is committing serious sabotage against that company, and consequently is going to get hit with a big stick - if only as a deterrent to others.

Re:Pro-piracy

[valentingalea]

I would think that if it was THAT easy to detect/block the modchips, Nintendo would have surely done it... At what ancient exploit are you referring to exactly?

Re:Pro-piracy

[marcansoft]

95% of the modchips out there are trivial to detect. They'll have stupid stuff like custom commands that can be used to identify them, and broken or flat out incorrect implementations of standard commands. Seriously. They aren't even trying. This isn't even remotely in the same league as Xbox 360 hacks and the like, which have evolved to be quite a bit stealthier due to Microsoft's detection efforts.

As for the exploit, it's the downgrade hole originally used by Comex's DVDX34 installer (which was quickly abused for other means) and more recently still used by Trucha Bug Restorer. We refuse to use this for homebrew because it involves altering (downgrading) system software, which we consider harmful, but it's there and it acts as a convenient fast-track for piracy (downgrade system software to vulnerable version, use that to install your favorite warez-pack). The exploit itself is rather silly: start installing something, which causes the system to copy the signed metadata to a temporary location. The FS permissions are set wrong, so you can delete it, write your own version with an artificially low version number, and finish the install. Then the system thinks you have an older version and will let you install any random ancient vulnerable version, as they only check signatures initially, not once things are installed.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Thansal]

I was going to write a post about that as well, and wondering why it would matter for an AUS release, as they actually have laws (or had, I assume they still exist) making region locking illegal, and thus importing media from else where a trivial matter.

However, I then looked up the release dates of the game. Australia got it on Nov 12th, NA got it on the 15th, EU got it on the 20th, and JP got it on Dec 3rd.

So, however he got it, he released it prior to ANYONE getting it, and probably in a region free version as well (though, I think Nintendo doesn't actually region lock their games, but I wouldn't swear to it).

Re:Pro-piracy

[RockinRobStar]

He was a manager at a computer games store. I would imagine they sent copies early to his store so they had stock to sell on release day. (From what I understand it was a world first release date).

Re:Pro-piracy

[jamesh]

It's not so much pro-piracy, as anti-the-things-that-would-be-required-to-prevent-piracy.

In order to make a song or movie uncopyable, you end up punishing the people who aren't breaking the law. It's been the same way with copy protection ever since it was invented - the pirates make a copy with the copy protection removed and distribute that, and the legitimate users have to put up with the inconvenience. The list is long...

When software was distributed on audio tape for home computers, copy protection often relied on making sure that an audio copy reduced the fidelity below what would work... so unless your tape player was in perfect condition you might have problems with the original too. You also couldn't make yourself a backup copy.

When software was distributed on floppy disk, they copy protection was often 'type in word 4 on page 7 of the manual' (also on tape software), a parallel port dongle (incompatible with some printers), etc. Also the disk format would be modified - deliberate errors or slightly different sector layout, again preventing you making backups. A few software packages actually wrote back to the disk once they had been installed and only returned the disk to its original state when you uninstalled.

When CD's came along it was more of the same, although worse than floppy disks because there were a bunch of CD drives that were incompatible with the copy protection.

It's all of that crap that most of the people who you say are 'pro-piracy' are against. Although there will always be people who just feel they are entitled to get stuff for free...

Re:Pro-piracy

[davetv]

Reading the story on this link : http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/09/2814726.htm

It contains - "The matter was settled between Mr Burt and Nintendo last month."

I assume some sort of settlement has been agreed upon.

Re:Pro-piracy

[jamesh]

Seriously. They aren't even trying. This isn't even remotely in the same league as Xbox 360 hacks and the like, which have evolved to be quite a bit stealthier due to Microsoft's detection efforts.

So the choices are...

1. don't try, and people will copy your stuff
2. try, and people will defeat it and copy your stuff.

I wonder which of the above two options is cheaper?

Re:Pro-piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that's a bit silly. First of all, nobody, or at least not I, have argued that he should go completely free, and secondly;Do you seriously think he'd be more or less of a deterrent if he had been hit with a $100 000 stick instead?

The difference is that there would have been some hope to actually pay that amount and move on with his life, rather than being stuck in eternal poverty with nothing left to lose really. By this decision justice has not been done, and nobody got deterred that wouldn't have been from a significantly lower sum. All that happened is that another economical desperado who can scoff any law which carries monetary punishments has been created.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Richard_at_work]

95% of the modchips out there are trivial to detect. They'll have stupid stuff like custom commands that can be used to identify them, and broken or flat out incorrect implementations of standard commands. Seriously. They aren't even trying.

Why should they go out of their way to try? Why should they have to chase down every single different mod chip, find a way to identify it and implement that way? Why should they have to go to this effort?

The hardware as sold is in an expected configuration - if you are going to run it outside of the expected configuration in any way, then why are you expecting updates or addons to work at all?

Re:Pro-piracy

[marcansoft]

They could completely disable an entire generation of older non-upgradeable or crappily-upgradable modchips with a relatively simple update, permanently. Talk about low-hanging fruit.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Yamata no Orochi]

No one really said anything was wrong about them suing him yet. You just couldn't think of anything to say but really wanted the first post?

Re:Pro-piracy

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

and in every thread that even remotely involves IP i see you attacking strawmen and beating dead horses. so, what's your deal?

Re:Pro-piracy

[paeanblack]

There's nothing wrong with them suing him.

He should go to jail. He used the special access his job gave him to steal from Nintendo. Yes, I used the s-word. Redistributing unpublished content is theft...he stole something valuable and monetizable from Nintendo (the right of first publication), and they don't have it anymore.

What he did was deliberate and premeditated. He abused a position of trust. There is no "Haha, just kidding" defense or excuse for this crap. This kind of shit severely weakens the man-years of effort expended towards fixing broken copyright laws.

He's not cute. He's not funny. He's a criminal.

Re:Pro-piracy

[rhsanborn]

Unfortunately, most of the comments I see tend to be freeloaders hiding behind a banner of freedom so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they blindly download dozens of games without paying for them.

Re:Pro-piracy

[hesaigo999ca]

I have to agree here, I am sure there would have been no that much hoopla, if the guy waited 6 months after the game came out, and made it a little more hush, hush that is was available for download, how did they link it to him, btw?
I am sure someone plugging torrents with files of this game from a cybercafe, and using TOR could remain anonymous, unless of course they inserted code specific to each programmer, and then compile time, they knew who the leak was....

Re:Pro-piracy

[marcansoft]

Uhh, because ostensibly they don't want piracy?

I don't have a clue what point you're trying to express there. Of course Nintendo has no obligation to do anything. I'm just pointing out how simple and effective modchip detection would be against a large class of users who pirate.

Re:Pro-piracy

[xtracto]

Hey marcan, first let me tip my hat for your work.

Second, I use some of those "oh noes piratz" enhancing mechanisms to copy my legally purchased games to a USB hard disk and play them. Note that I bought my Wii console while living in Britain, I have bought games in Mexico (where I am from) and USA (cheaper to ask a relative to get them from there) AND Germany (where I am currently living and playing games).

When I moved to Germany, I refused to take all my CDs/DVDs with me [Laugagge handlers at Lufthansa are a bunch of monkeys.. you should see the state of my bags when they arrived to Germany], therefore I put all the content (serveral music CDs, some DVD movies and several Wii games) into magnetic media and took them with me.

Having said that, I really applaud Nintendo for doing this specific move, and I completely believe that this is the *right* move to combat piracy.

It is not illegal to modify hardware you buy, it is not illegal to play a copy of your purchased media, however, IT IS illegal to distribute such media without copyright permit; and that is what Nintendo prosecuted with this guy.

Re:Pro-piracy

[lordmetroid]

The handheld games are region free but the console games are not.

Re:Pro-piracy

[X.25]

I often see many pro-piracy comments on slashdot on these things (probably also because pirates are more interested on the matter). But many times these are actual damages caused to companies. Putting out that game a week before surely counted a lot of illegal downloading and people not buying the game. Sure it's bad to for him, but those are the lost money for Nintendo. What's so wrong about them suing him?

There is nothing wrong with suing him.

However, slapping him with US$ 1.5mil fine is pretty retarded.

Re:Pro-piracy

[tzanger]

Totally agreed, and this is one of the main reasons why I am so against special "electronic" versions of already-existing laws.

If I am recording content from my legitimate cable TV connection and consuming it in my own home, with my friends and family, it should not matter if I am using the cable company's hardware or my own. The second I take that data and publish it (torrent, for example) nail my ass to the wall with existing copyright and/or distribution laws. There's no need for a special "digital" version of copyright infringement.

You're absolutely right; the man's a criminal, and should be prosecuted as any other thief.

Re:Pro-piracy

[DeKO]

The funny thing is the homebrew community does much more to fight piracy than Nintendo. They ban any app that even remotely might be used to facilitate piracy. And still Nintendo goes after the homebrew.

Re:Pro-piracy

[DeKO]

Not as low-hanging as you seem to think. They would have to buy those mod-chips, do some reverse-engineering, test the updates to make sure it doesn't break any revision of the Wii hardware; and still most mod-chips seem to be upgradeable anyway; and it's not like buying new mod-chip costs more than a Wii game anyway.

In short, it's too risky, will cost too much, and will be mostly ineffective (everyone that bought one mod-chip won't mind buying a second one that is resistant to said mod-chip-killer update.)

Re:Pro-piracy

[__aaqvdr516]

Except the social networking sites that he used could have been used to discuss how/when/where to distribute the leak. It's all part of discovery.

Re:Pro-piracy

[TJamieson]

Ok, and I agree to that, but why do they get his passwords and access to various online accounts? Is his Facebook account really relevant to this? THAT is the real scary part -- not that a dude got busted for doing something illegal, but that once busted the 'authorities' decided they should get access to everything in his life.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Jakkor]

I find it hard to believe that if this were the RIAA/MPAA suing someone that we would see comments like...
He's not cute. He's not funny. He's a criminal.

Re:Pro-piracy

[DeadCatX2]

There's the standard arguments about: pirates weren't going to buy the game anyway; legitimate customers don't like to do illegal things to begin with; some people will buy it even after pirating it once it actually comes out; some people will play their friends' pirated version and buy their own.

All of that aside...why do they need the passwords to his email/facebook/etc? That seems like a massive invasion of privacy. Would they ask for all of the snail mail correspondence that he's had for the last few years, too? Logs of his telephone calls?

Yes. The guy was stupid. He got caught. He should be punished. But ordered to hand over all of your passwords? Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Re:Pro-piracy

[domatic]

Install the HomeBrew Channel and Gecko OS to get around that.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Svartalf]

Was Nintendo deprived of the game completely? No?

Then it was breach of trade secret or infringement that the person that we're discussing is guilty of, not theft. It's neither correct nor insightful to call it stealing- because, sadly, it still isn't that.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Svartalf]

Someone who buggers up that timetable is committing serious sabotage against that company, and consequently is going to get hit with a big stick - if only as a deterrent to others.

Yep. And, in the end, I think we're going to find that he's being charged with infringement, breach of trade secret, tortious interference, or some combo of part or all of the aforementioned before it's all said and done. And, honestly, while I won't call it stealing like some have (it's not), he very definitely needs to face the fines he's got coming to him on this and I've no sympathy for him because it was a willful illegal act all the same.

Re:Pro-piracy

[steelfood]

No, that's still not stealing. It's still copyright infringement. If he say, stole the disc from his company and kept it in a vault, then that would constitute theft. Otherwise, it's still copyright infringement.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Monkeedude1212]

I was going to write a post about that as well, and wondering why it would matter for an AUS release, as they actually have laws (or had, I assume they still exist) making region locking illegal,

That sounds odd, since they have laws regarding violent videogames and such. Certain games get banned. Wouldn't it make sense for them to condone regional banning and then just get game developers to comply with government regulation?

Re:Pro-piracy

[SenseiLeNoir]

unfortunatly nothing is so clear cut. There are three types of downloaders:

a) A person wanting to try out a game, but the trial versions are inaccesible for some reason or another. Or maybe he wants to test it on his rig, to see if the "final" product performs well on his rig as there may be some differences between trial and final versions. He illegally downalods, finds he likes the game and it runs well on his system, then buys it. In this case it is not a lost sale, and in fact can be argued that the illegal download resulted in a sale that may have not happend otherwise.

b) like a) but decided he doesnt want the game, and decided to delete it after one try. Again not a lost sale, unless the manufacturer assumes that customers have to pay to try, whether they like it or not, which although not wrong, doesnt garner much respect for the manufacturer.

c) a person (maybe student, or kid) who wants to play a game, and decides to illegally download it and plays it as if it was bought. This is a lost sale. It doesnt matter if the person intended to buy it or not, the fact is the person did download, and then ENJOY the game without paying.

So out of the above c) is the only cause for concern. if a person who can afford a game, but just downloads "because he can", does deserve to be hammered.

If affordability or accessability is an issue, then maybe we need to look at our society for issues, that make a child think he "has" to play a game, that he cannot afford. Is marketing causing peer pressure, etc? all interesting concepts. Maybe social analysis can lead to answers to reduce piracy, by helping children understand that Computer games are not the be all and end all in life? A huge complex issue that goes beyond piracy. However, it is true that case c is illegal, but punishments need to be fair.

In the case of Music and Movies, its rather different.

With Music, you heard the music on radios, and other sources freely. Illegally downloading a song is much less justified, there are little need to "trial" first. Indeed, one can record from the radio if they really want to.

With Movies, again, how do u "trial" a movie? Its increasingly a first show experience. after watching a movie, there is often little incentive for a person to watch it again in the majority of cases. so a download almost rarely translates into a purchase.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Rasperin]

Actually, A/C has a valid point here. On the one hand some people download and never buy, on the other hand you have people who buy and only download so they have a digital back up.

In most realities people both buy and download, they buy the games, music, movies that are worth re-playing/listening/watching. And discard those which are utter crap, believe it or not pirating is capitalism at work. It forces companies to manufacture goods on a competitive level that needs to actually be better for the consumer, instead of the consumer blindly trusting the company made a good product. I literally put the right to pirate with the right for free speech; a company shouldn't censor reviews of it's product nor should it stop people from demoing it with the right to return. The biggest problem is you can't just buy a game anymore, install it, play it for a week and return it as most retailers will not allow you to return it.

Besides reviewing a game/album/movie there is also the entirely financial side to the fact. Put bluntly, I can't afford as much entertainment I consume, even with a 6figure income. This is where one might construe it as theft; I like to call it the ideals of communism; but in actuality it assists our economy further by making a more even distribution of wealth across the companies. Each generation has had a "thing" up to only 5-10 years ago. They were either Music (70's/80's) Movies (80's/90's) Games (90's/00's) where a market was fully owned by a genre but what you are seeing now is that people buy only what they want of each and pirate the rest that isn't important. Again, with my previous point, and so they're is more need to innovate a broader spectrum of things (eBooks, PC's/Laptops, Phones, Music, Movies, Games) without a particular class of that owning the market. Basically, the more we pirate the more we win as a consumer.

Just some food for thought. This guy was only enabling what our market is changing into and I support his actions.*Pirate Hat and Eye Patch* arghhhhhh.

Re:Pro-piracy

[KDR_11k]

Where did tzanger accuse him of murder? He calle dthe guy a thief, thieves usually don't kill people.

Re:Pro-piracy

[kramerd]

You are an idiot.

Crime has many definitions, and there isnt a single one where this man is not a criminal.

There is a legal definition of wrong, misdemeanor, tort, or felony. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.

There is also the moral definition of crime, an offense, serious wrongdoing, sin. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.

There is the dictionary defintion, an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.

