Slashdot Mirror


Judge Grudgingly Awards $3.6 Million In DRM Circumvention Case

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."

41 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 JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      I want to hear the followup: is any portion of the default judgement ever collected, or does the judgement just amount to a Cease and Desist?

    2. Re:Seems partly justified by jholyhead · · Score: 2

      You're kidding, right? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the money people donated to UMaple would have otherwise been spent with MapleStory. MapleStory probably made money as a result of UMaple existing as it drew people into the community. When the judge making the finding is incredulous at the awards he is being forced to hand down, you know things have gotten out of hand.

    3. 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

    4. 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?

    5. Re:Seems partly justified by The-Forge · · Score: 2

      But if you take that logic to it's extreme you wind up with Microsoft or Google suing the whole net because you're using their intellectual property (the browser) to access a services other than a Microsoft or Google one without getting their permission and making money. I know this thought will never happen, but it's still a extension of the logic.

      Back to the crux of this though, The UMaple people clean room reverse engineered the MapleStory server to run a completely separate environment. There was no true profit, it looks like they were getting donations to keep it running. I just can't see the DMCA circumvention here, but I believe Blizzard used this same threat against some users a few years ago who were trying to reverse engineer the WoW server.

      It's all out of control. Adapt or die has become adapt or litigate and heading towards litigate or litigate. Shakespeare was right.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:Seems partly justified by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Seems partly justified by leonardluen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      of course i am not a lawyer...but i think a good lawyer could get the amount reduced. They would argue that there was only 1 infringement, not 17k. they only made 1 copy on their server and so should only owe $200, they did not make a copy for each user that connected, which the fine amounts to.

    9. Re:Seems partly justified by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only hundreds of years of patent and copyright protection.

      But this is a case of unauthorized intrusion not copyright violation.

    10. 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.

    11. Re:Seems partly justified by Asic+Eng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      UMaple was after all making money from software written by MapleStory, without their permission

      So what? If the users legally obtained the software, they don't owe MapleStory any further income.

      ObCarAnalogy: If you buy a car you don't need to have it serviced by the manufacturer, you don't need to buy fuel from them and you can get your tires elsewhere.

    12. Re:Seems partly justified by c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Its the server that they claim is infringing, why not just $200 per server?

      Because the plaintiff's goal is to maximize the damages. It was a default judgement, so the defendent didn't show up to do anything to minimize anything.

      If there'd been an actual trial with both parties, there's a good chance that the judge might have bought that argument. Or the argument that it was the actual users who did the circumvention. Or, IIRC, there's an exception for compatibility purposes. Plenty of options.

      There could be an appeal. Or, if UMaple doesn't have much in the way of assets, they might just declare bankruptcy and walk away from the whole thing. That'd probably be the smart move.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    13. Re:Seems partly justified by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more like someone writing a web server that works great with Chrome or some Chrome features and creating a website that they charge access to get to...

      Now, is it appropriate for Google to go after that company because they are making money?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    14. Re:Seems partly justified by nschubach · · Score: 2

      a.) Reverse engineering (clean room style) a protocol is not illegal or forbidden (see Wine)
      b.) I see no reason that this point is the responsibility of the people who wrote the server. Maybe the person running the client is violating the intent of the application, but it's not in any way the fault of the server software.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    15. Re:Seems partly justified by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah but since they aren't in the USA (and most likely in some place that don't give a shit about the USA, like Russia or some parts of Asia) then it doesn't matter if he makes it $50 or a bazillion as nothing is gonna happen.

      Of course this is why the entire copyright idea doesn't really work because thanks to the internet being global all one has to do is set up in a country with laws favorable to doing whatever you want (or with officials easily bribed) and then all that draconian copyright laws are worth exactly jack and squat. Not saying they should have the right to snatch anybody else's code, but the only way you can treat something that can be copied instantly and at no cost as a scarce resource is if everybody plays along and its obvious that will never be the case.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Seems partly justified by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you missed the lesson.

      The lesson here: If you're being sued in a US court and you're not a US company, ignore it because you won't have to pay for it. And the US company will still have to pay it's lawyers while looking idiotic.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    17. Re:Seems partly justified by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      First, copyrights and patents are NOT ownership (especially patents, they only last 20 years). I don't own the stories I write, I merely have a "limited" time monopoly on their publications. They're not my property. For the MAFIAA to call stories and songs their "property" is theft of culture.

      Second, it is copyright violation and not unauthorized intrusion. The DMCA stands for digital millineum copyright Act. They violated DMCA by breaking the game's encryption to run it on their own servers. They didn't break into the copyright holder's servers.

    18. Re:Seems partly justified by portnoy · · Score: 2

      But the minimum is 200 not 398.98 so the judge could have decreased it again by almost half. As it is, it just seems like the political cop out "I don't like this bill that I am signing and supporting..."

      You're confusing two things here. $398.98 is the amount the judge granted as "disgorged profits" -- in other words, money that UMaple directly made off of MapleStory's work. In this case, it's only the amount of money they made from AdSense revenue.

