Slashdot Log In
Activision Goes After Individual Game Pirates
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:19 AM
from the with-gusto dept.
from the with-gusto dept.
brunascle writes "Activision has begun suing individual pirates of console games. Edge Online is reporting that they are going after a New York resident for allegedly copying Call of Duty 3 for the Xbox 360 and other games, seeking $30,000 to $150,000 in damages for each infringement. GamePolitics has also uncovered six other lawsuits with settlements between $1,000 and $100,000, in five of which the defendant was unrepresented."
Activision's lawyers specifically told GamePolitics that the lawsuit wasn't targeting file-sharers, so they probably mean that the alleged pirate was reproducing and distributing physical copies of the game. The court complaint is available here (PDF).
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Great move by Activision! (Score:4, Insightful)
Going after filesharers INSTEAD of pirates is completely nuts, looks like Activision has the right idea. /.ers are software pirates (correctly used here, look up the word if you feel like complaining).
I really don't see how this is "your rights online" unless you assume all
Re:Great move by Activision! (Score:5, Interesting)
And it's awesome that they are not pulling an RIAA.. I assume this Strickland dude from New York has his own stand or possibly selling them on the internet or even maybe around his school. I'm a huge fan of Activision, and I'm glad to see them not pulling the stuff RIAA has been known to do.
Parent
So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Doesn't Activision have the right to recover their development costs and profit from the risk they took to produce the game?
NO. They have a right to TRY. They do not however, have any right to deny people their fair use rights, nor any other right they have.
On the other hand, this doesn't seem the case here (assuming the information from Activision is correct).
Parent
No deposit, no return (Score:3, Insightful)
NO. They have a right to TRY.
.
If Activation fails to make a profit they have the right to abandon the market.
The small independent producer lives on even tighter margins - and doesn't have a significant backlist of titles to carry him through hard times.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They do not however, have any right to deny people their fair use rights
Fair use is a defense, not a right.
IANAL, TINLA; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [wikipedia.org]. I've heard those words spoken by a female lawyer in a slashdotter-friendly context. I think it was Cindy Cohen, either relating to EFF, Defcon or both, but I may be wrong; check http://www.defcon.org/html/links/defcon-media-archives.html [defcon.org] (check it even if you don't care, you might learn something really fucking awesome).
What does it mean that fair use is a defense and not a right? It means that someone can prevent
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Undoubtedly.
Nobody is contesting their legal rights in this case- at least, not me.
I am, however, contesting how *wise* this decision is. Game companies produce a lot of crap. The signal to noise ratio is extremely low, especially when considering just how many games are produced for the PC every year. So how do we know what's good?
Well, we could seek reviews- but many reviewers are paid for their submissions, have an agenda, or simply have different tastes. Or we hear about it from friends. Or... we pirate them and see for ourselves. If the game is crap- nothing wasted. If the game is good, we're going to want its expansion pack/online play/multiplayer/box art/full colour manual/bragging rights/etc.
In almost all cases, such "piracy" doesn't constitute a lost sale. Either the "pirate" couldn't afford it anyway, or wouldn't buy it if she couldn't "pirate" it. Think students, working mums, etc. Not all of them are- but most.
But these pirates give you something money can't buy- legitimate word of mouth advertising. You can't buy it, it's the BEST form of advertising short of beaming ads into people's dreams and it's generally free. And it's one of the three ways people decide if a game is good or not- and as stated earlier, it's generally the most telling.
So: you can excuse acts of individual not-for-profit piracy and write it off as free advertising. Or, you could hunt down anyone who pirates even a single game and charge them for a crime with punishments quite often worse than rape.
Are people going to buy more of your games, or fewer?
Parent
The difference between branches of piracy... (Score:5, Informative)
Personal-use pirates, who make a copy of the game for themselves, and perhaps a few friends, do it because they don't want to pay for the game. They might be able to afford it anyway, but (at least a fair number) will purchase at least some games legitimately.
Assuming Activision's info is correct, this guy is more likely a sidewalk vendor who made dozens of game copies to sell for his personal profit.
While both are committing the same violations of the law, the intent of profit in the second case makes it much more likely that the court will find in Activision's favor, and that they will get a big pile of money (or, at least, all the money this guy has.) Moreso, while you can find wishy-washy support for the first class of pirate all over the place, only a very tiny segment of people are going to tell you the second guy isn't doing anything wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's not so much a differing (legal) definition of copyright infringment versus piracy - it's all, really, copyright infringment. The difference between doing it for yourself, doing it for your friends, and doing it for money is the diff
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.
The PC game that sells for $60 today will be steeply discounted tomorrow.
Far Cry [classicpcgamer.com] $6.
Impatience and greed do not excuse theft.
The hardware requirements for Far Cry were not low end in 2004.
Which raises the interesting question of how your impecunious student or working mum was ab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument is dead on, and yes you missed it.
If you charge too much, or someone wants to try your game before deciding if you deserve their money, they are entitled to do so.
"Pirating" a game fits that purpose directly.
If someone doesn't have enough money to pay for a game but wants to play it, well, he can "pirate" it too.
would any of these scenarios constitute a sale? no.
