By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Super Mario Pirate Appears on AU News Show

c0rd on 12 February 2010

People seem to conveniently overlook the main arguments for why this supposed fine is idiotic, so I'll try once more summing this up as simply as possible:

  • 50,000 downloads does not equal 50,000 lost sales. For all we know, Nintendo themselves downloaded it a ton to prop up the figure. We have absolutely no proof either way - if we did have a way of finding the people that downloaded the game, something tells me this guy wouldn't be taking all the blame in the first place.
  • How likely is it that the people who download the game are potential customers at all? I'd say it's a very slim chance, because if they're downloading a game, they already have a modded Wii to begin with, and are either the type to pirate everything (cannot sell to this group), or wanted to play the game early before they buy it (these will buy the game either way).

Forget the "math," the 50,000 figure is useless. That number may as well be 1,000,000, it's irrelevant, because there's nothing we can calculate from it.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 12 February 2010
c0rd said:

People seem to conveniently overlook the main arguments for why this supposed fine is idiotic, so I'll try once more summing this up as simply as possible:

  • 50,000 downloads does not equal 50,000 lost sales. For all we know, Nintendo themselves downloaded it a ton to prop up the figure. We have absolutely no proof either way - if we did have a way of finding the people that downloaded the game, something tells me this guy wouldn't be taking all the blame in the first place.
  • How likely is it that the people who download the game are potential customers at all? I'd say it's a very slim chance, because if they're downloading a game, they already have a modded Wii to begin with, and are either the type to pirate everything (cannot sell to this group), or wanted to play the game early before they buy it (these will buy the game either way).

Forget the "math," the 50,000 figure is useless. That number may as well be 1,000,000, it's irrelevant, because there's nothing we can calculate from it.


You shouldn't forget the math... it's just the math presented is incomplete. There are piracy models. The most radical would suggset a fine between 250,000 and 500,000 dollars depending on the location of the majority of the downloads.

c0rd on 12 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
c0rd said:

People seem to conveniently overlook the main arguments for why this supposed fine is idiotic, so I'll try once more summing this up as simply as possible:

  • 50,000 downloads does not equal 50,000 lost sales. For all we know, Nintendo themselves downloaded it a ton to prop up the figure. We have absolutely no proof either way - if we did have a way of finding the people that downloaded the game, something tells me this guy wouldn't be taking all the blame in the first place.
  • How likely is it that the people who download the game are potential customers at all? I'd say it's a very slim chance, because if they're downloading a game, they already have a modded Wii to begin with, and are either the type to pirate everything (cannot sell to this group), or wanted to play the game early before they buy it (these will buy the game either way).

Forget the "math," the 50,000 figure is useless. That number may as well be 1,000,000, it's irrelevant, because there's nothing we can calculate from it.

You shouldn't forget the math... it's just the math presented is incomplete. There are piracy models. The most radical would suggset a fine between 250,000 and 500,000 dollars depending on the location of the majority of the downloads.

I can't honestly say I know much about law, I'm sure there are. How do they determine the location of the majority of the downloads, though? Wouldn't knowing the location flush out other criminals? (The others who broke the law)

No matter how I see it, it just looks absurd. The man uploaded a game to the internet, the punishment should reflect this. It's not even like he profited from this move, he didn't steal a million dollars. I personally know someone who got caught for credit card theft (a real thief), and he's getting it far easier than this supposed fine.



theRepublic on 12 February 2010

Interestingly, a broken street date may have helped contribute to Burt’s eventually piracy, as he stated that he found the game in a retail store over a week before it was to be officially released. Recounting to online friends that he already possessed the game led them to demand proof, which in turn led Burt to make the fateful decision to upload the game to the Internet.

That was your first thought as to how to prove you had the game?  Do you not own a camera?  That is fucking stupid.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Farmageddon on 12 February 2010
theRepublic said:

Interestingly, a broken street date may have helped contribute to Burt’s eventually piracy, as he stated that he found the game in a retail store over a week before it was to be officially released. Recounting to online friends that he already possessed the game led them to demand proof, which in turn led Burt to make the fateful decision to upload the game to the Internet.

That was your first thought as to how to prove you had the game?  Do you not own a camera?  That is fucking stupid.

it seems he actualy took pictures of his receipt, that's why Nintendo could find him.



Around the Network
theRepublic on 12 February 2010
Farmageddon said:
theRepublic said:

Interestingly, a broken street date may have helped contribute to Burt’s eventually piracy, as he stated that he found the game in a retail store over a week before it was to be officially released. Recounting to online friends that he already possessed the game led them to demand proof, which in turn led Burt to make the fateful decision to upload the game to the Internet.

That was your first thought as to how to prove you had the game?  Do you not own a camera?  That is fucking stupid.

it seems he actualy took pictures of his receipt, that's why Nintendo could find him.

Saw that after reading the thread.  He should have done that in the first place.  Then there is no need to upload the game.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

largedarryl on 12 February 2010
IxisNaugus said:
I take it you both (Rainbird and Mise) must know a lot about the justice system and suitable punishments to make such bold claims. I'd love to know how you both came to the conclusion that this punishment is far too severe and he doesn't deserve it.

This man chose to break the law, he was caught and ordered to pay compensation for the damage he caused the company. The loss of potential sales and revenue was a direct result of this individuals actions; the long term damage goes beyond Nintendo themselves and it was revealed that future release dates for Australia may be hurt because of this. Or are you going to tell me he has not in fact caused much damage? If so, please elaborate on that.

Justice has been served and the law has spoken. We can go on all day about how harsh it is to "end this mans life" but i shall direct you to some words that seemed to have gone ignored previously: If you cannot do the time then do not do the crime.

In terms of punishement, the fine imposed on this man will take away the chance of him having any life EVER.  So if you can justify that a lifelong financial distruction is justifiable when a drunk driver killing someone will be back on his feet before this guy.

I don't beleive a finincially based result is the correct punishment.  If this man made a monetary gain, then a financially based punishment would be appropriate.  Since this is not the case, it should be considered in line with other theft charges and have a jail term that lines up with other crimes.



Moren on 12 February 2010

There are millions, catching him won't do much help



Samus Aran on 12 February 2010
Faxanadu said:
well, he can start a business and earn way more than that.

Maybe putting him into prison for 5 years would be better for you guys?

Please tell me the bank that will lend you money to start a business if you have a $1.6million debt. I think I'll pay it a visit then :)

 

I wouldn't pay a single dime to a company with more then $10billion on their bank account, I'd rather go to jail.