Finally, there is the "I didn't graduate from high school, but I tried to," mentally handicapped, how you explain it to a small child when you are a bad parent who hides the real world from their children definition, which simply states that crime is a foolish, senseless, or shameful act. Under this basis, the perpetrator is a criminal.

If you happen to have another definition of crime in which this man is not a criminal, you are trying to use a different word.

Re:Pro-piracy

[brkello]

I agree with you. Other comments are saying people aren't pro-piracy, but they must be reading another Slashdot. Typically on these threads are every excuse under the sun to justify their piracy. Maybe this is different since it is 1) Nintendo and 2) is going after the distributer of piracy instead of the downloader.

Re:Pro-piracy

[suso]

Unfortunately, most of the comments I see tend to be freeloaders hiding behind a banner of freedom so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they blindly download dozens of games without paying for them.

DING DING DING! You are absolutely right.

Re:Pro-piracy

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention most of us are for fair copyright terms but fair was about 20 miles back and we have gotten into so disgustingly greedy it is ridiculous. I can point out what is wrong with this picture in a single sentence....Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright. The man has been dead for nearly a half a century, yet one of his FIRST works, made when planes were made of cloth and antibiotics were but a dream, is STILL under copyright.

There is a big fucking difference between fairly compensating the author so he/she can produce more art (which was the whole point of copyright, to enable those that create art incentive to create new works, which would then become ours through public domain) to allowing multinational corporations to pervert our system with treasonous bribery to create a license to steal. So while I am not a pirate, those that are? Really don't care. They robbed US FIRST, by stealing our public domain away from us, our kids, our grandkids, etc, and by locking our entire culture up behind a paywall. Copyrights were a contract, and the contract has been broken. "Forever minus a single day" is NOT limited copyrights, and until it changes and We, The People, get a spot at the negotiating table I can understand why folks wouldn't care about copyrights. After all, all they are doing is stealing from thieves.

Re:Pro-piracy

[rhsanborn]

I believe that if you consume more entertainment than you can afford, then you need to learn to do without some entertainment. Just because you can't afford as much as you'd like to have, doesn't entitle you to still have it without paying it. We aren't a communist society, and we don't exort communist ideals. If you can't afford it, learn to live without it.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Rasperin]

What do you call public schools? How about a police force? Or the court system? Or the Military? All of these are publicly funded infrastructures; I'm sure you may nowhere near the amount as warren buffet does into the public system but you are rewarded with the same protection by the military as he is. You say we don't extort communist ideals, I call you a liar.

Re:Pro-piracy

[qubezz]

More chilling - a corporation with suspicion of someone not 'busted' can get a court to confiscate every computer and device someone owns, and force them to turn over every password to every account they have so the company can root around for evidence for a civil matter (copyright infringement).

Maybe when the MafIAA alleges an IP address that might have been assigned to you at some point was infringing, and gets the thugs to toss your place and take anything they want and look at all your emails, texts, and friends online you might then want to complain, but you won't own anything electronic anymore to complain with.

Re:Pro-piracy

[SilverEyes]

I agree, but does your example hold up? They still only broke even by selling one copy because you didn't pay for yours... :P ?

Re:Pro-piracy

[tlhIngan]

And yet they still don't give a damn about piracy, technologically speaking, or at least they care about it a lot less than they care to annoy homebrewers and importers.

Proof: the last three iterations of Wii System Updates closed exploits used to run homebrew, but an ancient exploit that is still being used for piracy has remained untouched for that long (and counting). More proof: it would be trivial for them to detect and block modchips at the system update level, but so far they haven't even tried. Even more proof: NIntendo seems to be happy deliberately bricking your Wii if you have imported it, but it certainly hasn't even crossed their mind to do that for people who pirate. Yes, System Update 4.2 deliberately bricked all Korean Wiis that had been switched to the USA or EUR region. And by this I mean an explicit if(korean_detected()) { show_error_code_on_boot(003); }.

Not up to date on the homebrew scene? There's a fairly nice set of homebrew programs that let you pirate quite easily - at the very least, you pop in the DVD into the Wii, start the hard drive loader homebrew app, and copy it off to hard disk. Return/rent/repeat, and you'd have a large collection. Even better, *zero* hardware mods needed. Just install homebrew channel, install HD loader, connect a USB hard disk, done.

Ditto - download game off bittorrent, plug drive into PC, use app to copy it over (Wii uses a different filesystem). Poof, game is ready to play.

Legit homebrew is affected purely because of HD loader homebrew that allow it. People don't modchip if they can avoid it.

Re:Pro-piracy

[tepples]

The funny thing is the homebrew community does much more to fight piracy than Nintendo. They ban any app that even remotely might be used to facilitate piracy.

They haven't yet banned FCE Ultra GX, which facilitates piracy of proprietary commercial NES games.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Dhalka226]

Let me preface by saying that this case was actually a settlement and not a judgment, so my comments don't necessarily apply directly to this one case.

What's so wrong about suing? Nothing. The problem most people have is how bogus and utterly life-ruining the amounts are. Most people won't be able to pay something like $1.5MM. Ever. Whether an individual cares about piracy or not, right there we have to stop and question whether or not literally ruining a person's life is justice being served. Just because somebody did something wrong does not mean they don't deserve justice to be on their side, it must remain a two-way street.

Second, they just invent numbers. $1.5MM at, say, $50 retail, they're saying 30,000 people downloaded it in a week. Possible? Yes. Likely? I don't know. Accurate? Definitely not. The number was just pulled out of thin air, and even if the person admitted to what they did they can't defend against a fabricated number. Any defense that "well yes I did exactly what they're accusing me of, but I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY THAT MUCH!" is going to be ill-received. A person essentially has to defend themselves against evidence that doesn't actually exist.

Third, even if we had exact numbers of people who pirated a given piece of software, the damages are still unknown. This case is actually a perfect example of this. This is not a PC game, where you pirate it, press install and laugh as you saved yourself retail price. This is a Wii game. The only people who can pirate it are those with emulators or some modern-day equivalent of mod chips (are they outdated these days?). Let's say that 30,000 people is exactly correct for how many people downloaded it. You're talking 30,000 people all of whom belong to an audience who has to go well out of their way to pirate this game, not somebody who merely presses download. How many of these people do you honestly believe would have bought this game? These are people who literally are invested in their pirating setup, whether through the time (software download/setup) or actual expenses (potentially software, mod chips, etc). I guarantee the answer isn't 30,000. Beyond that, nobody knows. We can make an educated guess that it is much closer to 0 than 30,000 given our circumstances, but that's about it. Obviously not all cases present a scenario this extreme, but the question of what damages ACTUALLY are remain in every single one of these cases.

Fourth, a lot of us are uncomfortable or outright angry about the disproportionate resources at play. It's certainly not Nintendo's fault or problem that they're a relatively rich corporation and their lawsuit targets are almost always average joes, but it makes it almost impossible for somebody who didn't do what they're being accused of to defend themselves. It makes the lawsuits seem almost extortionate. The RIAA is a great example of this, as they basically send you settlement terms at the same moment they serve you and the settlements are always vastly under the amount they claim they're going to sue you for. It's a legally-permissible threat. "Pay us $X or we'll bring our hordes of lawyers to crush you for fifty times more." Even if you're innocent, you're going to pause and think long and hard about whether or not it's worth the fight. For that matter, even if you win your lawsuit (or they drop it--tack that on to the list of things that piss people off about lawsuits like this) you may ruin yourself financially. The costs to you will almost certainly be more than the settlement would have cost, and the odds of you recouping that money as part of a judgment have been slim thus far.

And fifth, if you're looking for explanations you can throw in the oft-heard differences between physical and digital goods, and mesh in the disproportionate punishments. You're almost better off actually stealing a physical good these days; the punishments are probably going to be less severe.

Put it all together and even people who might agree that p

Re:Pro-piracy

[AmazingRuss]

Either that, or earn some more money to by the stuff you want. I sell games for 7 bucks. If you can't scrape that up, you seriously need to find some work.

Re:Pro-piracy

[kramerd]

I defined criminal not only in words, but in terms of logic and feelings, under which the man who illegally released materials that he did not have permission to release is a criminal, not matter what basis is used.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether individuals have a right to share things that they actually own. I didn't argue against the right of first sale or claim that you can't cook dinner for your next date because they didnt pay for it.

What the fuck are you doing ranting about words that have never been part of my thought process, never mind what I actually have said?

You need to calm down, use the logic and feelings that you claim I didn't incorporate, and apologize.

Re:Pro-piracy

[marcansoft]

I'm perfectly up to date on the homebrew scene, thanks, and I'm still fully convinced that Nintendo is either too stupid to go after piracy and not homebrew, or just doesn't want to.

• Nintendo has ignored underlying security issues that enable piracy and instead focused on closing throwaway homebrew exploits
• This started even before there were warez loaders anyway
• When we tried to contact them about the software trick that would later be abused to create the first DVD warez launcher, they harassed us instead of taking our information.
• Current homebrew exploits do not enable warez anyway. The only way you can go from homebrew to warez is to chainload via BootMii at the lowest level (since BootMii lets you run any code on the security processor, but you need to bootstrap yourself into a fully working patched IOS system in order to run warez, and most people don't do this). Nonetheless, the tmd version downgrade exploit which is NOT used for homebrew at all remains unfixed after 3 software updates, and it remains the most popular tool used to enable warez.
• Before the release of BootMii (and the aforementioned ability to run low level code on the Starlet), homebrew did NOT enable warez in any way whatsoever. During the timeframe between the original fakesigning fix (October 23rd, 2008) and the release of BootMii (May 13th, 2009), the only way to get warez was the tmd bug mentioned above, and they still haven't fixed the damn thing. Homebrew does not imply warez without low level access to Starlet, because IOS homebrew runs under control of the Starlet, as a game, and with the same security sandboxing that games get. Warez requires modifying system firmware (IOSes), and doing that requires some sort of IOS exploit. Read that again: for 7 months, warez depended on an exploit that was totally unrelated to homebrew, you couldn't pirate games given a homebrew install without that exploit, homebrew did not use that exploit for installation, and not only did they not fix it, it remains unfixed to this date, after 16 months!.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind you that the idiots behind warez software are behild hundreds of bricked Wiis thanks to the pathetic quality of warez tools, because the people who cobble together homebrew tools and libraries to make them rarely know how to write a decent program.

Ironically, hardware mods are actually safer than software loaders - they rarely fuck up if you do them right, they won't randomly kill your Wii with an update, and if you really screw up you only have to replace the drive board (cheap) instead of the entire Wii. This is not to say that decent software mods are impossible, just that current ones are written by idiots.

Re:Pro-piracy

[V!NCENT]

What's so wrong about them suing him?

Not much, except for the way they did it...

Why does this man have to give out all of his private information and such?!

You either have evidence, or you don't. I guess Nintendo didn't have any evidence, so the man could have also be perfectly innoicent!

And 1,5 million dollars?! Jesus... That man can say goodbye to his life and for what? Murder? No ladies and gentleman, sharing a videogame!

Damn... Corporate profit more important than individuals? OK... Hi there, US goverment!

I am perfectly fine with the fact that people get punished for what they do. Let the man pay the percentage Nintendo lost with their pofit over his salary (he can't pay 1.5 million dollars like in ever anyway, so it's symbolic, hello?), take away his right to have internet connection for 5-10 years and make him work unpaid for Nintendo's financial department in the weekends for a year or so... But not this.

Does anyone call this justice?! I certainly as hell do not!

Re:Pro-piracy

[himitsu]

Then we end up in this same situation.

Lately Nintendo, and Microsoft weirdly, have been more receptive to releasing Japan-only games in the US. I just bought Tatsunoko vs Capcom for the Wii which has a bunch of characters I have never heard of from 1970's anime. Microsoft is dipping their toe in the water on this as well by releasing Mushihimesama for the 360 without the usual region protections; the damn thing costs $75 to import from Japan but it will play on a stock US 360. It looks like they are recognizing that there is a global market for "niche" games.

Re:Pro-piracy

[ottothecow]

You seem to be missing the point.

This is not some guy who shared a wii game. He stole (and yes, in this context that is the correct term) an unreleased game from his employer and released it to the world. This is the same action that just landed that chinese guy a 15 year jail term--taking your employer's proprietary information is straight up illegal. We call it espionage when you take it to benefit a competing company/government...we call it leaking when you take it to spread around...but either way you commit a crime and become a criminal.

This has nothing to do with sharing a CD or something amongst your friends (or even your closest thousand torrent "friends")...that activity all occurred *after* this crime had been committed.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Blakey Rat]

Proof: the last three iterations of Wii System Updates closed exploits used to run homebrew, but an ancient exploit that is still being used for piracy has remained untouched for that long (and counting).

Before you get into conspiracy theories, maybe that hole remains unfixed because a popular game relies on it and it's become a compatibility issue. There's also the slim possibility that Nintendo simply hasn't figured it out yet.

Re:Pro-piracy

[marcansoft]

Unless games are exploiting security bugs in the software upgrade process to force downgrades to vulnerable versions these days, I'm pretty sure no games depend on it. It's a security exploit, not a security design flaw. You can't depend on it without wanting to break into the system.

I can pretty much guarantee that either they haven't figured it out or they don't care.

Re:Pro-piracy

[trytoguess]

It's more accurate to say - use copy protection, so that one can delay piracy. Considering how long the delay is one could actually prevent piracy for all intent and purpose. Consider the PS3 for example. From what I understand, it simultaneously the most difficult to break into, and the least popular of the current generation of consoles. No idea if it'll remain unlocked throughout it's lifespan, but it doesn't seem impossible if recent slashdot stories are any indication. Of course, we can only assume all the next gen consoles will be even harder to crack.

Re:Pro-piracy

[kackle]

No, he didn't take 1s and 0s. But people use the word "stealing" because it is the simplest, closest, and quickest to understand. The average person is not a lawyer. We don't say "pedestrian crossing against a traffic light", we say "jaywalking".

On the other hand, copyright infringement often involves stealing one's formerly sole right to copy the 1s and 0s; and that pilferage is usually undoable. I think the word "stealing" is accurately descriptive and appropriate.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Cimexus]

It's true - region locking isn't permitted here. The most obvious manifestation of this is the fact that any DVD player you buy in Australia can play any region disc with no issues. Really pissed me off when I moved to the US for a few years and found I couldn't play any of my DVDs with a US DVD player except for the couple I had that were region 1 (I have an assortment of region 1, 2 and 4 DVDs, depending on which ones I could find cheapest on Ebay usually).

Secondly we don't exactly have "laws against violent videogames". We just don't have a classification above MA15+ for video games, so they get refused classification. Without a valid classification, they aren't allowed to be sold on retail shelves. So the effect is sorta the same, but there's a big difference between a law actively against something or banning something, and there just not being an appropriate legal category in which to place certain games. That's why this doesn't really conflict with the 'no region locking' laws ... I have plenty of RC (refused classification) games in Australia - I just bought them overseas or online (i.e. from a different region).

Slashdot tends to indulge in quite a bit of hyperbole when reporting situations in other countries than the US, particularly surrounding censorship issues - always keep that in mind.

Re:Pro-piracy

[hairyfeet]

How EXACTLY is this offtopic, when we are discussing a copyright case and whether or not /. is pro copyright infringement? This guy slapped a copy of Mario on P2P, he did NOT stand on a street corner selling copies. These companies get outrageous fines, and then use their money and clout to bribe congress for even more outrageous laws. Don't forget this is the same company that with the FBI got a man 5 years in PMITA prison for selling some cheapo Chinese NES clones in a mall. How old is the NES now? Close to 30 fricking years, isn't it?