The best comparison is like 2 people having a PC, and one borrows the game from the friend. No sale is necessarily made, and no copy i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see... should I pay for a copy of software that will install all kinds of shit on my computer, and possibly not work because of other software that's installed (like ISO mounting programs), or should I take the pirated copy that will just work and is a lot cheaper and less likely to screw up my computer. Man, this is a hard decision!
I buy software. I don't if it has shitty DRM that tries to invade my machine and take control away from me.
Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)
I demand the taxpayer pay me billions that I risked and lost with my career choice. I took the risk and I deserve the profits.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He took the risk to write out a post like that, so he deserves the mod points :P
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
What ever gave you that (incorrect) idea? Seriously? They're called punitive damages for a reason. Here - I'll make it easy for you and not even link to Wikipedia - I'll just post the definition for you.
Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff.
The point is to _PUNISH_ the offender sufficiently that they are discouraged from the act. It has nothing to do with putting the plaintiff into the position they'd have been in had the act never happened. It's a PUNISHMENT to the offender intended to discourage them from committing the offense in the first place.
Parent
I knew it would happen... (Score:5, Funny)
The response to "talk like a pirate day" was strong and swift.
$30k - $150k? (Score:5, Interesting)
A game costs roughly $60.00. For each act of infringement, Activision wants, at the very least, 50000% of the initial price, or at the most, 250000% of the initial price. How is it even legal to demand that much? I truly don't understand our legal system. If he had stolen the game 5 times, he'd probably be fined $500 - $1000, but for distributing 5 copies, he now has to pay (if activision gets their way) $150k?
I'm sorry, but that's just incredibly fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, they are not file sharers [gamepolitics.com] and we don't really know what they did.
Re:$30k - $150k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Copyright violations assume it happened a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
The penalties for copyright violations were actually written for cases like this. The assumption is that someone selling a pirate game/movie/book/CD has sold many of them, and they're doing it to make a personal profit. The only way to stop the crime is to take the profit out of it - if he sold them for $20 each, and the fine was only 500 bucks, he'd only have to sell about 25 to make up for each time he was caught. He probably sold a hell of a lot more than that, if he's like many of the pirated goods dealers I've seen.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The penalties for copyright violations were actually written for cases like this.[...]He probably sold a hell of a lot more than that, if he's like many of the pirated goods dealers I've seen.
See, the penalties only work properly if you include that one caveat. I may be wrong here (please, correct me if I am), but wouldn't a party be able to apply the same penalties to a small scale pirate, for instance? If you copy a game 5 times and hand them out to friends (say you sell them for 5 or 10 bucks), does it make sense for the same penalties to be applied?
I understand that the idea behind the huge penalties is to deter others, but it seems to me that there should (at the very least) be different le
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a good point, which is also the reason that judges have a lot of latitude in assigning penalties in cases like this. It's unlikely that a guy making games for his friends is going to have a stall at the local flea market - the assumption is going to be that someone who has a setup like that is doing it for profit.
That
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$30k - $150k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the fines for copyright infringement aren't based on how many of Album/Game/Book X you copy, but the infringement of the rights of the copyright holder.
Put it another way; if you steal someone's stuff and sell it, the punishment isn't "pay for what you stole and we'll leave it at that". You have to go over and beyond that to deter people, otherwise it'd just be a sale through force.
Parent
"This is me..." (Score:2, Insightful)
... playing the world's saddest song, on the world's smallest violin.
I have little sympathy for people who get busted doing the wrong thing and pirating games. It's not like games are a human right or anything. As a developer myself who depends on our software being SOLD FOR MONEY to make a living (as opposed to peace and love and lentil burgers, as the freetard hippie commie FSF crowd would have us do).
Frankly, if somebody is dumb enough to get caught not paying for something that cost somebody a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't download music because oth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to touch on the first part of your statement.
"Yet insane fees are exactly what is required to stop the bigtime crimes"
Ok, let's move to another "Big time" crime...Hmm DWI. Pretty Big time crime right? Why is it that those who pirate have bigger fines than those that put peoples lives at risk?
I understand that the penalty needs to be big, but common...When I'd rather get nabed for a DWI than pirating a game...that's pretty bad don't you think?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As a soon-to-graduate-and-become-a-developer, I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms to your statement.
Commercial piracy- sure. That's just plain theft. Taking someone else's art and selling it without permission is theft.
Individual piracy? The key question you have to answer here is: "Did this act of piracy cost me a sale?"
Sometimes it did. Frequently it didn't. Was this person willing and able to pay for your software, but chose to pirate it instead? Perhaps you're not adding enough value to t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I assume the people being sued aren't being sued for making a copy of the game - they're being sued for copying _and selling_ the game(s). The damag
Sounds like a good move (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of these guys around here, and they're pretty arrogant too. I had a buddy looking for some XBox 360 games, and there was a pirate shop that was apparently selling (copies) for cheap. Curious about how they operated, I dropped in and found they have a huge binder listing game titles, and it's about $8 for a Wii/PS2 game or $20 for an Xbox 360 game. This is for a *BURNED DISC*
So I asked why the price differential for the 360 games (hell, it's all copied BS, no originals) and they said it's because XB360 discs are double-layer and cost more.
