Judge Grudgingly Awards $3.6 Million In DRM Circumvention Case 227
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."
Seems partly justified (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
Re:Seems partly justified (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
17938 infringements or just 1? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:17938 infringements or just 1? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:5, 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.
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:4, Insightful)
Only hundreds of years of patent and copyright protection.
But this is a case of unauthorized intrusion not copyright violation.
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:5, 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.
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:4, 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.
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:4, 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.
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:4, 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?
Default judgment (Score:4, 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.
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:4, 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.
Re:Seems partly justified (Score:5, 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.
Re:Seems partly justified (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 [wikipedia.org], 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.