By the time ANY software actually reaches the end of copyright it will be so old as to be nearly impossible to run, if you can even find the code. Did you know that NO SOFTWARE has actually reached end of copyright yet? Thanks to the copyright extensions of 76 and Sonny Bono even the software written for mainframes in 61 is STILL under copyright. So lets cut through the bullshit folks, there is a hell of a big difference between wanting to see the artists paid and supporting the cabal between congress and multinationals that is the copyright mess we have today.

EVERY CASE that involves copyright infringement should be used to point out how rigged the game is. Joe and Jane Public need to know how bad they are being screwed, and I bet some even here didn't know that Steamboat Willie is still covered after 84 years. Just think about how many games your friends at Good Old Games could be offering us with nice pre-configured DOSboxes ready to go if so much of the 80s and 90s games weren't already in the limbo hell that is abandonware? If we had sane copyright terms those games would be PD NOW, and we could all enjoy them. Instead like so much of our past and culture it rots until some corp can/ever figure out how to squeeze yet another nickel from it. Disgusting, just like a million and a half for slapping a copy of Mario on P2P. If it were a Britney album and the RIAA, would we be all for this?

Re:Pro-piracy

[thetoadwarrior]

A crime doesn't have to involve murder and often it doesn't. While it's not the end of the world and the game made loads of money anyway, I do believe if we want to keep the internet free, not live with all our software in the cloud and not see valid transfer forms, like bit torrent blocked for good then we need to help put an end to people that do stuff like this.

I don't think there is a problem with playing emulated old games even if it may technically be wrong and the game may be re-released. It's not a big deal and I don't think companies care as much. But releasing a brand new game and before it is released is just wrong.

Like anything else, I think bending the rules a bit is ok but flat out breaking them is wrong.

Re:Pro-piracy

[thetoadwarrior]

Correct, DS carts are still region free but I think region free portable gaming will go away thanks to the R4 cart and similar devices.

Not only are these jerk-offs making it harder for homebrew development but they'll ruin one of the best aspects of the DS and Gameboy systems and that is getting games easily from all around the world. I have legit copies of games from Japan, the US, Europe and they all play fine. I don't expect to see that in the DS successor. So thanks to all the mongs who thought it was best to download DS roms rather than pay for games.

Re:Pro-piracy

[El Royo]

What a tired and nonsensical response. Those are examples of club goods that we as a society agree to contribute towards. It has nothing to do with 'entertainment', with spending more than you can afford nor with 'stealing' or taking goods/services.

Re:Pro-piracy

[khellendros1984]

He deprived them of first release of their product; that's a form of theft. It's *also* copyright infringement, of course.

Re:Pro-piracy

[khellendros1984]

The US isn't a communist society....except in the ways that it is. Culture and society mutate over time. This seems like just one more mutation. Whether it's a maladaptive or beneficial trait for our culture is yet to really be seen.

Re:Pro-piracy

[sopssa]

Yes I totally agree here. In my country mail and such carry extended privacy by law, and it extends to email too and cannot be read without a really valid and relevant order by court.

The amount to pay from his wrongdoings is ok, but they should had never needed to access his personal (e)mail.

Re:Pro-piracy

[AK Marc]

But he did steal a disk. There was no legal way to have a physical copy of the disk in a Wii at the date he uploaded it. He stole it from the store he worked, in violation of the contracts with Nintendo, and then performed copyright infringement on an unreleased trade secret work. It's no different than if he broke into your house, copied your tax records off your computer, uploaded them, then eventually returned your computer. You tell me what that would be.

Re:Pro-piracy

[AK Marc]

Gee, and I thought that he physically took an unreleased game disk without permission. I guess the Chinese spy didn't steal any secrets, he just committed minor infringement, and he should be released to China so as not to clog up our jails, courts, and prisons.

Re:Pro-piracy

[walshy007]

In some countries, it is legal to make a single dump of a cartridge you own and use it so long as you aren't playing the original at the same time.

granted very few people actually dump their own carts, but still.

Re:Pro-piracy

[tepples]

In some countries, it is legal to make a single dump of a cartridge you own and use it so long as you aren't playing the original at the same time.

That'd be fine if there were an NES counterpart to the Retrode or some other cart dumper for sale that didn't require the owner to solder.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Alphathon]

As I said, little to do with the crime, not nothing. That said, why does committing a crime mean that the government, or worse, a corporation (I can't remember WHO they said he had to turn the info over to) has the right to your personal information in order to see who else might be committing a crime?

Re:Pro-piracy

[trawg]

No, that's still not stealing. It's still copyright infringement. If he say, stole the disc from his company and kept it in a vault, then that would constitute theft. Otherwise, it's still copyright infringement.

But in this case, the copyright infringement is WORSE than the theft by several orders of magnitude. He "stole" a copy and gave it to thousands of other people.

Copyright infringement should be treated totally different to real physical theft, I agree - but it's not some magical term that reduces the impact to near zero.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Travelsonic]

No, he didn't take 1s and 0s. But people use the word "stealing" because it is the simplest, closest, and quickest to understand. The average person is not a lawyer. We don't say "pedestrian crossing against a traffic light", we say "jaywalking".

This, IMO, is intellectually dishonest. You discribed two - technical and layman's way - to describe the same act. We are talking about calling copyright infringement - copying 1s and 0s illegal - to theft - taking and depriving somebody of their property - two legally, logically, and very different acts.

On the other hand, copyright infringement often involves stealing one's formerly sole right to copy the 1s and 0s; and that pilferage is usually undoable. I think the word "stealing" is accurately descriptive and appropriate.

BS. Part of the exclusive rights is to go after those who try to butt in and distribute/sell their works without permission/payment. They still have their rights.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Travelsonic]

In some countries, it is legal to make a single dump of a cartridge you own and use it so long as you aren't playing the original at the same time.

I've heard this, but wonder WHERE exactly does it limit the number of backup copies you can make, and WHERE it puts that use limitation into place.... just out of curiosity.

Re:Pro-piracy

[BikeHelmet]

Exactly. I don't think I've seen that many people on here advocate piracy, it's usually anti-anti-piracy laws, such as the proposed UK law where suspected filesharers can be cut off without trial, disproportionate fines (especially from the RIAA) or the treating of bittorrent as illigal regardless of what's being shared (open source software etc). This can't really be treated as any of those. It would seem that the fine is roughly equivalent to 15000 copies of the game. That's assuming none is added for the crime, so it seems like a fairly reasonable fine. The only possible problem I can see is that he had to give over access to social networking sites etc. as that has little to do with the crime.

Plus, most people here would only advocate it when it's obvious there's no losses.

Like TV shows. Many people here torrent TV shows. When's the last time you let an ad influence your purchasing decisions? A lot of us won't, so why cost the companies money, while also annoying yourself with ads? Plus, after watching a good TV show, many people talk about it. The overall net result is more viewers, even if the pirates provide no direct financial gain, and even if you feel they shouldn't have access to that content for "free".

But this is totally different. Many companies have gone under from stuff like this. Iron Lore Entertainment (the makers of Titan Quest) had their game released weeks early - but the crack was bug filled and crashed on almost all computers, part-way through the game. The result was horrible reviews lamenting its crash-prone buggy state. Abysmal game sales followed (not a problem for Nintendo), and they basically broke even after a few years, then closed up shop. Iron Lore would've been way better off having no copy protection. At least they wouldn't have had to fight with all the negative reviews. Demigod had a similar thing happen, but the pirated copies were only usable after the official release. Demigod had great sales. And unlike Titan Quest, even if a pirate copy crashed(I don't believe they did), people could verify the purchased ones didn't. It's the early release that can severely hurt the game, and is what should be punished.

I have a similar stance for movies released weeks before they officially air. It may build hype, or it may cause unimaginable damage. It really shouldn't be allowed. Can't we all just wait until after the release date?

P.S. I pirate games. (In the eyes of the law, and from the viewpoint of most publishers, I'm a law-breaking pirate scumbag.)

I hate DRM. I try to support content creators, but if you sell me a paperweight, I'm going to download a non-paperweight and play that. You already took away the option of getting a refund.

What I don't get is why companies have the right to cause direct financial harm. People don't, so companies shouldn't - and yet that's exactly what that Starforce/Securom combo did, burning out actual DVD drives - and SonyBMG, with their costly to remove rootkits. I think a lot of people support "piracy" because a lot of the time the companies are worse. They actually damage our stuff, and wield expensive lawyers to keep us in check. This leaked mario game is not one of those situations, so you'll find most of slashdot supporting Nintendo. But it's hard not to become a supporter of piracy when Sony or some other company kills your $100 DVD drive, and you need to reformat - possibly paying someone to do the job. (Keep in mind DVD drive prices from years back.)

Re:Pro-piracy

[Hurricane78]

I should not assume bad things (like ignorance or lack of intelligence), so I assume lack of information, which is no shame. :)

Let me formalize your statements (commas used as logic element separators):
1. There is a form of downloading, that is illegal. — Paradigm (Assumption)
2. “Putting out” (in this case) means “freely offered on the Internet“ — Paradigm (Agreed)
3. The game was put out, a week before. — Paradigm (Agreed. Based on TFA)
4. Putting out that game, a week before, surely, counted a lot of illegal downloading. — Paradigm (With “surely” as a weasel word and a stand-in for an actual basis.)
5. Putting out that game, a week before, surely, counted people not buying the game. — Ditto
6. People not buying the game and/or illegally downloading it, causes actual damages to companies. — Paradigm (Assumption)
7. Actual damages result in lost money for those companies. — Paradigm (Agreed)
8. One can sue for damages / lost money, caused by someone else. — Paradigm (Generally accepted in out community. I do not agree on a physical level, but I will follow community rules as I am not a part of this.)
9. So there’s nothing wrong to be found, with them suing him. — Conclusion (Following)

I disagree with every single of your paradigms where I wrote “(Assumption)”, and especially the “surely” ones.

1) Accepted when assuming that those laws itself are legal, with which I strongly disagree, since they are based on the faulty assumption, that information/ideas/data would be treatable like real physical/meatspace objects, when they are virtual/bitspace objects. And following from that, that one could own/possess and control such data, that by definition, is out of one’s control and can’t be owned.
4) Putting out something does not necessarily result in actual download. But because of its very high likelyness, let’s assume actual download happened. With the limitation, of not being able to make any assumptions about the actual number.
5) Putting out something has no relation to actual buying behavior or even has a positive effect, as was conclusively shown by [1], [2], amongst others.
6) Offering something for sale does not in any way guarantee a sale. So not buying it does never equal damage, but is the natural default situation. Just like walking past a sausage stand, and not buying one, does not equal damage to the sausage seller. And just like buying a replica of something, does not equal damage to the original producer. One can just as well not buy something, when no other alternative is available. Imagine someone who wants to buy it, but does not have the money to buy it. He would not have bought it (for that price) anyway. So your logic is strongly faulty here.
Conclusion: Since there was no damage and loss of anything, that can even remotely be proven, it is, in our community, not acceptable to sue that person.

Re:Pro-piracy

[darthvader100]

If "Sharing is caring"

Then is it a also not a crime for the bank to share your banking details? I mean your teller likes to share, and his friends who he shares with are also "sharers" who share their money with him.

And there are important laws about sharing. Eg since i changed ISP i now get a lot of telemarketers(and yes i *always* tick that "You may not share my info no matter what, blah, blah, blah"

Nowdays, if I share an audio CD with someone, I am supposed to feel like a fucking criminal?

sharing the CD is not criminal, posting it online for millions to download is where the police show up looking for the criminal.

We don't have the even most basic of freedoms, and that's the freedom to be left alone.

Well if you don't like the laws then how would you like it if the hospitals just left you alone during your heart attack? Or the garbage collectors left your garbage alone?

[and no, I don't care about this guy sharing some Wii game

[and if you don't care about him sharing, then test the theory, let your cubicle-mate distribute the work you did to someone else and have them submit it. Bet your boss won't be too happy with your non-performance]

Re:Pro-piracy

[kiwimate]

So what's fair? You (and a lot of other people here) seem to advocate a system that gives no reward or incentive to succeed. It doesn't seem to matter to you how amazing a work someone produces; the viewpoint I'm reading says they are entitled to the same share as someone else who makes a totally mediocre piece of work.

If someone is so lucky/skillful/visionary that they create something that is still beloved years later, why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the fruits of that labor and luck/skill/vision? Or would you rather apportion everyone a flat reward amount?

They robbed US FIRST, by stealing our public domain away from us, our kids, our grandkids, etc, and by locking our entire culture up behind a paywall

How about putting down the shrill bleating for a moment and giving a rationale? Who robbed whom of what? OUR public domain? Ah, good old entitlement theory again. "I DESERVE everything ever produced, it is MINE by RIGHT!" No. Not fair, not just. If you create something amazing and decide you want to waive all rights and reward, great, I admire your altruism. But you don't have a God-given RIGHT to anything else anyone ever produces, JUST because you can argue it's an intangible value.

Grow up.

Re:Pro-piracy

[hairyfeet]

it was a CONTRACT, understand? We agree to give you a limited monopoly, I repeat, a LIMITED monopoly, in return for a richer public domain. That was the deal. What do we get? Nothing. Not a god damned thing, because of treasonous bribery. You want fair? 10 years for software, 10 years for everything else. Copyright can be extended by paying up every year after that, and the price doubles per year. This way if it is truly profitable they can shell out the $$$, but if they don't we get our public domain back.

But don't give me this "shrill bleating" bullshit, when you are supporting a multinational cabal that wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Thanks to bribery any program written since 1964 will stay in copyright for at LEAST 100 years! Do you honestly think in a century anybody will be able to find the code, much less run it? What good is a public domain that only has worthless items in it that can never be used by the public? I have NO problem with artists making money, but that isn't what we are talking about. Did you know you get an EXTRA 20% on the copyright terms if it is a work for hire? Yep, corps get extra because they are just better than you, didn't you know that? That is what bribery gets you pal. Wake up!

Re:Pro-piracy

[DarKnyht]

Depends on your point of view. Government raising taxes (or borrowing on our kids' future) because they cannot manage the money we put in their trust seems to be stealing to me.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Thansal]

I found out about this glorious law of yours when a friend got me a copy of an Umbilical Brother's DVD (Aus comedy group, well worth it). And I was all set to spending one of my region switches to rip it and re-encode it. Only to pop it in the DVD drive and it to start working. Looked up a bit of info and it made my day.

The OP also has an interesting point. The games are not actually banned, they are just illegal to sell.

Re:Pro-piracy

[catd77]

I'm pretty sure most people who comment about pirating are just talking a big game. It's like when a teenager brags ab out doing drugs, they probably lie or exaggerate.

Re:Pro-piracy

[Chosen Reject]

No one has a god given right to anything someone else produces, but when it comes to copyrightable works, once you share it with me, you don't have any rights to take it away from me. You may be able to take the physical manifestation of it away from me, but you cannot take the copyrightable portion away. If you didn't want others to have that ability, you shouldn't have shared it with them. That's how ideas (and the expressions of those ideas that are copyrightable) work. It's like nothing else. You can take away all my CDs, computers, sheet music, etc, but you will never be able to take away the song. You can steal my DVDs, but you can't steal the movie. You can burn my books, but you cannot burn the story.

By the very nature of the universe, you do not have to get permission to add something to the public domain. On the contrary, once it is shared publicly, you have to get permission to take it out. That permission is granted by the society you live in through copyrights. We allow you to take works out of the public domain to which it naturally belongs, on the agreement that it will go back after some period of time.

You can argue how long works should be allowed to be taken out of the public domain; you can argue whether they should be allowed to be taken out of the public domain; but you cannot argue whether there should be a public domain. It exists. It is natural, it cannot be taken away, not by law, not by fiat, not by decree, nor by any other means man possesses, unless and until you can change the very nature of the mind.