So let's see. About $0.50 or less for a single layer DVD, maybe add the cost of a label, is about $7 profit. At what, $1.50 for a dual-layer DVD is maybe $18 profit. For copied games.
Oh, and nevermind the problems he had returning one of the discs that didn't work.
Yeah, I think I'll stick with legit retailers and used but original discs (not that I game much these days anyhow).
If movie/music/game companies want to make a real killing nailing *real* "pirates", just go to one of the big Chinese malls and nail all of these guys. They're raking in cash selling copies of other people's work, and if anyone should be sued for "piracy" I think these are a good place to start.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen to this. The pros operate on an industrial scale and must surely account for a significant amount of revenue foregone, when people realize they can just buy a disc for a fiver off some fat Chinese kid.
In London, DVD piracy is a huge, and very sophisticated business. They're big enough that they have proper presses and proper glossy three colour printed jackets, all manufactured here in town. They have runner who move the good to the sellers, who are trafficked into Britain and paid a pittance to sel
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst part is when you get it home and discover that it's actually crab porn [thedailyshow.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and nevermind the problems he had returning one of the discs that didn't work.
In china at least, the street vendors selling bootleg copies would be happy to exchange a bad disc for you. The legit shops however wouldn't. So for 1/100 of the price you get 100x better service and convenience. Not to excuse this or other piracy, but if you treat your customers like pirates they're more likely to become pirates.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're a crook and deserve to be punished. Period.
You don't think that there's a difference between justly punishing someone and ruining their life by making them pay $150k for each $60 game they sold? I believe that there should absolutely be repercussions, but they should be appropriate to the crime. I feel like your "period" comes a little too soon in this matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The story do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I speed, I get a ticket and some points on my license. If I speed a lot and accumulate points, my license gets taken away from me and I get to take my test after my ban expires. If I speed in such a manner that my driving causes immediate risk to other persons, then it becomes a whole different ball game - if theres simp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as you make a profit from someone else's copyrighted work, without their permission, you don't have a hint of a leg to stand on. You deserve to be sued and, hopefully, the copyright holder will win.
You might want to back down a little bit.
Consider, for example, if Alice creates a copyrighted work, and Bob, without permission, creates a parody of that work, and sells copies for a profit. Or if Bob buys used copies of Alice's work, and resells them, without permission, and for a profit. Both of these
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Don't Sue Your Market (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell with actually selling games. Let's sue 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
If a company is publicly owned and answers to shareholders for maximum profit, then it is in its best interest for them to be their own pirates. If they can sell an individual copy of the game for $30, but they can get $1000 from every person that they sue that has a copy of the game that wasn't purchased, then they should distribute as many 'illegal' copies of the game as possible. Suing your 'customers' is far more profitable than selling them games could ever be. They have an obligation to their stockholders to put most of their corporate resources into lawsuits instead of game development.
Activision should work with their distributors to get the names of young people who are using the 'illegal' games. First they sell for pennies a mediocre game and get the names and addresses of the people whom they are going to sue. Then Activision gives a copy of the hot new game (HNG) to the distributors. The distributors give the HNG to the people who bought the previous game, and then give the names and addresses of those people to Activision. Then the lawyers are released from hell, and instead of collecting $30 from each person for a game, they get $1000+ from each person who received a 'free' HNG. The distributors get 20% as a bounty.
Of course, it goes without saying that the distributors will tell the 'customers' that the HNG is an open-source program and that the only charge is 'register' your name and address. Activision should also remove all copyright notices from the HNG code and claim that it is a 'product under development'.
This kind of thing is frowned upon in legal circles as being a form of entrapment, but that doesn't apply to civil or copyright cases. Even if it did, any applicable laws could quickly be changed to maximize the profit for Activision.
In this situation, the customer base of Activision has four choices:
> they can give up using game programs from any source, free, paid, legal, illegal, bit-torrent, whatever.
> they can pay the $1000+ to Activision.
> they can pay the $1000+ to Activision, then find out where the children of the Activision lawyers go to school, kidnap them, and hold them until they get their $1000+ back.
> pay a finder's fee/bounty to a death-squad-for-hire to kill the lawyers and not pay Activision the $1000+.
This is how various mafia crime organizations get started. When it starts to make more financial sense to all chip in to hire a killer than it does to risk being sued/entrapped by corrupt organizations that discovered that it was much easier to sue people than provide them with a product/service at going market prices.
Sure beats selling software for a living.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two points on your comments. First, doesn't the idea that piracy has some component of "wrong" to it make a difference to you? The idea that Activision could do just as much wrong as the pirates and win is silly. Your proposal falls flat on its face because no legal action would ever make it past the first 15 minutes in court.
Secondly, the objective of piracy is to make sure that nobody ever has to pay again. I don't see that Activision has much of a choice, really. They can sell a few more copies, hav
Re:Hell with actually selling games. Let's sue 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
COD3? (Score:4, Funny)
The same way you catch small-time drug dealers... (Score:2)
Re:first post? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent