Activision Goes After Individual Game Pirates 216
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).
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The second guy, selling unauthorized copies may be a pirate once he reaches financial thresholds enshrined in the law. You're right though, if you're profiting by your copyright infringement you're going to be in more trouble.
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:2, Funny)
The second guy, selling unauthorized copies may be a pirate once he reaches financial thresholds enshrined in the law.
The legal definition of piracy requires an armed attack against an airplane or ship on international waters using another plane/ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, the US Supreme Court has been using the term "piracy" in the current context since roughly the 1840s.
I don't know what "legal definition" really means, but your observation is pointless. We're all able to cope with homonyms.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally people who pirate games can not afford more than 1 or 2 games a month. But if they pirate them they can try 10 a month. In this day an age you need to try 10 games before you can find one that is any good. All of the game review magazine are untrustworthy when it comes to reviews of big name games. I don't know if there is just a lot of hype or if the reviewers are getting paid off.
My choice is to just quit playing the crap, not to start pirating games. But I can at least sympathize with people wh
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Generally people who pirate games can not afford more than 1 or 2 games a month. But if they pirate them they can try 10 a month.
If they can afford to buy one game a month, then they can get a membership at Gamefly [gamefly.com] or their local Blockbuster [blockbuster.com] and play far more games for the same amount of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
The point you are missing is that most of the people that I know who pirate music and software are evangelical about it. "Here Bob, don't buy that. Let me give you a copy." It takes an unusual person these days to say "No, I'd rather give WalMart money for it."
So just because one person pirates a game does not equal one potential sale lost. They are going to give a copy to everyone they know. They are going to post it on the Internet on some Russian warez site to increase the wealth of all those poor p
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: (Score:2)
to be fair xbox360 you can download demos of alot of games free...
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the reality is that if Activision is going after a true pirate (as defined by copyright statute, not the RIAA and not Webster's) they're not only within their rights, but obeying the letter and the spirit of the law. If this guy was copying and selling their product, depending upon the level of financial gain involved he may be a real live honest-to-God pirate. Whether you or I believe that piracy is "
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the reality is that if Activision is going after a true pirate (as defined by copyright statute, not the RIAA and not Webster's)
And where, pray tell, does it do that? The main definitions section in the US Copyright Act is 17 USC 101. There are a few other definitions scattered around.
I think you'll find, however, that 'pirate' is only a colloquialism, at least so far as copyrights are concerned. In the law, everyone who infringes is an infringer; it matters not whether it's a person unlawfully makin
Re: (Score:2)
Same deal, really. We aren't required to make treaties, and treaties can be withdrawn from. Frankly, meaningful copyright reform will never happen in the US unless with withdraw from most, if not all, of our copyright treaties. All the people out there who want terms shorter than life+50 -- they're implicitly advocating withdrawal. It's more popular than it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
If the game is good, we're going to want its expansion pack/online play/multiplayer/box art/full colour manual/bragging rights/etc.
1. The expansion pack is also on TPB.
2. Online play/multiplayer is a strawman, how often do you like a MP game for the SP or vice versa? Typically it's an either-or.
3. Box art/full colour manual are for many just a waste of space, who reads the manual after playing some time anyway?
4. Bragging rights for... what? Most I know want to see some game skills, not the reciept.
I think most people will sorta convieniently forget or have a massive change of heart "well, it wasn't that great" when it comes time to pa
Re: (Score:2)
It's an XBox 360 game which means you can likely download a demo version for free via Xbox Live. That should be enough for someone to try out the game and decide if it's worth purchasing.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Knights of the Old Republic was a great game. The sequel was equal or better in quality, but the ending was a huge disappointment. You don't discover that until you play through the entire game.
So sometimes you need to make a judgment call based on the demo. It's far better than basing your decision on a video at Amazon or the game designer web site. So, we've made some advances. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon? I'm not sure what you're saying.
You do know that shareware demos have been around for decades, right?
Yes. Many, many shareware purchases over the years starting with the old BBS software I ran. One of my passwords is actually my old Forsberg Zmodem registration key.
I think that the "demo" versions on websites and on Xbox 360 really owe quite a bit to the shareware tradition. The difference is that you don't get a full version without paying, but you do get some free enjoyment if you just play the demo.