As for your comments about no incentive to succeed....

You (and a lot of other people here) seem to advocate a system that gives no reward or incentive to succeed. It doesn't seem to matter to you how amazing a work someone produces; the viewpoint I'm reading says they are entitled to the same share as someone else who makes a totally mediocre piece of work.

Right, because James Cameron got the same share as the makers of Pluto Nash.

We, as a society, allow content creators a limited amount of time to take a work out of the public domain. During that time, they have the same opportunity to make money as any other content creator. Some people think that there ought to be opportunities to extend that time, but I've never seen anyone who thinks the time extension should be based on the profitability or popularity of the content. Granted, if the work isn't profitable, the copyright holder will probably not want to pay to extend the copyright terms, but I've seen no extension propositions that prevent it.

Re:Pro-piracy

[The_mad_linguist]

Actually, due to an error in their title card formatting Steamboat Willie was improperly copyrighted, and technically is now in the public domain.

Re:Pro-piracy

[DreadPirateAwesome]

Wait, wait... WHAT about Steamboat Willie?!

Re:Pro-piracy

[hairyfeet]

Thanks to treasonous bribery Steamboat Willie, a movie made in 1928, won't actually be out of copyright until 2023 and that is of course if they don't pay to extend copyrights AGAIN. The old head of the MPAA said that copyrights should be for "forever minus a single day" and thanks to bribery we are nearly there. It says that it may have fallen into PD thanks to a loophole, but any attempt to test that theory will most likely get you SLAPPed into the next life by Disney.

So thanks to bribery you have been robbed my friend. You, Me, our kids, all have been robbed of our public domain, a truly priceless resource that not only gave you and I a wealth of entertainment but was a valuable resource for new artists to build and draw inspiration from, has been stolen from us.

And since nearly all software, from that spreadsheet app to video games, were written as "works for hire" and given an extra 20% because corporations are simply better than you and I, thanks to the extension of 76 and Bono acts you are looking at a century minimum for ANY software written after 1964. Now do you honestly think in 2064 your descendants are gonna be able to actually find a copy of the code written then, or even if they do actually run it?

By making copyrights so disgustingly obscene in length the corporations have virtually assured us that much of our history and culture will simply be destroyed in the pursuit of endless greed. Anything that some PHB in SuperMegaCorp can't figure out how to monetize will simply be lost because there is NO WAY for you to legally distribute it. And thanks to it being automatic and Opt Out only the code of many corporations that went defunct in the 80s and 90s now exists only in the limbo that is abandonware, assured to be lost when the websites hosting them are DMCA'd and no more copies can be found.

Sorry about the length, but this raping of society and history in the endless pursuit of bottomless greed must end. We should use every story on copyright to spread the word as far and wide as we can about how truly obscene the bribery has corrupted the system, as most normal folks have no idea they are being robbed of so much history and culture in such a blatant manner. We need to get this travesty on the minds and mouths of every website, talkshow, paper, every possible avenue of attack. If we don't so much of our history will be lost for all eternity that we will simply never be able to rescue or replicate. Just think about how many game companies have gone out of business since 1980. How much of that code is already lost? How many games from your childhood will never been seen again, nor will your children ever get a chance to see? This has to end.

Re:Pro-piracy

[feepness]

Plus, most people here would only advocate it when it's obvious there's no losses.

Like TV shows. Many people here torrent TV shows. When's the last time you let an ad influence your purchasing decisions?

Non-obvious losses are not non-losses.

Take, for example, pollution. I don't see much coming out of my SUV, and it disappears into the air momentarily, therefore the loss is non-obvious, and therefore okay, correct?

Your reasoning must always be "what if everyone did this"? In the case of pollution, it fouls the air. In the case of TV shows, advertisers quit supporting the show and it ceases being made.

Now, we can find ways to clean up pollution, and we can find alternative methods to fund show development. Both are probably good ideas. But both have costs.

There's a leak?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, we need a plumber.

Re:There's a leak?

[anss123]

Quick, we need a plumber.

It has always amused me that the most popular video game character by far is a "fat Italian plumber" instead of mister "awesome cool superdude".

Re:There's a leak?

[KDR_11k]

Look at the popular characters on TV. One of the recent big ones was a cynical doctor with a lame leg and drug addiction. People just prefer seemingly average people doing great things over superheroes.

Re:There's a leak?

[Fotograf]

Mario most popular? Lame characters popular? where fits over perfect Duke Nukem to your theory?

Re:There's a leak?

[Rude Turnip]

This would also explain why Ron Jeremy is the most popular male pr0n star.

Re:There's a leak?

[Fuzzypig]

Yes, they're fallable and more human, ergo easier to relate to the character if they are more like you and me. Just like you and me, you know that at any moment that character could be mentally "broken" just like you and me. Why do you think people still sit and watch soap-operas on TV? Superheroes are obviously fantasy and bear no resemblance to anyone we all know, like fairy tales or Disney cartoons we all liked as kids.

Re:There's a leak?

[Ivan Stepaniuk]

Recentrly, Spain's Plumbers association honored Mario "For 28 Years Of Plumbing Accomplishments"

Re:There's a leak?

[RavenofNi]

Duke, for all his shining attributes, was not perfect; even he ran out of gum.

Re:There's a leak?

[jgtg32a]

Basically, I've always hated Superman, but I started to like him a bit more after I saw Kill Bill, they had a nice conversation about him.

Re:There's a leak?

[Totenglocke]

Superman and every DC character I can think of are held back from being REALLY cool by the fact that they tend to be wimps. Even Batman, as cool as he is, would rather let countless people die as Joker / the Riddler / Poison Ivy / every other villain kills away than to just grow some balls and finish the villain off. That's not "valuing life" (if he valued it, he'd want to stop psychos from killing innocent people - he doesn't, he just temporarily detains them), that's being afraid to do what's necessary.

Re:There's a leak?

[Totenglocke]

One of the recent big ones was a cynical doctor with a lame leg and drug addiction.

I think you meant "One of the recent big ones was a completely honest doctor with a lame leg and takes prescription pain killers for the pain his lame leg causes him".

Sorry, but it really irks me when people call House a drug addict when it's been clearly shown that he's not (when his leg was temporarily better from the end of season 2 through early season 3, he didn't take any Vicodin - if he was addicted, he'd have continued to take Vicodin even after the pain was gone). Also, it bugs me that people call being honest about shitty things "cynical", but that's a lesser annoyance.

Re:There's a leak?

[jgtg32a]

Yeah, I would love to see a Superman where, he does the right thing but gets smacked down by the law for doing it, and he has a lot of trouble fitting into society

Re:There's a leak?

[Totenglocke]

Seeing as how the law allows for use of lethal force in dangerous situations, I don't see many situations where Superman would be in the wrong for killing Lex Luthor.

Re:There's a leak?

[tool462]

Personally, I think it's a all just a conspiracy perpetrated by Big Mafia.

Re:There's a leak?

[AK Marc]

In most places, it's essentially an affirmative defense. You don't have the "right" to kill to protect someone. But if you commit homicide while protecting yourself from similar harm, you can use that as a defense (and if the cops think it will work, they won't arrest). Many places do not allow you to use deadly force to protect a stranger away from your home. They discourage vigilantism, and so the law doesn't always include protections. I'd imagine that Lex's lawyers would win a civil lawsuit against Superman, and would get discovery of his secret identity and such in the process. And I think that many places would hold Superman criminally responsible for much of what he does when he isn't harming anyone, let alone if he just vaporized everyone that threatened anyone else. Can you imagine him breaking up a bank robbery by decapitating the robbers at super-speed? That'd get him worse press than Hitchcock. At least he tried to help without harming anyone.

Re:There's a leak?

[Totenglocke]

I'd imagine that Lex's lawyers would win a civil lawsuit against Superman, and would get discovery of his secret identity and such in the process.

Only if Superman is enough of a pussy to let them. He's fucking Superman. It's not like anyone can make him do anything. That's how laws work - because the government will use the force of the police and military to make you do things. If you are more powerful than the police and military, then you are not bound by the law.

Re:There's a leak?

[AK Marc]

He's fucking Superman.

Well, if Mr. Truth, Justice, and the American Way (tm) tells them to take their truth and justice and shove it up their American way, then yes. And that was the point. He'd either have to break the law, or not do what he does in the comics (and even worse if he turns into the vigilante killer that was being mentioned). He's a good guy, and they follow the laws, so he'd have to be a law-breaking good guy. More like a flying alien Punisher.

If you are more powerful than the police and military, then you are not bound by the law.

You are confusing two independent ideas. He's bound by the law and can't be held to it at the same time. He either operates within it or not. Which makes him either bound by it and subservient to it (even if only by choice), or he's an outlaw (which is still a legal status defined by laws and his willingness to break them). The law doesn't stop applying just because the punishments couldn't be enforced against him.

Re:There's a leak?

[Totenglocke]

He's a good guy, and they follow the laws, so he'd have to be a law-breaking good guy.

No, good guys follow justice. Any adult should be well aware of the fact that the law and justice often are not the same thing (I'd go so far as to say that they're rarely the same thing, but that's another issue). Just about every superhero, including Superman, operates outside the law. Someone who "follows the laws" without thinking is how you get the foot soldiers in dictatorships who claim "I was just doing what I was told / following the law".

The law doesn't stop applying just because the punishments couldn't be enforced against him.

Yes, yes it does stop applying because it can't be enforced. As I pointed out above, many laws are horribly unjust, therefore in order to be just, you must break the law (such as people who helped slaves escape to freedom back in the old days) - you're only bound by the law if they can punish you. It's like when the League of Nations tried to outlaw war after WWI - they had no power to enforce their "laws", therefore no one had a reason to follow it.

Re:There's a leak?

[AK Marc]

No, good guys follow justice. Any adult should be well aware of the fact that the law and justice often are not the same thing (I'd go so far as to say that they're rarely the same thing, but that's another issue). Just about every superhero, including Superman, operates outside the law. Someone who "follows the laws" without thinking is how you get the foot soldiers in dictatorships who claim "I was just doing what I was told / following the law".

Then I have no idea what the point of this thread is. Either he's within the law, and constrained by it, or he's outside the law and independent of it, and will be sued/tried in absentia and lose every case. You state he's not going to follow the law. But that wouldn't stop the DA or Lex's family from filing against him and wining criminal convictions and default judgements. In which case, Superman would be a criminal on the run, and all his human friends that might know his secret could be in definite trouble for not turning in Clark Kent. And, despite the "we don't follow unjust laws" chant, when he's convicted of murder in absentia, Lex's family will run PR spots to make Superman out to be a villain.

The short of it is that what I think people were hinting at, that Superman couldn't exist as he does in the comics, working with and for the law. It just isn't possible in today's society.

And "justice" is a meaningless word that isn't a part of the language anymore. People mean it in so many different ways, some directly contradictory, that it's useless. One man's unjust revenge is another man's justice. So saying he's for "justice" gives no more meaning that saying he's sponsored by the letter "k" and the number "6". Sure, it's a label, but it is useless in predicting behavior (or even in describing past behavior).

Re:There's a leak?

[biovoid]

There's being honest, and then there's hobbling about all day complaining about shitty things and sometimes even compounding them, without doing anything at all to improve the situation. I think "cynical" is an apt label for that, among others.

Proportionality.

[headkase]

There should be some kind of proportion to the damages, seriously that amount ruins an ordinary person for the rest of their life. Did the court deliberately set out to give him a life sentence of sorts? And if the amounts are to be set at company rates for individuals he should have his own choice just to do some time for it. Seriously, go on a walk for 3 years and move on in your life instead of being sentenced to financial death for the rest of your natural time.

Re:Proportionality.

[Grantbridge]

That's why bankruptcy laws were introduced!

Re:Proportionality.

[Chrisq]

Well he might as well take his credit cards and have a big party now .... nothing to loose

Re:Proportionality.

[Anonymous Coward]

In most countries bankruptcy does not delete money owed in judgements. I don't know how that works in Australia though.

Re:Proportionality.

[twoshortplanks]

Break this down on a personal level - if someone takes a mallet to my car, I'm going to sue them for the value of the damage to the car, i.e. what it costs to compensate me for the damage they caused. If someone burns down my house, I should be able to sue them for the value of the house. The loss they have caused is not mitigated by the ability they have to pay for it.

Now, if you're going down these lines you need to separate out the punitive damages from the actual damages. The former should be taken in context of the ability for the person to pay (i.e. if you're suing a multinational, you expect punitive damages significant enough for them to sit up and take notice.) The later should probably not be.

Re:Proportionality.

[GF678]

You have a point. BUT... the guy didn't just trip over and somehow end up leaking the game by accident. He made a conscious decision to do what he did, knowing full well it could land him in hot water. It was an easily avoidable situation which he chose to place himself into, and paid the price. A very high price, and probably an immoral price, but he made his choice.

Re:Proportionality.

[Blue23]

here should be some kind of proportion to the damages, seriously that amount ruins an ordinary person for the rest of their life. Did the court deliberately set out to give him a life sentence of sorts? And if the amounts are to be set at company rates for individuals he should have his own choice just to do some time for it. Seriously, go on a walk for 3 years and move on in your life instead of being sentenced to financial death for the rest of your natural time.

Your suggestion seems to be setting the amount as punishment, not as restitution for lost sales. Now, I think the $1.5 million in lost sales is highly debatable, but I would think that whatever amount is awarded should be to recover the amount of lost sales, not a punitive amount as punishment that's scaled to what the person makes.

To flip this around, if someone committed a premeditated violent crime that they are sentenced to jail for 20 years, I wouldn't expect them to reduce the sentence for a 70 year old because "20 years might be all he's got left, it's a life sentence" vs. the 25 year old who committed the same crime.

Re:Proportionality.

[Anonymous Coward]

In AU, there is the very rare "Part X" bankruptcy, which does wipe all debts completely after a decade or so. It's mostly intended for people who somehow owe so much money that they will never pay it off (happens a lot more that you would think, since eg. banks force people such as directors to be jointly and severally responsible personally for company debts even when acting with due diligence, and so on).

It does have serious downsides (something pretty close to "no more credit, ever", plus an awful lot of disqualifications from holding office in a corporation, and so on), so no lawyer or financial adviser will ever suggest it. Other types of individual bankruptcy are usually recommended instead; no other alternative ever voids or reduces (court-registered) debts.

Basically, if you owe less than a few million dollars, bankruptcy won't get you out of paying it eventually.

On the other hand, in this case, his choices are essentially:
1) Do prison time for copyright infringement. Have the stigma of being a criminal for years (or sometimes forever). Maybe get slapped with a civil judgment also, see (2)
2) Declare Part X bankruptcy. Have the stigma of being a bankruptee years (or sometimes forever).
3) Agree to pay millions in damages, probably over several decades.

I imagine his counsel recommended (3) as the best option, and he is very probably correct in the general case.

Re:Proportionality.

[jimicus]

I read TFA (I know, I know).

He hasn't actually been fined a single cent. The $1.5 million is an out of court settlement.

From what I understand (I don't know how true this is, IANAL), when settlements of this nature are made it's not uncommon for the company getting the settlement to make no real effort to actually get the money. They just wanted a big news headline saying "Man has been stung for $1.5 million for pirating our product".

Though if it's an out of court settlement, I daresay bankruptcy would probably make it go away altogether.

Re:Proportionality.

[DaveV1.0]

There is a proportion to the damages. It has nothing to do with what the perpetrator has, owns, or makes. It has to do with the damage to the victim. He took a game that was expected to sell 15 million copies and illegally released it on the internet. Then, when the game was released, it sold 10 million copies. The damages should be the profit from those 5 million unsold games. $1.5 million seems fair to me.

