Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Grudgingly Awards $3.6 Million In DRM Circumvention Case

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-hate-to-do-this dept.

Fluffeh writes "The case involves an online game, MapleStory, and some people who set up an alternate server, UMaple, allowing users to play the game with the official game client, but without logging into the official MapleStory servers. In this case, the people behind UMaple apparently ignored the lawsuit, leading to a default judgment. Although annoyed with MapleStory (The Judge knocked down a request for $68,764.23 — in profits made by UMaple — down to just $398.98), the law states a minimum of $200 per infringement. Multiply that by 17,938 users of UMaple... and you get $3.6 million. In fact, it sounds like the court would very much like to decrease the amount, but notes that 'nevertheless, the court is powerless to deviate from the DMCA's statutory minimum.' Eric Goldman also has some further op-ed and information regarding the case and judgement."

7 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Seems partly justified by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UMaple users can play MapleStory (using the MapleStory client software) without ever touching MapleStory's servers. UMaple then solicits "donations" that lead to enhanced privileges in the UMaple environment.

    In this case some penalty does seem justified
    UMaple was after all making money from software written by MapleStory, without their permission

    1. Re:Seems partly justified by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is absolutely no reason to believe that the money people donated to UMaple would have otherwise been spent with MapleStory.

      I'm not talking about a potential loss of revenue for MapleStory, I'm talking about the gain in revenue for UMaple
      Kind of like the difference between downloading a movie off TPB and selling copies of the movie for a profit
      And, yeah, the penalty does seem excessive.As I said, "partly" justified

    2. Re:Seems partly justified by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "minimum of $200 per infringement" why is the $200 multiplied by the number of clients? Its the server that they claim is infringing, why not just $200 per server?

    3. Re:Seems partly justified by AngryDeuce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just another example of why mandatory minimum sentences make absolutely zero sense in any way, whether financial or in the way of jail time.

    4. Re:Seems partly justified by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it were collectible, it would be quite noteworthy as one of the biggest anti-circumvention awards of all time. But, it's not collectible.

      The linked op-ed doesn't say why.

      This is pure conjecture on my part, but my assumption is that the creators and the servers it runs on live outside the US, which is also the reason they ignored the lawsuit. Just like TPB happily ignoring (and proudly displaying) all the various nastygrams sent from US lawyers over the years.

    5. Re:Seems partly justified by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not true.

      Someone getting a copy for free that they otherwise wouldn't have bought is not a lost sale.
      Someone getting a copy for free that they otherwise would have bought IS a lost sale.
      Someone getting a copy for free that they otherwise wouldn't have bought, and then they buy it, is a sale gained.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. 17938 infringements or just 1? by c_g_hills · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see how they work out that it is 17938 infringements when they only set up one server, so they have only infringed once.