Slashdot Log In
Game Makers Accusing Innocent People of Piracy In the UK
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Oct 31, 2008 02:49 AM
from the type-I-errors-v.-type-II-errors dept.
from the type-I-errors-v.-type-II-errors dept.
eldavojohn writes "It's a topic that a lot of game makers like Atari don't want the public hearing: game makers wrongfully accusing clearly innocent people of piracy. From the article, 'According to Michael Coyle, an intellectual property solicitor with law firm Lawdit, more and more people are being wrongly identified as file-sharers. He is pursuing 70 cases of people who claim to be wrongly accused of piracy and has spoken to hundreds of others, he told the BBC.' If only a few are coming forward after receiving extortion letters ('Pay £500 OR ELSE!'), what's the actual number of those out there being wrongfully accused?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lawyers smelt money. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers figured out this is a way to print money. Why am I not surprised?
Its cheaper to pay them off than hire a lawyer and defend yourself. Many have no other choice.
Send out letters, receive money. Such a deal. Par for the course for for lawyers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's called upping the efficiency... of course they'd earn more if people hired them to defend them in court, but that would be actual WORK.
I'm just surprised they haven't switched to emails with Paypal links in them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lawyers smelt money. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a law firm and I assure you this stuff is small fry for lawyers
Yes a one off would be small fry, but by the hundred or thousand it is good easy money. Get a senior partner to write a sufficiently blood curdling letter and then a junior legal secretary cut and pastes in the case by case name, address, etc. If there is any correspondence this is paid for by either the ''infringing'' punter or by the game maker.
Whichever way you look at it the legal parasites make money.
Parent
Re:Lawyers smelt money. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent is correct, just do the maths:
Demand £500 per letter.
1 letter costs 50p to print, put in envelope and post.
Thus, if more than 1 in 1000 people pays up, profit.
I'm surprised con artists are not already doing this from home, instead of the usual "you may already have won" rubbish.
The basic problem is that there is almost no cost involved in accusing someone of a civil offence and demanding payment on threat of legal action. If such letters carried a legal requirement to pay the recipient
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lawyers smelt money. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because paying $500 is much, much cheaper than getting a lawyer and going to court?
The problem is that defending yourself costs money, wether you are innocent or guilty. This is a flaw of the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Individully yes but in this case, the lawyers (Davenport Lyons) have made quite a reputation for sending out tens of thousands of such letters for different clients and also using less than accurate data as a basis.
It's a fairly safe bet that if you read about some individual in the UK getting a 'Pay us lots of money or we'll crush you' letter, it came from them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If there's one thing that the UK is good for it's following the law to the letter, crossing all t's and dotting all i's.
The UK (Score:3, Funny)
Proudly trying to match or outdo the US in hostility towards own citizens, since 2001.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am truly no fan of the US' politics and haven't been for, err, about eight years, but in my opinion, the UK has let the US cough on their dust, they're so far ahead in this.
Seriously, they just need a curfew and they'll be 95% done with getting to what we've seen in V for Vendetta. At this very moment, I'm actually less inhibited against traveling to the US than I am against traveling to the UK.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The UK (Score:5, Interesting)
As disgusting as I find that (and saying that as someone who is regularly disturbed at night be drunk teenagers), it still doesn't equal a nationwide curfew for everyone.
A curfew for kids is actually taking the parents rights away to decide whether their kids are mature enough to be out past 10 pm. So it does go in a similar direction. Still, it's a far cry from a curfew for all adults.
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it's for teenagers. Then it's for sex offenders. Then it's for convicted felons. Then you need to carry your identification papers with you at night to prove you're not one of them. Then being seen far from your house at night is grounds for arrest due to reasonable suspicion that you're up to no good. Then far means anywhere outside your front door.
Sometimes, the slope really is slippery.
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:5, Funny)
Duh, teenagers are sex offenders by default!
Pedophilia, underage sexual abuse, child porn. And that's before they get out of bed in the morning!
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:5, Funny)
You'd be amazed how many 14-year-old boys find underage girls attractive.
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should all minors suffer just because some are idiots? If some are doing something illegal, you can give them a selective curfew, if not, then they should be allowed to go out whenever they wish.
You know you are getting old when your instinct is to argue with that. And then I remember how much fun I had as a highschooler after midnight and then I side with the kids--and then I *really* think about how much fun I had as a kid after midnight and then I realize that there is no way they need to be out that late.
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
There is also no way that I need to decide what clothes I want to wear. Someone else could do it for me and I still wouldn't suffer cold or make a fool of myself by walking around in the nude.
The fact that someone LIKES to do something should be enough of a point not have a discussion about who needs to do what. As long as a person, no matter the age, does not influence someone else's life overly negatively, they should be allowed to do whatever they please.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:5, Informative)
There is also no way that I need to decide which doctor I want to see... beside me liking having a choice.