You act like James Burt is the victim, but he is not. He is the perpetrator. He doesn't get to chose his punishment, the state does.

There is an old saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Well, we can update it with "If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime."

Were you born a asshole or have you worked at it your whole life?

Re:Proportionality.

[whatajoke]

To flip this around, if someone committed a premeditated violent crime that they are sentenced to jail for 20 years, I wouldn't expect them to reduce the sentence for a 70 year old because "20 years might be all he's got left, it's a life sentence" vs. the 25 year old who committed the same crime.

Old age is considered all the time in parole hearings. Also, if you think $1.5x10^6 is an appropriate fine for a middle class fellow, why is that the upper class never gets fined for robbing the middle class of money to the tune of 10^12? If you are fine with that double standard, then you can blow me.

Re:Proportionality.

[DaveV1.0]

No, that is not why bankruptcy laws were introduced. Maybe you should go read a book on the subject before showing your ignorance to the world.

Re:Proportionality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the laws. Taxes and Court Ordered restitution aren't always able to be written off in bankruptcy. However, they can take it into account. He has to be allowed ot live (food, clothing, roof over his head) - all within reason. They can enter judgment against him for the rest of the money he makes.

If they so chose. Out of court settlements - really depends on the terms of the settlement and if he gave up his right to allow it to be written off in bankruptcy.

Re:Proportionality.

[arkenian]

Its damages. Distributing the game before release can impact more than simply overall long-term sales (which I agree were probably not greatly affected), a lot can depend on the success of any product in its first week of sales etc. Frankly I have limited sympathy with anyone who pirates a game before it is officially released, and I would fully expect the damages to be significantly higher than if the game were pirated a week after release. Nintendo had gone to some effort, I'm sure, to ensure that various facilities got to do 'first look' stuff etc. etc. etc. which this totally screwed up.

Re:Proportionality.

[Kjella]

There should be some kind of proportion to the damages, (...) Seriously, go on a walk for 3 years and move on in your life instead of being sentenced to financial death for the rest of your natural time.

Games can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, Modern Warfare 2 has passed the billion. It is very possible that 1.5 million dollars is in proportion to the damages. What good does prison time do to recover those? If a homeless guy vandalizes my car either I or my insurance company will have to eat the cost, I don't get anything back from him doing jail time. But if that guy ever wins the lottery I want them to take the money and pay me back no matter how long time has passed. That it's a company doesn't really matter, if you ruined my small time business it'd be exactly the same. That Nintendo is a huge publicly owned company just means that the damages are smeared thin across all the stock holders, but they are still equally valid and should be collected on if at all possible.

Re:Proportionality.

[headkase]

I was born an asshole. You obviously could be more familiar with the warez scene. The reason I see this punishment as extra-ordinary is because it is nothing. It is like grabbing one person who is jay-walking and putting him in front of a firing squad while thousands more are doing it at the same time on the same street. The issue is systemic and singling him out makes for great headlines but it is not justice.

Re:Proportionality.

[Rich0]

Also - if he did write off the settlement in bankruptcy, would Nintendo be able to sue him again, since the original settlement no longer stands? I have no idea how Austrailian law works...

Re:Proportionality.

[KDR_11k]

I think those sales numbers need to be put into perspective again: Nintendo's expectations were likely for the lifetime of the game and it only reached the 10M number last month, there's still a lot of time for it to go to reach the 15M or surpass it. While most games do their sales in the first month this is New Super Mario Bros Wii we're talking about, the previous NSMB game remained in the top-10 for over a year so we can expect a lot of sales to come at a later date.

Re:Proportionality.

[DaveV1.0]

No, it is not like that, not even close, and the fact you believe that shows your first sentence to be true.

Re:Proportionality.

[Blue23]

Also, if you think $1.5x10^6 is an appropriate fine for a middle class fellow, why is that the upper class never gets fined for robbing the middle class of money to the tune of 10^12? If you are fine with that double standard, then you can blow me.

Not sure that I should respond to such an obvious troll, but I will in case you are serious.

I said that the damages should fit the crime, not the perpetrator. If someone does a crime with damages 10^12 then that's what they should be responsible for. You are the one putting the middle class and upper class labels on it - that's irrelevant for what I'm saying. If you do the crime, prepare to make restitution no matter what class you are.

Now, I'll admit it's a real shame that those with money have more opportunity exploit loopholes and not be responsible for their actions. I think everyone should be responsible for what they do. But that means that no one should be given a free pass, be it because they have enough money to bend the system or because they don't have enough money to cover the costs of their actions.

'Course, I want a pony, too. And human nature being what it is, that's more likely then everyone being responsible for their actions.

Re:Curious...

[thefear]

a week ahead of its official Australian release

Australian game releases typically lag behind other regions.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[hanako]

Ignoring your rude suggestions (Slashdotters don't like women? What a surprise!) the exact money figure is mostly a distraction from the issue. If he's done something *actually wrong*, then the fact that he can't pay the fine shouldn't mean that he gets off scot free. If he's done something that ISN'T wrong, then the fine being a thousand instead of a million makes little difference.

Re:Satoru Iwata, wtf?

[KDR_11k]

Meh, teaches him consequences. Do bad things, get punished. Maybe his parents should've taught him that lesson before he learned it the hard way.

Instead of homebrew, get an Aspire Revo

[tepples]

or buy additional devices to perform the functions that homebrew would achieve on a console

I have run Wii homebrew once or twice, but now I really don't see the point. Back in the days of the original Xbox, a lot of people used to buy Xbox consoles just to run XBMC or other homebrew. That's no longer necessary now that Acer makes the Aspire Revo, a $200 PC the size of a Wii that runs a standard Windows or Linux operating system. Depending on the TV, you can use a $40 VGA-to-composite cable or a $10 HDMI cable.

Re:Instead of homebrew, get an Aspire Revo

[marcansoft]

Both the Xbox1 and the Wii can run Linux. On the Wii nowadays this means using BootMii + Mini, which is a completely new framework that has no relation to any Nintendo code (though strictly speaking it isn't cleanroom, as we didn't go through the cleanroom process which involves having separate teams write a spec and implement the software to it). This is a completely legal setup as far as we know.

"Native" Xbox1 homebrew (running on the Microsoft kernel) uses the Microsoft SDK, which makes binaries illegal to distribute. Most "Native" Wii homebrew (using Nintendo's IOS) uses a "homebrew" library (libogc) that is derived from a decompiled version of the Nintendo Gamecube SDK (exceptions: exploit stuff which is based on segher's Twilight Hack codebase, TinyLoad which also is, little else), so effectively most Wii homebrew binaries are also illegal. However, the author of this decompilation pretend the code was an original work of his for a long time, and by the time we found out just how ripped it was everyone and their mom was using this library, so the net result is that most know that the resulting Wii binaries are about as illegal as the Xbox1 ones, but everyone pretends they aren't and they are happily distributed through "official" channels.

No, I don't approve of the latter.

Re:Instead of homebrew, get an Aspire Revo

[tepples]

I'm interested. Is there a web page where these legal problems with libogc are documented in detail, or is it all in private IRC logs and deleted-due-to-expiry forum posts?

Re:Instead of homebrew, get an Aspire Revo

[marcansoft]

It's mostly IRC logs, but I can put up a more detailed report if you're interested.

The gist is that libogc can be mostly broken down like this:

• "Imported" libraries like lwip, lwbt, wiiuse, etc. that were developed separately and then merged into the tree. These should be OK
• LWP threading system. I think a bit of this might have some remnants of the Nintendo stuff (maybe in exception handlers or the like), but most of it is shagkur's original work. As a threading system it totally sucks, but that's better than being illegal.
• New Wii stuff to interface with IOS. This can be broken down into basically stuff shagkur (the "author" of libogc) "wrote" by decompiling the Wii SDK, and stuff that everyone else wrote. Thankfully the former isn't too much and could be replaced given some effort.
• The old Gamecube drivers. This is where the huge problem lies. Stuff like handling of pads, memory cards, EXI/SPI devices (RTC, ROM, etc.), audio, DSP, video, graphics, and even the matrix math library. These are all inherited in Wii mode and required. The problems range from identical APIs but different code (not too common), through mostly manually decompiled code with the same APIs (most of it), to straight ripped assembly code (matrix math library and a few system tidbits) and at least one binary blob ripped verbatim from Nintendo (the DSP program to perform memory card unlocking).

The big fat problem is the GX driver (graphics). Everything else could be replaced with little to average effort, and the hardware is documented enough to get it to work.

Personally, though, once the large obstacle that is legal GX is overcome, I'd advocate developing an entirely new system from scratch, based on Linux or eCos or some other embedded OS, working on top of mini and ditching Nintendo's IOS. I've tried to get people interested in such a project for quite a while but haven't really found any significant support, and by now I've mostly move away from the Wii and on to other systems.

Re:Instead of homebrew, get an Aspire Revo

[Bert64]

As i said, to avoid having to buy additional devices...
That $200 PC is unlikely to be very good for gaming, and few (if any) of the games will be designed for a wii style control method.
Some of us might want both wii games *and* a media player without having to buy multiple devices.

And just because you can...

And most importantly, for the principle of it - you buy the device, you don't rent it, you should be able to use it for any purpose you see fit

Re:Indecent Proposal

[Procasinator]

The average wage in Queensland is $61,464 (figures from around 2009). So, the average person would earn that in his lifetime (around 25 years working).

Of course, I don't what he is earning, but he is more likely to make that much in a life then not, assuming people on average work for 25+ years (fair enough assumption).

In US$, this would be closer to 1.3 million.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[Darkon]

the exact money figure is mostly a distraction from the issue. If he's done something *actually wrong*, then the fact that he can't pay the fine shouldn't mean that he gets off scot free.

No it should mean that the punishment reflects both the harm done and his ability to pay, unless you're saying that what he did really does merit the punishment of lifetime bankruptcy. It should cut the other way too: if he'd been rich he should have been fined more.

Re:Satoru Iwata, wtf?

[lxs]

You mean:
Do bad things->Get caught->Get punished.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

What a heap of ill thought-out bullshit.

The defendant not having enough money isn't a valid reason for giving him a fine that, to him, is an economical death-sentence. "Scot free" doesn't even enter it. Why should a multimilionaire get a slap on the wrist if even that, and a poor guy get the economical death-sentence for the same crime? And is this a "crime" that really should carry the economical deathpenalty? Should any offence? Is it even consistent with human rights and the constitution of the United States?

(Yes, I know this wasn't a criminal case, but we're discussing principles here.)

Re:Curious...

[Farmer Tim]

Australian game releases typically lag behind other regions.

Australia: kicked from the world for unacceptable latency.

New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[adosch]

Nintendo is going to do what any other software mongrel in the free world is going to do when their production is illegally propagated to the masses. However, let's not overshadow the fact that the New Super Mario Bros Wii game did sell over 10 million copies as pointed out a little over 2 weeks ago.

Just for fun, I'd like to see what Nintendo's exterior argument was from 'loosing sales' because, clearly, they capitalized on the sales aspect and in any retail store I've been in recently in my area, even a month or better past the holiday season, has the game completely sold out.

Furthermore, pirating a game like New Super Mario Bros Wii, to me, seems quite contradictory. It's $50 in the store, but it's not like you don't get the gameplay you desire out of it. My wife and I have had this game since late Decemeber 2009 and we've played it daily ever since. With 8 regular levels and 8 unlockable coin levels to conquer, all the easter eggs to discover and the nostaliga of getting to play a killer 2-D game again on a modern-day gaming console, if you don't think that's worth your $50, I pitty you.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[nedlohs]

I remember people who pirated Quake 2 and then played it for 2 hours a day for the next 3 years - I don't think value for money enters the equation.

There's also the "getting the game before the release" aspect that people seem to like.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

The question is how many would have sold if the game was not put out for unauthorized and illegal copying? It could have been 10 million and 1, or it could have been 20 million.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[Totenglocke]

The people who are going to download instead of paying are not the people who will go to the store and buy a game - they think that they're overpriced and if piracy wasn't an option, they just wouldn't play it.

I've always paid for games until recently when I got pirated copies of a few games - not because I didn't feel that the game was worth the money, but because of the DRM involved. Hell, I even had conversations with employees at the companies where I told them flat out "I WANT to buy your game, but your bullshit-DRM you use to rape your customers stops me from buying it". What developers need to do (since it's publishers like EA / 2K / Activision who force DRM on developers) is make a way to "donate" directly to the developer - that way people can get a DRM-free version of the game AND reward the team who made it without rewarding the asshole publisher who forced the DRM in.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[kramerd]

The number of copies actually sold is irrelevant. The damages from releasing without having the right to release is the problem.

First of all, nintendo hires good lawyers, who would spell check their complaint, and would complain about losing sales, not "loosing" them (I don't care what part of englandindiaturkmenistan you come from, how the hell do people keep making this error that first graders who are still learning the alphabet wouldn't?). Furthermore, the claim that releasing a game without permission to the general public causes lost sales is about as valid as a claim gets. The fact that none of these sales generated money for nintendo is legally irrelevant; its about the ability to control intangible assets of a corporation. Nintendo's case, to put it in football terms, isn't just a blowout, its GT vs Cumberland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Cumberland_vs._Georgia_Tech_football_game).

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[adosch]

Thank you Slashdot grammer troll. Go back to your cave and color.

As sarcastic but as serious as I can be, spellcheck is spellcheck, not grammer check. But hey, you're the Slashdot grammer troll, you must have known that. Since we're pointing out eachother's English grammer mistakes, perhaps you should learn how to capitalize your proper nouns (e.g. 2nd paragraph, "nintendo" is a company, trademark or organization). Remember, you started it, not me.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[kramerd]

The first point I made was simply to establish your lack of credibility. You placed "loosing" in quotes, meaning that you purposefully chose the incorrect spelling, and thus the incorrect meaning. The meaning of nintendo is not changed by the lack of capitalization. The meaning of loose vs lose is of considerable importance.

It is clear that if I had only made my second point, you would have had no response (instead of acknowledging your error, which you have yet to do). Instead, you turn this into a grammar war, which was not my intent.

Reread my post and get the message, which is that nintendo is correct in asserting that they have lost sales due to criminal activity. Try to stay on topic next time (just because no one else does doesn't mean you can't).

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

they think that they're overpriced and if piracy wasn't an option, they just wouldn't play it.

Unfortunately, that is not true. They would save up for the game, or buy it on credit, or even wait to buy it used. Stealing/pirating/illegally copying something is not justified because said thing has DRM or one thinks said thing is overpriced. The fact that you would do so says a lot about you and your childish, selfish morals.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[adosch]

My lack of credibility for... posting my opinion on Slashdot at 0600 AM CT about a Wii game and making a grammatical typo in the process? Again, go back to your cave. I have no more credibility than your baseless dong-swinging contest you're pulling now.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[Totenglocke]

The people that pirate due to not wanting to pay will never pay. You're lying to yourself if you think that they will. But then again, you approve of DRM, which says something about your morals, so you think that people can be forced to pay for something that they don't find to be worth buying. It also says something very bad about your morals that you think standing up for peoples rights is "childish". I guess we should all just do what our good masters tell us to, eh?

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

If it is not worth buying, then it should not be worth having. There are always some people will not buy what they can get for free or steal. Been that way forever.

You are not standing up for anyone's rights. You do not have a right to other people's work. That is what makes you childish. You want something but don't want to do what it takes to get it legally, so you steal. Just because you don't like DRM, you don't have a right to make illegal copies. If you don't like the DRM, don't use the fucking software. If you don't want to pay the asking price, don't use the fucking software. Is that so hard to comprehend?