      But that's separate from the copyright infringment. The infringement penalties have nothing to do with any money that UMaple made; it's just a statutory penalty with mandatory minimums for each copy. That's where the minimums come in.

    19. Re:Seems partly justified by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Copyright law is supposed to protect the artist, not stop people from making a profit.

      Ok, say you make a CD and put it up for sale. Someone buys a copy and burns a copy of his copy for his friend, who has never heard of you. You have lost nothing. If his friend likes your CD he's likely to buy a copy of your next one and you earn even more. Now, if your customer sells a copy of his copy to his friend, that's money that should have gone to you, but didn't.

      Now, if you sell a copy of your work for five bucks and he turns around and resells his legitimate copy for ten, he's made five bucks but that's perfectly reasonable. You sold him that copy and he now owns it, and if he can sell it at a profit he's free to.

    20. Re:Seems partly justified by Exit_On_Right · · Score: 2

      While I would agree that the term "ownership" seems inappropriate to an intangible, the net effect of controlling the publication amounts to the same thing. As the entity who controls the publication of a story, you can limit who reads it, or even prevent everyone from reading it. From that perspective, you "own" it to the extent that it may as well be a diamond locked in a safe - no one can see it or use it unless you open the safe door and allow them access.

      For an entity who has essentially "locked their story in a safe" (even if it is a safe that allows a select group of participants access), the act of having someone else access that story without permission would feel very much like theft. At the very least it would feel like a violation of some sort and the victim would be right in requesting assistance in preventing it from happening again and in punishing the violators. Is it right to call the story property? Likely not, but it may be the closest we can come to something the layperson will understand and properly identify as wrong.

      That is, of course, assuming you don't believe that all creative work shouldn't become public domain the instant it is created. But that's a whole other argument.

    21. Re:Seems partly justified by The+Empiricist · · Score: 2

      The lesson here: If you're being sued in a US court and you're not a US company, ignore it because you won't have to pay for it. And the US company will still have to pay it's lawyers while looking idiotic.

      This is bad advice. If you are being sued, you should consult with an attorney to determine what you should do. Doing nothing may very well be the best course of action, depending on the situation. But you shouldn't assume that you won't have to pay. A sufficiently motivated plaintiff can seek out foreign counsel to argue the case for enforcing the foreign judgment. The plaintiff may face an uphill battle (assuming you bother to show up when the fight has been brought to your front door), but it is possible that the foreign judgment will be enforced. Enforcement of Judgments.

    22. 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
    23. Re:Seems partly justified by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      If it's not MapleStory's code, it's not fucking DRM circumvention. In fact, if it's not MS code at all, Nexon has zero fucking claim.

      But it was MapleStory's code that users were running.

      UMaples' client, the "UMaple Launcher," allegedly bypassed the access controls in MapleStory's client software.

      If they had written their own client it would have been fine. Unfortunately MapleStory's client had protection methods included and UMaple provided software that circumvented those protection methods so that users could use the official client with UMaple's servers. The infringing software was provided by UMaple and so they were liable for their actions.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    24. Re:Seems partly justified by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 3, Informative

      IT WAS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT! They were sued for circumventing DRM. completely different issue.

    25. Re:Seems partly justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plaintiff is registered in Delaware, judgement is in California - it's a fair bet the defendants live there.

      Everyone registers in Delaware, they have laxer tax requirements then most other states apparently. Google is a Delaware corporation and their main office is in Silicon Valley.

      Suing in California is probably because Hollywood is in California so it's standard jurisdiction shopping to pick judges who are typically biased in favor of strong copyright. This is the same as companies suing over patents doing so in East Texas, the companies don't have a strong presence there, it's just that the judges there have a reputation for strong bias in favor of patents and issuing large penalties.

      None of this helps figure out where the defendant is.

    26. Re:Seems partly justified by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And those protection methods were bypassed because they caused problems with other system processes totally unrelated to the game, to the point of system instability.

      In fact, Nexon's code does some rather unethical, possibly illegal things.

      >mfw I worked on part of this code

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  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.

    1. Re:17938 infringements or just 1? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. I'm sure the law says "per work" infringed. not per person infringing. The rationale for the damages I thought was that you can't know how many users infringed.

    2. Re:17938 infringements or just 1? by tomhath · · Score: 5, Informative
      FTA:

      17 USC 1203 sets a statutory damages minimum of $200 per act of circumvention. UMaples' client, the "UMaple Launcher," allegedly bypassed the access controls in MapleStory's client software. UMaple had 17,938 users.

      I suppose one could argue what "act of circumvention" means. But apparently it doesn't mean 17K users avoiding payment to the rightful owner of the software is just one act.