In case you are under the impression that you can only see your 'assigned' doctor in the UK, this is not the case. You can ask to see another doctor when you book an appointment (either a specific doctor, or any male/female doctor). You don't need to give a reason.
Since we are talking about kids that don't have the same kind of responsibility and rights as adults do, their guardians should be the ones to set the rules. Not the state.
A agree entirely, and I'm amazed that California of all places has a curfew for teenagers. The nearest we have to that in the UK is an ASBO (anti-social behaviour order), which forbids individual petty criminals from certain acts -- for instance, banning them from a public place they vandalised, or imposing a curfew. You need to be arrested, taken to court and found guilty to get one though. It's meant to be better than sending people to prison etc.
Parent
As I get older... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know you are getting old when your instinct is to argue with that.
Actually, the older I get, the more strongly I believe in opposing measures like that [the curfew].
Whether or not any one person enjoys or otherwise benefits from something is not the point, and must never be allowed to become the point. The important thing is that everyone should be free, by default, to do absolutely anything they like. Restrictions should only ever be imposed by law on behaviour that is actually harmful in some way, and any restrictions that are imposed should only ever be proportionate to the harm that would be done.
This is probably the important principle of any fair justice system, because without it, governments are free to set arbitrary laws for their own political (or worse) purposes. This leads to blanket laws, such as (to pick some common, controversial examples): speed limits and banning mobile phones while driving, instead of prosecuting dangerous or inconsiderate driving; trying to ban whole electronic communications networks, rather than either going after people who abuse those networks to infringe copyright or mandating restrictions on the networks that are reasonable and consistent with prohibiting just the illegal behaviour; or, as in this case, restricting the freedoms of a whole group of people on account of the unacceptable behaviour of a small minority (which is effectively guilt by association).
In each of those cases, the law probably does do some good, in the sense that it does inhibit harmful behaviour by some people. The problem is the collateral damage: the law also catches people whose behaviour would not have been harmful and punishes them anyway, which is unjust. Of course, it's easier to impose blanket laws, both for enforcement (increasingly mechanically; whatever happened to "man shall not be judged by machine"?) and for scoring political points ("Speed kills! Look, we imposed a new low limit to make the road safer outside your home, so now your kids don't have to stop, look and listen before they cross").
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But curfew is to put the cart before the donkey. If your problem is that kids are out doing crazy stuff because their parents are not able to handle the kids the way they need to, then you need to either give them the means to change that situation (e.g. chance the economy in such a way that they have both the time and resources to parent their kids) or make sure they just don't have kids.
I don't understand when this belief manifested that anyone was entitled to ruining a child's life.
Re:The UK (Score:5, Informative)
Most places have a curfew in the code for minors that is selectively enforced(if the kid looks like hes up to trouble). We have one in Frederick MD and most people don't know about it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see your problem... you don't understand likenesses.
I can't remember one instance where I have stated that V for Vendetta was actually meant to show us where the British were headed. What the movie did was show as a totalitarian state where the people was downtrodden in the name of security. Where personal rights were stripped away and law enforcement was on a power-high. The fact that the chosen country was British does NOT matter AT ALL.
The irony lies in the fact that the country that has been, poss
Re:The UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Crazy isn't it. It's like they've looked at the RIAA, seen the public attitude toward them and said "Yes! We want a slice of that animosity and hatred!"
Stuff like this is why I've largely stopped buying anything from mainstream publishers. I refuse to enable their greed and avarice anymore.
Support the independent game developers!
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:The UK (Score:5, Interesting)
The situation with regard to music licensing is insane in the UK. The pub near my mother got fined about a year ago because they had the cheapest kind of live music license, which only allowed solo or duet performers. One evening, there was someone in the audience who knew the performers and was invited to join in for a few songs. When the pictures hit the press, someone from the council saw them, checked the license allowed it, and fined them.
A friend from my salsa class recently opened a cafe and wants to have dance evenings occasionally. She can't yet though, because the total for all of the licenses she needs (apparently you need a license to let people dance in your cafe - WTF?) comes to around £3000 and she's unlikely to make that much extra profit from them. Some of the license money goes to the copyright cartels, some to the councils. Unfortunately no one is standing for council election on a platform of encouraging small businesses by reducing license costs, yet people wonder why the city centre is gradually losing all of the small businesses to massive chains.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a member of the Federation of Small Businesses, and there have been rumblings going in the direction of allowing "micro-businesses" (less than 10 employees or some such figure) relief or exemption from these extortions.
If I weren't so busy I'd be rather active in this area as it is massively obstructive and unnecessary
Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
They have been accusing innocent people of copyright infringement for years. Although this was limited to just their customers and potential customers. Of course when sales drop you have to expand your target audience.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
But... They include copy protection on their games, and continue to make it more and more aggressive.
How is this software piracy of which they speak even possible? I mean they wouldn't include the protection and ruin gaming for their legitimate customers if it didn't work... Would they?
*quietly waits for the sarcasm tag to be added to the html standard*
What a racket the copy protection business is. What other industry could thrive so much on failure?