That "masters" comment is just bullshit. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you don't like the price, don't buy it and don't use it. If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it and don't use it. No one is forcing you to buy the software, so quit your whiny bitching and the stupid red-herring comments, grow the fuck up and act like a man for a change.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[Totenglocke]

Ever hear of a little something called "civil disobedience"? It's a method of protest for enacting change. I gladly pay for quality things (hence my hundreds of movies I've purchased as well as shelves of video games I've purchased). However, I'm NOT going to pay someone to fuck me over. So while it's wrong to pirate (yes, I'll openly say it, and I always have), they were in the wrong first by trying to dick over their paying customers and also kill off the used games market at the same time.

If you don't want to pay the asking price, don't use the fucking software. Is that so hard to comprehend?

If you bothered to read you'd know that I DO want to pay the asking price. What I DON'T want is some jackass company thinking that they have the right to control my property. They're not getting my money for being assholes and using DRM, so if they're not making money from me anyways, why not download it and enjoy the game I wanted to pay for and they wanted to fuck me over for paying for it?

The problem is with DRM supporters like you, not with the people who gladly pay for items but have the intelligence to value property rights.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

What you are doing is not civil disobedience, it is merely theft for greed's sake.

No, you do not want to pay the price, part of which is having the DRM installed as well. You don't want "some jackass company thinking that they have the right to control my property", don't use their fucking software, shithead. Is that so fucking hard? Oh, wait, once again, you want something from someone on your terms and if you are not going to get it on your terms, you are going to break the law and violate their rights.

Your "property rights" don't give you the right to steal from others and if people like you would quit stealing from companies, then DRM wouldn't exist. All your "property rights" give you is the right to not use products that you don't like.

why not download it and enjoy the game I wanted to pay for and they wanted to fuck me over for paying for it?

Because you didn't pay for it and it is wrong to do so. You have heard of right and wrong, right? By the way, you statement is a fallacy "Two wrongs make a right". No, two wrongs don't make a right, it makes two wrongs.

By the way, you do not know my opinion of DRM, so quit assigning me one, shithead.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[Totenglocke]

Copyright infringement is not theft. I'm not going to buy Bioshock 2 - if I download it, how is 2K losing money? That's right, they didn't. Now if I walk into a store and steal a copy, it cost them money to produce everything in that box, so they are losing money.

By the way, you do not know my opinion of DRM, so quit assigning me one, shithead.

The fact that you are so violently defending the use of DRM says your opinion of DRM perfectly clear.

Did I ever say that pirating was right? No, I clearly stated that it's wrong. However, I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt at screwing over a company who wants to fuck over their paying customers. Just like I don't feel bad for being a dick to assholes who tailgate. If you want me to be nice to you and play by the rules, then you have to be nice and play by the rules. The second you want to be a dick, I'll get in your face.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

Or it could have been 8 million. Since you are making numbers up, I can make up some too. I assert (with proof, or even evidence of any kind) that the illegal pirating of the game led to 2 million more copies sold than if they didn't get the free publicity from all the pirates. See, the "lets make up numbers game" is fun.

And I guess, from the logic of people here, Nintendo owes him $100,000,000 for the extra games sold.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

If it is not worth buying, then it should not be worth having.

How do you know until you have it?

There are always some people will not buy what they can get for free or steal. Been that way forever.

And there have been people that have stolen things they do not want and would never buy, it's been that way forever too.

You do not have a right to other people's work.

Sure he does. That's what copyright is. The creator gives the work away to the Public Domain, so everyone has a right to it. For someone so opinionated and vocal on this, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the basic premise of copyright.

If you don't want to pay the asking price, don't use the fucking software. Is that so hard to comprehend?

That doesn't seem to be an argument dealing with the subject at hand. It isn't about what you think someone else should or shouldn't do. It's about what they would or wouldn't do. You are apparently projecting your personal beliefs onto others, then determining that they are wrong, without ever listening or understanding what they are saying. You are telling them what they think, in direct contradiction to what they are saying they are thinking. You must think everyone who doesn't say they think like you actually does think like you and lies about it.

If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it and don't use it.

And what if they think DRM is illegal because it infringes on their consumer rights, and they do no more than necessary to restore their legally granted rights? DRM's removal of the right of first sale and such has never made it to the Supreme Court, and so far, I don't think anyone's managed to win a case that removed that right. You are telling people that they are wrong to fight for their rights. Sure, they might not fight the way you'd like, but that doesn't change the message you send. I guess you only want rights that you like, and the rights you don't like no one else should have.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[bunkymag]

Thanks for that.. "software mongrel" has to be my favourite new insult!

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

Not stealing?

Did you have it before? No.
Do you have it now? Yes.
Did they give it to you? No.
Did you pay for it? No.

Sounds like stealing to me. What is it like to be an admitted thief?

If you think it is wrong, and you still do it, then you are hypocrite with no ethics. The only ones being a dick are you and people like you. That is why you all lose in court, you are selfish dicks who think if they want something they deserve it and it is OK to steal it if they can't get it on their terms.

They are losing the profit from a sale. Your whole argument is the broken window fallacy upside down.

By your arguments, all the companies should be allowed to "get in your face", because you are being a dick to them by stealing their product.

And, here is the kicker. I bet if you spent years and thousands of dollars creating a piece of software to sell and you priced it so that it would give a reasonable return on investment if it sold close to your reasonable projections, then someone put it for download on the internet and the sales were cut by a third, you would be pissed off too. But, because you don't sell what you create for a living, you don't give a shit about anyone else.

You are a selfish, pathetic, whining parasite with no ethics.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

How about we use the numbers provided in another article, which stated the estimated sales were 15 million and the actual sales were 10 million?

Now we have firm numbers on my side. Provide firm numbers on your or shut the fuck up.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

How do you know until you have it?

So, it would be OK for me to steal your car or money to see if I like it, right? More importantly, who do you know you will like any particular restaurant meal, food stuff, movie, etc. until you try it? Does that make it OK to walk out on bills, eat food in the grocery with out paying for it, sneak into a movie, etc.? Do you believe you have a right to steal underwear to see if you like it, and then go back and pay for the shirt later? That is why there are reviews, game previews, etc., so you can see if you might like it. You take your chances. Ever heard the phrase "Let the buyer beware"? It means do your research before you buy. Stealing, or illegal copying, is not doing research.

And there have been people that have stolen things they do not want and would never buy, it's been that way forever too.

Please name the cases where someone has stolen things he did not want and would never buy for his personal use, which is the case we are talking about.

Sure he does. That's what copyright is. The creator gives the work away to the Public Domain, so everyone has a right to it. For someone so opinionated and vocal on this, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the basic premise of copyright.

I am but apparently you are not, or at least you are not able to use basic reading comprehension to ascertain the context. Here, let me spell it out for you as you seem incapable of understanding the conversation:

You do not have a right to someone else's work while said someone still has legally granted copyright control of said work.

There, happy now?

That doesn't seem to be an argument dealing with the subject at hand. It isn't about what you think someone else should or shouldn't do. It's about what they would or wouldn't do. You are apparently projecting your personal beliefs onto others, then determining that they are wrong, without ever listening or understanding what they are saying. You are telling them what they think, in direct contradiction to what they are saying they are thinking. You must think everyone who doesn't say they think like you actually does think like you and lies about it.

No, I am using what he actually said. He said violating copyright is wrong. He then said that he violates copyrights when he does not want to use software that installs DRM, but installing the DRM is part of the price of using the software.

And what if they think DRM is illegal because it infringes on their consumer rights, and they do no more than necessary to restore their legally granted rights?

Then, if you really think something is illegal, you go to court and prove it. You don't buy or use the software. DRM is not illegal, as it has not be declared such by law or court. You do not have a right to the software. No one is forcing you to use it. If you don't like the conditions of use of the software, you don't use the software. Those are your consumer rights. You don't have any legally granted "consumer rights" to violate other people's copyright, which is what this whole thread is about. Please, show me legislation or legal judicial opinion that states you have a legally granted right to violate someone copyright.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

How about we use the numbers provided in another article, which stated the estimated sales were 15 million and the actual sales were 10 million?

You said, "It could have been 10 million and 1, or it could have been 20 million." You made up numbers. So I made up numbers. Apparently, you like to make up numbers, say we don't know the numbers, and then get mad at others that do exactly what you did. Why is that?

Now we have firm numbers on my side. Provide firm numbers on your or shut the fuck up.

Fuck you, you arrogant little prick. You have no numbers on your side. There are no sides. You played the "make up a number" game, and I joined in. My side is the truth, and since you chimed in that your side is not my side, then that means you are a liar and proud of it, otherwise you should figure out what sides you are talking about before making such declarations.

And getting numbers that were made up by Nintendo, or someone paid by them, is less reliable than your or my guesses. And I've never seen any numbers for losses done by anyone that didn't receive money directly from Nintendo or someone who works for someone that was paid by Nintendo. They were free to invent any number they like, and would get there with impeccable math, but with assumptions that are shit. Really, they think that 1/3 of all users of the game pirated it? That means one of two things. Either their anti-piracy measures are completely useless, where 33% of people have already broken them and only play illegal games, and they are annoying the paying users with DRM, or they made up completely unrealistic numbers because there is no funded pro-piracy group that will come up with a report proving otherwise.

Given my experience, I'd say that 33% pirated numbers are massively overstated. And since those are "lost sales" rather than just pirated copies (remember, someone that wouldn't pay for it or would only buy it used isn't a lost sale), that would make the actual pirated number at 50% or more. If they are admitting that all the work they did on DRM and it doesn't even have a 50% success rate, they are either incompetent at creating DRM, incompetent at creating believable pirate rates, or both.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[Totenglocke]

You cannot steal something intangible - there are infinite copies of digital content that cost nothing to reproduce. So here's how your story goes for copying a file...

Did you have it before? No.

Do you have it now? Yes.

Do they still have it? Yes.

Did they lose any money? No.

Now, if you still have your car but I now have one exactly like it because I clicked a button and a copy of it appeared, did I steal your car? No, I didn't. There cannot be theft if there is no loss.

They are NOT losing a profit from a sale by me downloading a DRM-ed game because I will not buy DRM-ed games. By your logic, every time that you walk past something in the store and don't buy it, you are causing them to "lose a sale" and are "stealing". That's not how it works.

DRM is not about stopping piracy - many companies have essentially admitted it. It's about killing used game sales. I've told you before, I am glad to pay for quality products - however, when an asshole company wants to sell you something and then have some code to rig it so that they keep ownership of it and can take it away from you, then that is not worth paying for and the company should be shut down for theft.

You are a parasite who thinks that everyone should be forced to have no rights and that it's ok for companies to rape their customers. That's why you lie and claim that when the company makes the same amount of money from me ($0) due to using DRM, that it's "stealing" for me to download a copy of it (they still make $0 because I won't buy DRM infested shit like you do).

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

So, it would be OK for me to steal your car or money to see if I like it, right?

It would be ok to deprive the dealership of the use of their car to see if you like it. They call those "test drives." You should drop in sometime and see if they'll let you "test drive" a car. You see, all other items on the planet can be tried before they are bought, or, if you buy them and they are not as described, can be returned. That is, other than software, where they have a "if you can read this, you already gave up all your rights, including the right to sue, the right of first sale, the right to a working product, and all other rights that interfere with our right to profit" pop up after you install it, which you are bound to before you even install it.

More importantly, who do you know you will like any particular restaurant meal, food stuff, movie, etc. until you try it?

Try to get a refund within the first 10 minutes of a movie. I've never heard of a first-run theater in the US that would turn you down. Ever send a plate back in a restaurant? I have. You pick something else, or get it deducted from the bill. And a large amount of the foodstuffs have "if dissatisfied, return to this address for a full refund" and I've taken bad milk and such back to the store and never had a problem. It seems that most goods, other than software, are easily returnable and have some guarantee that they will work the way you expect them to.

Please name the cases where someone has stolen things he did not want and would never buy for his personal use, which is the case we are talking about.

1) Most teenage shoplifting.

There, happy now?

Nope. For one, you are changing the original statement greatly. Many creators have the impression that they "own" the work. At best, they have a temporary $0 lease on it. You were using the absolutes that are 100% wrong. A copyright is not a right.

He then said that he violates copyrights when he does not want to use software that installs DRM, but installing the DRM is part of the price of using the software.

That's just insane. You are telling me that if I buy a book and read the ending first, that I violated copyright by using a work in a manner they didn't like? They sold me one and only one copy of a work with the right to use it. The manner in which I use it is unrelated to copyright. That laws have been passed with "copyright" in the title and are placed next to copyright laws in the books doesn't make them copyright laws. Copyright is a ban on unauthorized copying/distribution. There is no ban on unauthorized use of a properly licensed copy, and there is no allowance in copyright laws or principles that would make it illegal to read a book backwards. A properly licensed copy of a piece of software can not have the license of that copy revoked. No where in the concept of copyright has there ever been the idea that the work can only be used as the creator likes. At best, that's a contract issue. But yet, you state things that are in direct contradiction to the concept of copyright as if they are obviously covered by copyright.

Then, if you really think something is illegal, you go to court and prove it.

I can't. I can't go to court and sue because DRM inconvenienced me. I have to have a loss, and that loss must be something that wasn't compensated for. If I were to amass a $50,000,000 warchest (about the cheapest it would be to see this through to the Supreme Court), but a DRM game, then sue because my right of first sale was violated, they could give me the $50 back and it would get dismissed. I couldn't force it through the courts. You can't show up in court and say "I have no loss, but I think this is wrong, please hear my case." It would take the company that created the DRM suing me (or refusing to give back $50 to someone they know has $50,000,000 waiting to tie them up in a protracted legal battle) before I could get in front of a jud

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

No, shithead, I actually went out and found out what the expected sales were for the game.

"While in the short-term the Xbox 360 version of Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 may surpass New Super Mario Bros, in the long-term New Super Mario Bros will easily become the best selling title released in 2009 with expected lifetime sales exceeding 15 million units worldwide."

Please note that the numbers were made by research firm, and an independent one at that.

Your experience means nothing as it is based on nothing. And, your numbers and guesses mean nothing because they are based on nothing but your own ignorance. Go out and find some numbers by a research firm and get back to me, dumbass.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

It would be ok to deprive the dealership of the use of their car to see if you like it. They call those "test drives."

But, when you download software illegally, you are not test driving it. You are not going to make the purchase because you already have what you want. You stole pure and simple.

Please name the cases where someone has stolen things he did not want and would never buy for his personal use, which is the case we are talking about.

1) Most teenage shoplifting.

Support that with reputable facts and studies. Specifically, provide a reputable study that shows that teenagers shoplift things they do not want and do not plan to use in some way. That is what you said isn't it? That people steal what they don't want and don't plan to use?

Many creators have the impression that they "own" the work. At best, they have a temporary $0 lease on it. You were using the absolutes that are 100% wrong.

What they have is an exclusive monopoly on the work for a limited amount of time as specified by law. And, it is 100% wrong 100% of the time to make an illegal copy of a copyrighted work.

A copyright is not a right.

Oh, really? Then why is it called copyright? Why does the law use the words "right" and "rights" repeatedly. A right does not cease to be a right just because you don't want it to be a right.

That's just insane. You are telling me that if I buy a book and read the ending first, that I violated copyright by using a work in a manner they didn't like?

When you buy a book, you buy a book. You don't buy software. You buy a license to use the software. Maybe if you understood that, you would see that I am not insane but you are ignorant.

I can't. I can't go to court and sue because DRM inconvenienced me.

But, you think that inconvenience entitles you to violate other people's rights and break the law? That is what and the other dumbass are saying.

There is no ban on unauthorized use of a properly licensed copy, and there is no allowance in copyright laws or principles that would make it illegal to read a book backwards.