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:2, Insightful)
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 is truly "distributed".... However, when it comes to software, there is only one copy. After that is made copies onto other things, technically there is nothing more to be stolen.
A couple of questions for ya:
1) When friend 2 borrows from friend 1, what is he borrowing?
2) After friend 2 borrows from friend 1, can friend 1 still play his game? Why or why not?
I don't think that you've though this "only one copy" thing through very well. More questions:
3) What exactly is in those boxes on the shelves of video game stores?
4) If your answer included the word "CD" or "DVD", then where do CD's or DVD's come from?
Along those lines, it's perfectly okay to steal a battleship. After all, all th
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, it doesn't matter what they borrow. If the first friend can play or not doesn't reflect, since there still isn't a physical copy. The "borrowing" doesn't have to be physical at all.
If you are selling something pirated, who is to say that the people who bought the illegitimate copy would have bought the original? No, its not that easy. You cannot dictate the minds of the consumers. Nobody can.
(note, I'm agreeing with you)
and sadly, people like oreilly don't understand anything and represent the kind of
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, nice to see a structured debate for once on the internet and on slashdot, no less.
What I'm saying is what difference does it make if the copy is physical or not? There is no ownership by the creator of the software whether a physical or electronic copy is created (or merely passed on back and forth). There is an inherent promotional value that the software maintains irregardless of it's current form (tell a friend,etc).
I would love to see EA hurt by watching the company go up in flames. However, I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
well, if we want to keep up a really crappy car analogy:
the guy doesn't steal one lincoln once, instead, everytime he needs to get somewhere, there's a linclon just sitting there. and he can take it, and he always puts it back exactly the same, so the dealer isn't losing anything. He goes and tells his friends how great the Lincoln is. They say, hey, i've got to get somewhere, i should get a linclon. but the original says no, don't buy a lincoln, i know somewhere where there's always a lincoln just sitt
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Excessive punishment (Score:2)
[Punitive damages are] a PUNISHMENT to the offender intended to discourage them from committing the offense in the first place.
But wouldn't an excessive punishment run afoul of constitutional protections in numerous developed countries? For example, in the United States (home of Slashdot), the Eighth Amendment [wikipedia.org] bans "excessive fines [from being] imposed", and the English Bill of Rights has nearly identical language.
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't an excessive punishment run afoul of constitutional protections in numerous developed countries? For example, in the United States (home of Slashdot), the Eighth Amendment bans "excessive fines [from being] imposed", and the English Bill of Rights has nearly identical language.
It would be a bit stupid if the worst case that an offender would face would be to give up his gains. Not getting caught = keep the money, getting caught = don't keep it. There would be no reason not to offend. Clearly the offender must lose something if he is caught, and should lose a lot if only few offenders get caught.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why were the penalties recently doubled? The part of the law governing statutory penalties is less than a decade old.
My opinion is that they (media companies) are looking out for number one, and they've paid enough bribes (ie., lobbying) to make sure that they get their way.
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.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but if someone stole my couch, should is it really reasonable to sue for $50,000?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but if someone stole my couch, should is it really reasonable to sue for $50,000?
Depends how many copies they stole of your couch, and resold.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to go over and beyond that to deter people.
By that reasoning, to deter people from committing murder, we shouldn't just bring back the death penalty. We should instead execute the offender, the offender's immediate family, the offender's extended family, his neighbours, his pets, his friends and his friend's family.
Or if you'd like something a little less extreme that does not involve the death penalty, to prevent an offender from speeding, his car should be confiscated, his family's cars, his frie
Re: (Score:2)
You've spectacularly missed the point. Either that or built a lovely straw man. Either way... nah.
The point is you can't just have fines for copyright infringement/theft on a large scale set at the cost of the equivalent number of copies you could have bought legally/the goods you stole. Because that way, there's no deterrent. If someone who pirated a £10 CD and sold 50 copies was fined £500, that conceivably comes under the realms of "cost of doing business". It's not a deterrent. Same way as i
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Making an arbitrary number of copies of game 1 = one act of infringement. Making an arbitrary number of copies of game 2 = another act of infringement. If Activision believes the damage is more than $150,000, then they have to go for actual damages.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
What's common [answers.com]? DWI? Oh, you probably meant "come on", which has a completely different meaning. Words are spelled the way they are for a reason, kids. It's so we can communicate!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$150,000 is the maximum statutory damage that can be awarded per infringed work. The minimum is $750 ($200 if the infringement was innocent). See 17 USC 504 [cornell.edu]. The judge has to pick a number between the two.