    3. Re:17938 infringements or just 1? by Megane · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      That would probably because that was the argument from the only side that showed up.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  3. Re:Is this similiar to the Battle.net case? by NotQuiteInsane · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're thinking about Bnetd -- Blizzard sued the dev team under the terms of the DMCA. As I recall, the main issue was that they'd created a Battle.net emulator which didn't implement CD key checking -- Blizzard refused to allow Bnetd to validate CD keys against Battle.net (citing security and piracy fears), and proceeded to send a DMCA takedown to the Bnetd project's ISP.

    Blizzard then sued the Bnetd developers and their ISP (in addition to the takedown request), alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, breaking the Battle.net and several Blizzard games' EULAs *and* several DMCA violations to boot. The EFF defended the dev team, but Blizzard still won the lawsuit, the Bnetd.org domain, and a judgment against the original developers.

    Proof positive that Blizzard were definitely in the "evil" category long before the Activision merger.

    (However this didn't stop the GPL'd source code of the Bnetd project ending up on many, *many* servers worldwide... far out of reach of the DMCA restrictions)

    (Disclaimer: any opinions presented herein are my own, and not necessarily those of any other entity)

  4. Excessive Fines? by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

    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.'

    The court should have ruled that a $3.6 million award would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against "excessive fines," and that this portion of the DMCA was therefore unconstitutional as applied to this particular case. (It's not that unusual for courts to decide that while a law is constitutional "on its face," it is unconstitutional "as applied."

  5. Here is the DRM circumvention. by PSVMOrnot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The server is not the issue here, or at least not the main one.

    The part that is landing UMaple with the $3.6 million fine is that in order to make the official MapleStory client look to UMaple's server instead they had to write a little launcher app (UMaple Launcher) which would presumably do something like an in-memory edit to change the server address the client used. Possibly with a modification to some sort of handshaking protocol.

    It's the technological equivalent of ignoring a 'do not enter' sign, rather than the actual bypassing of security, but sadly it still seems to count.

    This launcher is the part that is being used by the 17K users, and so where the court is getting the 17K counts of infringement from.

    1. Re:Here is the DRM circumvention. by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is actually pretty common. I use a modified launcher for my MMORPG, which then allows me access to third party plugins. Since the group that made the launcher has not solicited donations, and all the play still occurs on the main servers so we still pay the original licensing fees and monthly fees to the actual company producing the game, they haven't gone after the group that made the circumventing launcher just yet.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  6. The judge, had the power to dismiss it. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But he chose not to.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Default judgment by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let this be a lesson: If you're sued, even if you think the lawsuit is the dumbest thing on Earth, you should still show up to defend yourself. If you don't, things like this happen.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Default judgment by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If both parties don't show up

      That isn't what happened. In this case, only the defense didn't show up. Since they provided no defense, they are guilty. If both parties don't show-up then there is no evidence of a crime so common law jurisprudence requires that the judge rule in favor of the defendant.

  8. Default judgment by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    DMCA isn't what is most fucked up here. The real problem is for default judgment to automatically mean total lack of judgment. If both parties don't show up, then for some reason the judge is required to ignore how the facts compare to the law. Justice isn't even half-heartedly attempted.

    I suspect this ridiculous process is one of those things that is long-established by judicial tradition but has never been penned by any legislator, so the people have have no say in the matter.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  9. The real reason the judge was annoyed by MasterPatricko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Instead, Plaintiff merely submitted 252 raw pages of documents obtained through discovery without so much as a summary of the information contained in those documents or an explanation to the Court how any of the line items contained therein directly relate to Kumar’s UMaple activities.

    Seems to me that's the real reason the judge wasn't feeling like awarding any more damages, not some kind of protest against the DMCA or statutory damages.

    --
    I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
  10. Re:Is this similiar to the Battle.net case? by jmerlin · · Score: 2

    How is proliferating a broken and unmaintained battle.net system that's littered with bots clogging all chat channels with spam, flooding the custom list with fake games (unjoinable games or games that will never start), and permitting blatant cheating "protecting your IP" ? All of these problems can be solved in a maintained battle.net server. The real problem here is Blizzard, when faced with pioneering engineers who saw these problems and wanted to fix them on their own so they could continue to enjoy the games they had purchased, were unwilling to cooperate at no expense to themselves. That makes Blizzard stupid. But when these engineers decided, correctly, that in the game's current state, no person would ever again purchase it because it was literally unplayable, it was obvious what the next step would be: continue, even without Blizzard's support. And then, instead of realizing the potential profits a community-maintained battle.net server would bring (you know, not needing to pay people to develop and maintain it, nor to police it), Blizzard spends millions of dollars to spew lawsuits all over everything they can touch. Making money was not the goal of these actions, as clearly the costs of these suits far outweighed any actual demonstrable damages. The ONLY goal Blizzard has was to destroy bnetd and to prevent any future community involvement in bettering Blizzard's services.

    THIS is what makes Blizzard evil. Nobody has denied that Blizzard has a right to profit from each user of its software (what you call "IP"), but Blizzard outright rejected that offer and proceeded to destroy a project aimed at making a Blizzard title far better at no cost to Blizzard.