The license says you will install the DRM. If you fail to install the DRM, then it is not "properly licensed". That makes the rest of your argument moot.

So, you tell me, since you know everything about law and are giving me legal advice, how would I go about proving DRM to be illegal

I can't because it is not illegal. You think it is illegal, then prove it or shut the fuck up. Thanks for playing.

Fair Use. Done, what do I win? Do I have to play again to win the big stuffed animal?

Fair use does not violate copyright. Never has. Fair use is part of the copyright law which provides for legal copying, thus it is not a violation of the copyright holders rights. So, try again, dumbass.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

The only problem is you have no right to take the copy and as you have a copy you did not pay for and took, they have lost money from the lost sale. The theft lies in you getting the game and not paying for it. It is not "they didn't lose anything because I wouldn't have bought it", it is literally that you got something you were supposed to pay for and didn't. You are playing the game, yet you did not pay the creators of the game for the right to play the game.

By your logic, every time that you walk past something in the store and don't buy it, you are causing them to "lose a sale" and are "stealing".

No, because you are not deriving the benefits of the purchased item when you "walk past" the item. You are, however, deriving the benefits of the game without purchasing the game, thus depriving the game creators of their due.

You are NOT willing to pay the price which includes using/installing the DRM, asshole. By the way, you don't buy the software, asshole. You buy a license to use the software, asshole. Got it, asshole? YOU DO NOT OWN THE SOFTWARE, ONLY A LICENSE TO USE IT.

DRM is not about stopping piracy - many companies have essentially admitted it. It's about killing used game sales.

Then you will have no problem providing reputable references for that statement, specifically where companies have admitted such a thing. Or, you can shut the fuck up.

You are a parasite who thinks that everyone should be forced to have no rights and that it's ok for companies to rape their customers.

You have a right not to be a customer. And, you have rights as set out by law. You don't have a right to steal. Here is a neat idea: If you think a company is or is going to rape you, don't be a customer. Oh, wait, that wouldn't justify you being a asshole and getting something for nothing, which is also known as stealing.

That's why you lie and claim that when the company makes the same amount of money from me ($0) due to using DRM, that it's "stealing" for me to download a copy of it (they still make $0 because I won't buy DRM infested shit like you do).

It is stealing, just like tapping into someone else's cable service is stealing and cloning cell phones is stealing. You are still getting the benefit of the goods without paying for them. That is what theft is. You are focusing on "They don't lose nothing" when in fact you should be focusing on the fact that you are getting something that you should be paying for and aren't because you are a selfish asshole.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

You are not going to make the purchase because you already have what you want. You stole pure and simple.

I know people that have downloaded something, tried it, liked it, then went out and bought it. Since I know for a fact your premise is wrong, that means everything you say built on that premise is wrong.

When you buy a book, you buy a book. You don't buy software. You buy a license to use the software.

When you buy a book, you buy the software of a book in the physical medium of a book. When you buy software, you buy the software of the disk in the physical medium of a disk. Both are software. You don't pay for a book for the paper, nor the ink, but for the arrangement of that ink on that paper. You don't buy software because you like 1's and 0's. You buy an arrangement of 1's and 0's on a disk. They are the same.

Fair use does not violate copyright. Never has. Fair use is part of the copyright law which provides for legal copying, thus it is not a violation of the copyright holders rights. So, try again, dumbass.

I'm sorry, there is no such thing as "copyright holder rights." The copyright holder is granted the privileged of a limited monopoly for a limited time. You seem to be so confused about the whole idea of copyright. Copyright is an incentive program to get as much stuff into the Public Domain as possible. If it doesn't do that, then it is unconstitutional. DRM will never fail open, and as such, prevents things under copyright from being restricted for a "limited time" and thus is unconstitutional. When the only copies are restricted, then it isn't copyrightable. They should be doing as you say, and licensing every copy as a Trade Secret, and copyright should never apply to any software with DRM on it.

Oh, and you are wrong about Fair Use too. It's an affirmative defense. That is, until you prove in court it was Fair Use, you have violated copyright. You have to break copyright law, making illegal copies, then someone has to take you to court for it before you can invoke Fair Use. That means all Fair Use is a violation of copyright, but deemed to be allowable if you prove that point in court.

Until software confused the old men in government, no one had ever conceived of copyright having any restrictions on the use of the item copyrighted. It simply didn't exist as a concept. You can't sue someone for reading a book in a manner you don't like. But the same laws are being used against software and are making the use of the item your bought illegal. That's a violation of the clause in the Constitution authorizing copyright. The US copyright law is unconstitutional. It was fine until the early 1900s. Lets go back to what it was for the first 150 years of the US. That's all that's needed, and will work much better than the system we have now. Now, we have companies selling their customers, laws being passed that are giving trade secret protections to things which claim to be copyrighted, copyrights that don't just include copying, but using, and all sorts of things that are perversions of the idea and contradictory to the Constitution.

I can't because it is not illegal.

You snipped what I said to make a snappy comeback. If it is illegal, it can't be proven. When you tell me how I can test it in court, I will. It can't be tested because of the system, not because it isn't illegal. But I'll take that as an admission that you know you are asking the impossible, and that you think it proves your point about the system being right, but it actually proves the opposite. Copyright covering DRM is so broken that if it is illegal, it can never be proven to be.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[Totenglocke]

Either you're a corporate tool or a troll, I'm not sure which. Either way, you've yet to make a point other than "it's illegal to violate copyright laws", but since companies violate the first-sale doctrine with DRM, I'm not going to feel bad about their distribution rights being violated.

But hey, you keep fighting for companies "right" to fuck over their consumers - that's the way to a better future!

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

Books and software are not the same, because the terms of sale are not the same. That is where your failure lies. One buys a license to use a copy of the software. The terms of the sale are limited by the license. It is no different that selling someone a limited license to use a picture or painting. That you don't acknowledge the existence of the license shows you are completely ignoring reality.

It can't be tested because of the system, not because it isn't illegal.

Explain in detail which "system" prevents you for testing the legality of DRM in court. Then explain in detail how that "system" prevents you from testing the legality of DRM in court.

an admission that you know you are asking the impossible,

What I am asking is not impossible IF DRM is illegal. The only way it is impossible is if DRM is legal. Thanks for playing, you lose.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

Books and software are not the same, because the terms of sale are not the same. That is where your failure lies.

I walk into a store. I grab a package from the shelf. I walk to the front of the store, and offer them $20 for it. They take my money and hand me my item and a receipt I wasn't able to view until after the sale was complete, so it can have no bearing on the "terms of sale."

Now tell me, did I just buy the newest Dan Brown book, a Platinum Classic for the XBox, or a PC game? If you can't tell, then the terms of sale are the same.

That you don't acknowledge the existence of the license shows you are completely ignoring reality.

What is the reality? That they assert a contract after the sale that I have no input on and gives me nothing I didn't already have, but takes away rights? That's not a license. I didn't agree to any of it. And even if you find a EULA binding, it only applies *after* the game is installed. If you break the EULA before installing it, then you didn't break the EULA because you can't be held to an agreement you never agreed to, and until that license is enacted, it can't have power over you.

What I am asking is not impossible IF DRM is illegal. The only way it is impossible is if DRM is legal.

What you are asking is impossible if DRM was illegal. Prove me wrong. Assume DRM is illegal, then tell me how I would challenge illegal DRM in court. It can't be done, legal or not. That the system doesn't allow for challenging DRM is a testament to the system being broken, not DRM being legal. It's simple for you to prove me wrong. Just tell me how I would challenge it in court if it were illegal.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

What you are asking is impossible if DRM was illegal.

Explain why it is impossible or shut the fuck up.

Assume DRM is illegal, then tell me how I would challenge illegal DRM in court.

OK, I will play. But, if you want me to give you a strategy, you have to tell me the reason it would be illegal. It must be a reasonable case, not something stupid like "It turns my dick black", but something that could actually be.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

Explain why it is impossible or shut the fuck up.

I did. If DRM is illegal, and I'm harmed by DRM, I can't sue. I have to have an actual loss. So, if I "lost" the full purchase price of the software because of the DRM, all it would take to bar my case from court is to have the company cut me a check for $50. Unless I make up some other loss - pain and suffering or whatever - then it's impossible to sue unless the company I want to sue allows it to prevent giving me $50. This is the third time I've explained how I can't sue because I have no loss if they just return my money. If a law is illegal and never challenged in court, it will stand, and I even gave examples of that as well. Again, everything you are demanding now, I've provided multiple times in the past. So I'm confused about whether you are even reading my posts, or if you are just trolling.

OK, I will play. But, if you want me to give you a strategy, you have to tell me the reason it would be illegal.

DRM violates my rights. It removes the right of first sale. It blocks all possible Fair Use possibilities. It blocks my right to be secure in my person and possessions because my possession can turn itself off against my will. I can come up with more. DRM is an attempt to remove rights from the consumer that have been well laid out in law and cases for hundreds of years. The only reason it's even considered remotely legal is because "on a computer" makes the old men in Congress and on the bench (and in the patent office) very confused.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

If DRM is illegal, and I'm harmed by DRM, I can't sue.

Maybe I wasn't clear: Explain why you can't sue if DRM is illegal and you are harmed by DRM. You keep saying you can't sue, but you never say why you can't sue.

DRM violates my rights. It removes the right of first sale. It blocks all possible Fair Use possibilities. It blocks my right to be secure in my person and possessions because my possession can turn itself off against my will.

Ok, we can dispense with the first sale rights because you are not buying the software, but rather a license to use the software and that is settled case law.

The "all fair use possibilities" has been tried in court concerning a movie, specifically obtaining a clip of the movie for inclusion in a report on the movie. The decision was that one could make use of a video camera and record the video playing on the screen to get the clip and that the clip would then be fair use.

The "it turns off against my will" argument, specifically the argument that third party DRM denies one the use of one's property could be effective. I seem to recall something concerning DRM that caused people to be unable to play CDs and DVDs after DRM and it's associated software was removed. Let's use a scenario where the DRM causes that issue on installation.
You can file suit then you need the following:
First, one would have to have an actual incident in which DRM caused one to be unable to use one's property in a manner that was not infringing on copyright, preferably shutting down the entire device.
Then, one would have to be able duplicated the effect and show that the effect only occurs after the DRM is installed and that it is due to the DRM.
Preferably, this will be happening to many people causing a possible class action suit.

The result, assuming that you win, would be that particular form of DRM would be deemed illegal.

You are still confused as to what you are buying when you "buy" software. The creator of the software sells you a copy of the software and a limited use license which spells out how you can use and what you can do with the software. You do not own complete rights to the software.

You still haven't provided any evidence of the "kill aftermarket sales" claim you made earlier.

And, if you have noticed, you do not have unlimited rights when you buy a book. You do not have the right to make copies and sell or give them away, among other things. That is why in the front of a book there is a copyright statement. The biggest difference between the copyright statement of books and those of software is that the software's copyright comes with a license spelling out what you can do concerning the software.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

Maybe I wasn't clear: Explain why you can't sue if DRM is illegal and you are harmed by DRM. You keep saying you can't sue, but you never say why you can't sue.

I said it multiple times. I have to have a loss. My loss is no more than the loss of use of the software. That's the retail price. So, the cost to get this to the Supreme Court to get it decided once and for all, takes a few million dollars. If I had to have a number, I'd want $50,000,000 to take one all the way up against someone like Microsoft. So, I can sue for no more than the retail price, as that's my loss. Microsoft could end the suit at any time by paying me $50 or whatever my cost was. So, I couldn't force it to court. If Microsoft offered to pay the retail cost and I refused, I still couldn't force the suit because the judge would determine that I was offered what I was suing for, and dismiss the suit on the condition that Microsoft made the offer again. There's nothing I could do to force the suit to happen. You can't sue because someone violated your rights. You can sue because that violation harmed you in some way. I can't sue because DRM is illegal. I can only sue when that illegality harms me. And the harm in lost use of software is the price of that software. And if Microsoft offers to refund that, then I have no loss and have no loss to sue for.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

My loss is no more than the loss of use of the software. That's the retail price. So, the cost to get this to the Supreme Court to get it decided once and for all, takes a few million dollars.

In other words, you can sue but won't because of the cost.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

In other words, you can sue but won't because of the cost.

I stated that I can sue, but the suit will be dismissed if Microsoft offers me a full refund. So, if they look at me and I have $50,000,000 in a warchest ready to sue, they will, even if they think they are right, offer me a full refund, and the suit will be dismissed (even if I refuse the refund). I'm stating that, presuming DRM is illegal, there isn't a way to force a judgment to get a ruling on that.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

No, you have been stating over and over you can't sue.

And, the case will not be dismissed if they offer you a refund because you are not suing for a refund but rather for their violating your rights, which is not remedied by merely offering you a refund.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

No, you have been stating over and over you can't sue.

Well, that's obviously in context. I could sue you for being an alien from the planet Vogon here to steal our spleens. But the first time we got in front of a judge, the suit would be dropped. There exists nothing you can't sue for, but that doesn't mean that you stand any chance at all for lasting 30 seconds.

And, the case will not be dismissed if they offer you a refund because you are not suing for a refund but rather for their violating your rights, which is not remedied by merely offering you a refund.

You can't sue for someone violating your rights. And again, I mean that you can file all you like, but the first time you get in front of a judge, it will be dismissed out of hand without any consideration of fact. As an example, the ACLU (and others) wanted to challenge a variety of sex laws. Not just gay sex, but there were laws against married couples engaging in oral sex, a married couple engaging in anal sex, and such. But, they couldn't sue. That it was illegal for a wife to give her husband a blow job wasn't relevant. Someone would have had to have wronged someone (arrested them under the law) for it to be challenged. As long as the law wasn't enforced, it was enforcable. A nice catch-22. They did sue, and it was tossed out. It took someone actually enforcing the law before it could be challenged.

The same is true with DRM. I've seen it turn off a person's legal copy of software. They were harmed. But "rights" have no value. They have to sue for the dollar figure of the right being harmed and win in court to set a precedent. They were harmed by no more than the value of the software they were denied the use of. That's why the WGA was a win for Microsoft. When it was denied class action status, there was a settlement where it ended immediately because of that. Microsoft may not have wanted to pay $100 (or whatever) for each of their copies of XP, for billions of dollars in damage, but paying off one individual would make the case go away, and that's essentially what happened.

You can't sue because someone violated your rights. There has to be a loss of some kind. The loss of rights isn't actionable. You can only sue for what you lost because you weren't able to exercise those rights. And if the person you are suing offers to give you everything you ask for, then the case will be dismissed.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

No, not "obviously in context". You stated point blank you could not sue. In reality, you don't think it is worth the money and effort to sue, probably because you know in your heart that you are wrong and will lose.

You can't sue for someone violating your rights

Yes, you can. Happens all the time, especially if there are actually damages.

And again, I mean that you can file all you like, but the first time you get in front of a judge, it will be dismissed out of hand without any consideration of fact.

Either say what you mean the first time or shut the fuck up. And, as you have no proof that the case will be dismissed out of hand, you are just assuming you will lose. Instead of actually trying, you would rather try to justify your own bad acts with "I can't win" when you haven't even tried. Also, that is the classic "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

As an example, the ACLU (and others) wanted to challenge a variety of sex laws.

If they want to change the law, then they should change it the way laws are made and changed, via the legislature. They should start a campaign to get the laws removed. Maybe you and they should take a civics class one day.

. Someone would have had to have wronged someone (arrested them under the law) for it to be challenged.

You mean like what happened here in Florida, where a cop arrested two gay men for having sex after he entered their house without cause?

But "rights" have no value.

Wrong again. Try looking at any number of civil rights cases. Try looking at the copyright cases.