Parent
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
What other industry could thrive so much on failure?
Weather forecasting
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
While I hate DRM, there is a valid line of logic that the harder you make something to share, the less people will share. If someone could just lend a friend a disc for a few hours and they could have a full copy of a game, infringement might be even more widespread. Even still, I'm just playing the devil's advocate.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah???
Well stardock has no DRM: zero for its Games.
I bought SoSE primarily to support stardock (i don't play it, but that's another matter).
They care a sh1t if i share my keys with my friend or my brat brother.
Which is exactly why my brother also bought a copy: he says the stardock game is "cool" to buy and he hates sharing the key with anyone else.
or take WarCraft for instance. I can install the game client on any machine anywhere any number of times. Warcraft makers don't care. Thier model is to make
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
"...more and more people are being wrongly identified as file-sharers..."
Copyright infringement is not theft, is not "piracy", and file-sharing is not automatically copyright infringement
Were they pirates - no
Were they stealing - no
were they infringing copyright - no
were they sharing files - no
were they using P2P technology (yes it is built into the game)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
You certainly aren't a lawyer. "Only the CPS can prosecute anyone"? WTF? That's the most retarded statement I've ever heard in my life. The CPS prosecutes on behalf of the state. Anyone else can privately prosecute. You can also be sued. Back to IANAL 101 for you.
-10 points for accusing the BBC of "misinformation" when you're talking total shit yourself and the BBC are accurate. And -5 for everyone who modded you up.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright infringement is generally not a crime. It is a civil matter, in other words between the copyright holder (Atari) and the alleged infringer. Atari can sue for damages as outlined in the law, but it's not a criminal matter so there will be no criminal record or jail. The police will not investigate or prosecute it either.
The exception is large scale infringement for commercial gain. That can go down as far as the guy selling pirate DVDs at a car boot sale, but not someone just using P2P.
So far, ther
When did content makers get this stupid (Score:4, Funny)
Shared methodology of most content makers lately:
Old plan: Compete and make a better game. Get people to part with their money on the basis that your content is best. Convince them your game will improve their life.
New plan: Produce garbage no one wants. Restrict it so much it's unusuable. Treat your customers like criminals when they don't buy. Sue people almost indiscriminately (on the flimsiest evidence) to make up for short fall.
What the fuck happened? It feels like I'm in the twilight zone!
Err...right... (Score:3, Interesting)
And this amount of "70 cases" is relevant how, seeing that of course, the world only consisting of honest citizens, everybody rightfully accused of filesharing copyrighted content, would immediately admit to it?
I'm getting damn sick of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm getting damn sick of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The real question si not to know if you're right, it is to decide if you are ready to spend 10 years of your short life and risk your marriage and home for that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question si not to know if you're right, it is to decide if you are ready to spend 10 years of your short life and risk your marriage and home for that.
Yes, there is that risk. On the other hand if I try to live under a rock and not stand up for what I believe in, then it'd be a pretty boring life IMO. So, yes, I would risk it because the alternative (depending on your view) is being a prisoner anyway. Life is short, I agree. If you choose to live the "safe" life and you're happy, then great. I choose to defend my beliefs. The "cost" will definately involve losing something. The point is that whatever path you take you will lose something... it's a matter
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop buying games, then. Not just *buying* them, but playing them too. Or make your purchases much more carefully. I did this years ago and haven't bought a PC game in that time, unless it was a non-DRM thing off a budget label. The only game I play online is Counterstrike, because I have at least four legitimate copies of the original CD version at home, all of which entitle me to a Steam account with that game. I last loaded Steam about a year ago. Someone bought me FarCry for Christmas - I haven't
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Think this comic sums it up nicely: http://xkcd.com/488/
Not about piracy, about resale rights (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll sue ya! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm gonna sue because someone else used my IP address of 127.0.0.1 in their anti-piracy logs.
Why NOT ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What, precisely, is the downside for ATARI's troll? Yes, they could have to pay [taxed/controlled] defense legal costs. But the defendant would have to put up all the money first, then try to recover the judge's award included in the verdict.
Please tell me again, what is the downside? Judges may well fume. But they can do nothing. The letters are not extortion, but an "offer to settle" that might even be excluded from evidence as such!
The UK legal system mostly works because of self restraint. And poorly when that fails. Sometimes you can find a barrister who doesn't mind egg on his face. Solicters live there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
enormous number of Joe Six-Packs who perceive it as their god-given right to committ theft via Lime Wire
It's not theft. Period. End of argument, by the way. If you want to call it theft, you are wrong, and the discussions needs to halt right there until you can start using words correctly. And no, that doesn't mean I approve. And no, that doesn't mean it's not wrong. But it's not theft, and we can't have a cogent argument when we're using false, and incidentally biased, terms.
Are they the companies that voluntarily provide products and services that you can choose to purchase or not
You need to check in on your definition of voluntary.