Nobody ever goes into an infringement suit saying "I know the maximum we can get is $150K. But, we're only going to ask for $50,000." It's just bad strategy -- ask for $150k and you may get $30K. Ask for $50K and you may get $3K.
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:2)
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 $18 profit. For copied games.
Oh, and nevermind the problems he had returning one of the discs that didn't work.
Yeah, I think I'll stick with legit retailers and used but original discs (not that I game much these days anyhow).
If movie/music/game companies want to make a real killing nailing *real* "pirates", just go to one of the big Chinese malls and nail all of these guys. They're raking in cash selling copies of other people's work, and if anyone should be sued for "piracy" I think these are a good place to start.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst part is when you get it home and discover that it's actually crab porn [thedailyshow.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and nevermind the problems he had returning one of the discs that didn't work.
In china at least, the street vendors selling bootleg copies would be happy to exchange a bad disc for you. The legit shops however wouldn't. So for 1/100 of the price you get 100x better service and convenience. Not to excuse this or other piracy, but if you treat your customers like pirates they're more likely to become pirates.
Re: (Score:2)
You must also add the risks of getting raided for selling illegal goods. For returning discs, ask if you can right before you buy, they usually let you as long as you do it fast, ie. test it today, fails to read, then go tomorrow; not like a week later or so.
So in China the studios decided to sell movies for like 3$ to combat illegal copies, well games should follow. 60$ way is too much, not including DRM or "anti-copy" junk, which is already removed in "illegal" copies, making them the superior product.
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:2)
damages ranging from $30,000 to $150,000 for each infringement of each copyrighted videogame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
break the law, you pay the consequences for a long time
Really? how long did it take you to pay the consequences for the last speeding ticket you got? Did you get charged $150,000 for breaking the law and putting peoples' lives at risk? You're right though, we should treat this guy like a corporate fraudster, or someone who manufactures drugs. There definitely should not be any discretion with regards to criminal punishment. Maybe this guy should get a lethal injection, I mean, murderers break the law too! Your logic is amazing, QED.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
In my view, pirating a game and not selling it is OK
Care to elaborate? Someone put their hard work, sometimes years of their life into a product and it's "OK" for you to enjoy that product in it's entirety without compensation to the creator, and more and more, the artist?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that if I wouldn't (or couldn't) pay for the item anyway, it's not unreasonable to copy it because the artist isn't out anything.
I can use an extreme case to illustrate this. Suppose there were a computer game which sells for $50,000. Very few people could afford this. A person with the above philosophy would find nothing morally wrong with copying the game, as he's not really depriving the author of any money. There's no way he'd buy the game legally.
There are various flaws with thi
Re: (Score:2)
There are various flaws with this line of thinking. First of all, most media market strategies rely on selling the media at a certain price initially, and then dropping the price over time. It's entirely possible that a hypothetical person might never be willing to pay $50 for game, so they pirate it, rationalizing it using the above method. Later on, the game drops to $20. The person might have been willing to pay $20, but now that they've already played the game, they probably won't.
Let's say a game is sold for $50, and a person wants this game, and seriously cannot afford to pay more than $20. That person could reasonably do three things: A. Not play the game. B. Get a copy from a friend and play that copy for free. C. Get a copy from a friend and play that copy, send a letter with $20 dollar explaining the situation to the games manufacturer. What do you think how many letters like this do game manufacturers receive? Or how many does Microsoft receive?
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
COD3? (Score:4, Funny)
If you ask me... (Score:2)
Having to play Call of Duty 3 is punishment enough.
(Note to Activision: Giving another entry in the franchise to Treyarch is a very, very bad idea.)
"Individual?" (Score:2)
Don't flamebait the title, please. Individual conjures up images of little Joey copying a game for his friend Billy and writing the CD key on the disk.
This is actual game piracy, you know the kind that's actually wrong? The profit-making kind?
This is the shit that's unfair to game manufacturers and really does cost them money. Joey and Billy's sharing is up for discussion.
The same way you catch small-time drug dealers... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
only off by 5 minutes . Keep trying
Re:first post? (Score:5, Funny)