That's why the WGA was a win for Microsoft

No, it was a win for Microsoft because they would not have to spend money fighting a frivolous lawsuit.

When it was denied class action status, there was a settlement where it ended immediately because of that.

There was no settlement. You need to stop making things up. The judge dismissed the case. Microsoft won because they get to decide what a critical security update to their product actually is. They get to do this because of the EULA and copyRIGHT law, among other things.

Again and again, you make the same mistake. You assume that your opinion is absolutely correct and is the way things should be, regardless of what the majority of people believe. You go so far as to ascribe to everyone else your personal views on the subject, completely disregarding the evidence that is not the case. You are like a religious zealot, imposing your personal beliefs, no matter how foolish or contradictory to reality, on others.

You can't sue because someone violated your rights.

Tell you what you do: Go open a restaurant and hang out a sign that says "No black people will be served.", then tell me if you can be sued for violating someone's rights. You have the evidence in front of you, try looking at it.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[AK Marc]

No, not "obviously in context". You stated point blank you could not sue. In reality, you don't think it is worth the money and effort to sue, probably because you know in your heart that you are wrong and will lose.

I said "assume DRM is illegal, and show me how I could sue." You haven't. You obviously have conceded that point, or else you would have addressed it. You just assume DRM is legal and then say that I can't sue because it's legal. Whether or not that's true, that's irrelevant to the point I've been stating. Since you refuse to address any points I make, just skirt them in an apparent attempt to make yourself feel better about griefing someone that thinks differently than you, I'm done. Thanks for playing, you lose.

There was no settlement. You need to stop making things up.

Wow. You really are too stupid to go on. Did you read about it? Or did you just take the Slashdot headline as fact? There was a settlement that the judge ok'd. That made the suit end. The suit was dismissed *because* there was a settlement. What do you think happens to suits that start and a settlement is reached? Do you think that they just hang out as open cases forever? Oh, no. They actually close those cases, and the term they use when closing a case in that manner is "dismissed." One of the two parties in the case will move for a dismissal, the other says "no objections" and the case is dismissed. But you have no idea how the court system works. That's obvious from the drivel you've been spouting, and the fact you take your legal prowess from Slashdot headlines.

Tell you what you do: Go open a restaurant and hang out a sign that says "No black people will be served.", then tell me if you can be sued for violating someone's rights.

Close, but still compleley wrong. I'd go through the nuances, but you'd just ignore what I said anyway. If that were true, why did the civil rights movement have to wait for Rosa Parks? If the law was illegal, why didn't they take the law to court? I'll give you the short answer, because you can't sue against a law unless you have standing and suffered an actual loss. But since you are either too stupid to understand that (I have a real-world proof you are 100% wrong, and you just come up with hypotheticals why you think I would be), or purposefully just being an ass, either way, it's not worth my time to explain something to someone that has chosen to close his mind. You are wrong, but there's nothing I could ever do to have you listen to the truth. You are the worst kind of idiot. The kind that is stupid, ignorant, and proud of it.

Re:New Super Mario Bros Highest sold Wii game?

[DaveV1.0]

It is funny that you say I am "stupid, ignorant, and proud of it" when it is you who first says "I can't sue" then when shown that you can sue, says "I won't win, so I can't sue". You don't know the difference between "can" and "will", and you aren't even willing to try about something you care so much about because you are so sure you will lose.

You are just another pathetic, selfish whiner who refuses to face reality. You are aggressively, willfully ignorant and not only proud of it but attempt to spread your ignorance. You are no better than a religious zealot.

Little thermite woulda been cheaper

[BubbaDave]

If you're going to engage in illegal activities, a little thermite on the drives seems like a cheap precaution...
Biggest hassle is the thermite-proof container.

Dave

Re:Little thermite woulda been cheaper

[Totenglocke]

"Thermite-poof container"? It's called "dig a whole in the yard". And yes, I agree, if you're going to do something like this, right after you get it on the torrents and you're no longer needed to seed, you'd better utterly destroy the drives pronto in case the government comes after you.

Re:Little thermite woulda been cheaper

[BubbaDave]

I wonder if there's a market for a fireproof box (firebrick or such) containing drives and just enough thermite to destroy the drives (platters) but not leak thermite out of the box?

Not yet, but how far off, heh.

Not a lot of thermite required to destroy the platters if oriented correctly.

Of course even less required if the thermite is in the drive housing itself.

Dave

Re:Satoru Iwata, wtf?

[ViralInfection]

Not really, he's mostly going to declare bankruptcy and sell out for an exclusive interview or use the publicity in another manor. Your thinking is linear at best. Do x, get y.

Judgement.

[leuk_he]

There wasn't a judgement, there was a agreement.

Personal Bankruptcy

[Mathinker]

The sampling of posts I've seen here on Slashdot about the ramifications of personal bankruptcy lead me to believe that it is not something which "ruins your life for all eternity". I assume that Australia also has personal bankruptcy laws which prevent debt bondage of the form you are talking about.

Re:Personal Bankruptcy

[Nursie]

I'm pretty sure bankruptcy doesn't free you from civil penalties like this. I'm willing to be corrected though.

Re:Personal Bankruptcy

[Svartalf]

Depends on what the country's statutes of limitations might be- if there is one, they can only attempt to collect within the timeframe allowed by law. If they can't, they can only get from you what they can collect during that time. If you're broke, they can't really collect, making you effectively what they call "judgment proof" for the duration of your inability to pay and the statute's clock, which begins when you default on it.

For Australia, I think it's something like 6 years for debts of any kind, based on a bit of Internet research on the subject.

... Nintendo $1.5 million in damages

[dyeazel]

What's the conversion rate from US Dollars to Nintendo Dollars? (I think it would be more proper to say "...pay $1.5 million to Nintendo in damages...")

Re:Indecent Proposal

[Sabriel]

But how close is that "average wage" to reality? Take 20 people, 19 making $20,000 and 1 making $1,000,000m. The average (arithmetic mean) is $69,000... which is almost two and a half times what 95% of the population make. While that's just random, it shows how big outliers can distort statistics.

Not to mention even were it true, and he was making that much before - he won't be now.

FWIW, I actually live in Queensland, and I'd trust that figure to accurately represent your average Queenslander like I'd trust a live grenade... not at all.

In America the fine would be smaller

[davidwr]

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - United States Constitution, Amendment 8

In America the fine which goes to the government would've been well under $50,000, but the "restitution" and civil damages that go to the "victim" would've been much more than $1.5M if the industry had its way.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[Procasinator]

Of course statistics are only a sampling of reality, my only point is that the average Male (and Female, but Males on average make more) in Queensland will probably make 1.5 million in total earnings during his lifetime. Of course the unemployed and the high-makers effect the likelihood.

Obviously big outliers can cause problems, but I would hope a Government commissioned study would have a larger sample size than in your fictional example.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[TheKidWho]

This is Australia not the US.

Interesting is that he had to give up his social networking and email passwords... That wouldn't fly in the USA.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[TheKidWho]

That's why you also look at the median income which is still well over 50k.

Wii homebrew legal status

[tepples]

It's mostly IRC logs, but I can put up a more detailed report if you're interested.

Yes, I'd appreciate a public document about the legal status of libogc that I can cite in discussions or in a page comparing platforms as possible homebrew development targets.

and at least one binary blob ripped verbatim from Nintendo (the DSP program to perform memory card unlocking).

DSP programs like that might have such a thin copyright that they're not worth rewriting, if the U.S. cases Sega v. Accolade and Lexmark v. Static Control Components are anything to go on.

Personally, though, once the large obstacle that is legal GX is overcome, I'd advocate developing an entirely new system from scratch, based on Linux or eCos or some other embedded OS

How much CPU and RAM overhead would Linux add? And how long does it take to boot Linux from HBC, or were you planning "Linux Channel"? And how much work would it be to put USB, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and possibly NAND file system compatibility (for e.g. saved game management tools) into Mini?

Re:Wii homebrew legal status

[marcansoft]

I'll see what I can do about the report.

Linux has some extra overheads, which is why I suggested eCos, althought the kernel does boot in a of couple seconds and the userspace framework could be very thin. USB, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi are already supported by Linux (they're standard chips/interfaces). Mini doesn't have to support anything, as it can just enable direct access by the PPC by flipping some bits in a register (this is how Linux works), and the advantage of offloading driver support to the Starlet CPU isn't much (the main purpose of Starlet in the Wii architecture is security separation and WC24 mode, not offloading drivers). I have a feeling eCos should be able to support USB, Bluetooth, and SD with ease. Wi-Fi would need some porting of the Linux b43 driver.

It's worth noting that not running under IOS gains you 11MB of RAM. Linux already takes advantage of this when running under mini, not to mention that hardware support is a lot better, faster, and more featureful than when running legacy Linux under IOS. For example, Linux under mini has proper Wi-Fi support and the SD/USB transfer rates are much faster than under IOS.

NAND filesystem is pretty much useless and discouraged; it's a lot safer to live our homebrew lives inside an SD card or other external storage, unless you want to dedicate a Wii to Linux use or something like that (but in that case you might as well use JFFS2).

Re:Wii homebrew legal status

[cerberusss]

Wi-Fi would need some porting of the Linux b43 driver.

Wouldn't that actually be quite a bit of effort? WiFi drivers don't seem to me to be the pinnacle of elegant and concise driver programming.

Re:Wii homebrew legal status

[marcansoft]

The Linux b43 driver uses the standard Linux wireless driver interface. I don't see it hooking into that many places in the kernel. There also appears to be a driver in OpenBSD for the same hardware.

It's obviously not trivial, but I don't see why it would have to be a huge effort.

Re:Wii homebrew legal status

[tepples]

NAND filesystem is pretty much useless and discouraged; it's a lot safer to live our homebrew lives inside an SD card or other external storage

I understand that homebrew should stick to the SD card and USB hard drives. I was talking more about utilities to manipulate saved games. For example, there is a tool to hack an Animal Crossing: Wild World saved game right on the DS; a corresponding tool to hack City Folk saves on the Wii, or to import your character from City Folk to a homebrew game, would need NAND access.

Did he do the damage?

[PhilHibbs]

If it's that easy for one ordinary person to do that much damage, then I think you have to call into question, philosophically, if it's really him that did the damage. Information can be copied, as a fundamental principle. They have created information, and people are copying it. Is that Burt's fault? By enabling information - whose inherent property is its reproducibility - to be reproduced, has he not just allowed the natural order to be established? I guess that's just a long-winded way of saying "information wants to be free", which is not a sound-bite that I usually adhere to, because "free" can be mistaken for "as in beer", whereas I think the phrase means "as in freedom".

And no, I'm not just a freetard, I do buy stuff. Games, music, movies, all very copyable, I do believe in paying for worthy content.

Re:In a word...

[lanadapter]

But that's two words. o:

Re:Curious...

[LordLucless]

With the advent of "simultaneous releases" (i.e. the product being released on the same day all over the world), Australia is generally among the first to get the goods (New Zealand being about an hour earlier), as they are "ahead" of the rest of the world in terms of GMT offsets.

It appears this was supposed to be one of those simultaneous releases.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[LordLucless]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, right?

Re:Indecent Proposal

[LordLucless]

Yeah, maybe we should give young people longer sentences, so that they're behind bars for a like proportion of their lifetime as when we jail a 40 year-old. After all, it's not fair that an octogenerian con gets a life sentance, when a 20 year-old committing the same crime loses only 2% of their expected future lifetime is it?

Re:Satoru Iwata, wtf?

[jgtg32a]

What does the companies lack of protecting their IP have to do with anything?

Great I get to sound like an RIAA commercial now. If there is a car sitting on the street with the keys in it and door open, you aren't allowed to take that car.

Offtopic curiosity

[Mathinker]

Sorry if this is too much of a waste of your time, but I've always wondered: is your Slashdot ID taken from dark elves, or is it after my favorite cat character in SF&F?

Re:Probably worked at a game store?

[KDR_11k]

The wrap used by companies like Nintendo is very different from the kind a shrinkwrap machine will produce, you can tell the difference at first glance. The only way to get away with that is when the store doesn't care or even encourages it (GameStop).

Re:Indecent Proposal

[KDR_11k]

Depends on what he has to pay. If he has to pay a penalty yes, it should be matched to his means but if he has to pay for the damage he caused it shouldn't be matched. If someone is so rich that the actual damage isn't enough to deter them then add a penalty on top.

The GPU in Aspire Revo

[tepples]

That $200 PC is unlikely to be very good for gaming

Most cheap PCs use GMA, a Voodoo3-class GPU by Intel that's OK at 2D and PS1-complexity 3D but lives up to its "Graphics My Ass" nickname at anything above that. Aspire Revo, on the other hand, uses an NVIDIA GPU that handily beats GMA in 3D Mark. I haven't seen any benchmarks of NVIDIA ION against the Hollywood chipset in a Wii console, but I'd be surprised if ION scored far behind Hollywood's predecessor, the Flipper chipset in the GameCube.

Some of us might want both wii games *and* a media player without having to buy multiple devices.

Then buy one of the other consoles, which can play both major-label games and noninteractive media.

And most importantly, for the principle of it - you buy the device, you don't rent it, you should be able to use it for any purpose you see fit

I agree with you in principle. But it takes effort to make a video game, and above a certain level of complexity, making one for free tends to burn out the developer. At some point, a developer will want to charge for missions beyond the demo, but there's a strong sentiment against charging in the console homebrew community. So if a project is too big for WiiBrew.org but too small for WarioWorld.com (Nintendo's official developer program), a developer will need to establish himself on another platform, and as far as I can tell, the least bad platform for that is a PC.

Re:The GPU in Aspire Revo

[tepples]

How does that help if the games you want to play are only available on the Wii?

How does a Wii help you if the games you want to play are only available on PS3 and Xbox 360?

Re:Curious...

[Hatta]

I'm more curious as to how they caught him. Are pre-release copies of the game watermarked? Or did he just have a big mouth?

Re:Curious...

[Cimexus]

Not in this case. Australia was due to get the game on Nov 12th, the first in the (English speaking) world to get it, in fact. Before even the US (Nov 15th).

Re:Indecent Proposal

[Cimexus]

Are you sure about that? He may have discussed details about the release/cracking techniques on social networking sites with other people. That is evidence relevant to the case and would be discoverable under US evidence laws just as in Australia.

If he had committed an armed robbery at the local gas station, sure the social networking passwords would be irrelevant. But this is an offence that was clearly connected to the online world and where those sites may contain useful evidence.

Mario is timeless

[HalAtWork]

Mario is timeless. He doesn't have an attitude that is considered lame a decade later. His clothes are designed for function & not fashion. He looks different than any other video game character and is instantly recognizable. The games themselves have a vibrant, cute, unique, and whimsical style that is easy to fall in love with.

Re:Indecent Proposal

[AK Marc]

Interesting is that he had to give up his social networking and email passwords... That wouldn't fly in the USA.

No, it wouldn't. They'd have just subpoenaed the records directly, rather than getting a password so they could log in. They'd have gotten as much or more from his personal life than they did in Australia, but they certainly would have done it a different way.

Re:Cat didnt get my tongue :(

[UrduBlake]

Let's be honest here, that creep got off lucky. $1.5 billion was a bargain. To think of all the creative effort put in to create it, he should be handed over to the Chinese government for them to deal with, Szechuan style. 50 cents per post. $)

that is shame

[vtstarin]

Why do people do this in Australia. This encourage Australia to impose law to monitor all internet users

Uber-1337 Skillz

[DreadPirateAwesome]

Man, this guy's pretty awesome if he can steal, copy, upload, and spread a hot, new, game a week before it's released. I'm not saying what he did was right, but this guy could and should be making sick-nasty stuff.