What I object to is the vagueness, and the secrecy at play in these filings. I must assume that the corporate entity is up too malfeasance. There is a old saying about fighting someone your own size. There is also something despicable about shaking down someone that is defenseless for money. This almost feels like something out of the Sopranos.

I honestly cannot say whether this was justified or not justified, but I have to assume that it was not justified. Otherwise why try to hide what happened. Are the settlements equal to the crime. I would seriously doubt that. They have no attorney present, and how did they cost this company a hundred thousand dollars in copyright infringement. That seems like an entirely arbitrary figure. With no attempt to account for a reasonable loss.

I do not mind companies making an example of pirates. They are scum and deserve to be incarcerated and fined. However this reads like a money making venture. Trick someone into selling you a illegal copy of a game. Then sue them for a hundred thousand dollars. This actually reads like they want you to steel from them so they can sue you, and make more money then they lost.

This was on slashdot the other day. You might want to note this update:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/19/update-activision-copyright-lawsuits-not-based-file-sharing

So because they were unrepresented what they were doing was right and I should feel sorry for them?  It's the people who pirated the games who decided to actually pirate those games and not get representation.  You're trying to make it sound like it's Activisions fault for trying to get their money back and being made whole.

So you're basically saying that as long as you're stealing something small from something big you shouldn't be punished if caught?

"Getting their money back?" So those people respectively stole 100k worth of games? That's about 2.000 games given that each game is $50. Even though I've been playing for near two decades now I doubt I've even reached 200 games. Somehow I doubt anyone has ever played 2.000 games, much less in the amount of time we're talking about here, pirating games didn't really start off so big up until the turn of the century. I don't think that many games were even made, much less by Activision themselves.

The smaller people should be punished, but honestly, 100,000? I mean... if I went and stole a gold watch and got caught I doubt I'd have to pay 100k, and that watch probably csots a hell of a lot more than the $50 for a video game. Maybe even jail for a few months if the owners were particularly anal, bit nothing even close to these sums.

Btw in case anyone was thinking it was Twesterm. I was the one who reported ChichiriMuyo to Naznatips on Steam.

twestern,
You seem to think that as long as these companies are doing it for the cause of anti-piracy it is ok for them to pretty much do anything. What you fail to realize is that your blind support of these corporate tactics will result in YOU, the paying customer, to be screwed over.

Sony limits downloads of media from playstation network to a single download:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080921-playstation-3-video-drm-two-strikes-and-youre-out.html

Just google Securom causing computer problems and you will get many forum posts and articles.

EA store allowing only 6 months to redownload the content that you paid full price for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA_Link

RIAA suing a dead old woman
http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased_Grandmother/1107532260

Punishment must befit the crime. When I see that pirates who SOLD games and made thousands of dollars get sued for that money, then I think they got what they deserved. When somebody who cant represent themselves has to pay 100k to a huge corporation for stealing maybe a few hundred dollars, then I see something wrong.

And here is another fun fact, lawsuits like this usually cause more piracy and in places in which Activision wont be able to reach them. Most of the pirate servers nowadays are outside of US and other countries with idiotic copyright laws and usually cant be sued.

Remember, when you torrent something you are in fact supplying other people too.  Even if you don't seed, you're still supporting those people who makes those things available. 

How are they hurting me when I'm not the one pirating software?  I've never had a problem with Securom, DRMs, the RIAA, or whatever.  If you do the crime, you have to be prepared to do the time.

It doesn't matter if it's a big corporation or a small mom and pop store, they aren't the ones that fucked up and they in no way forced those people to steal their software.

I hate sounding like a broken record, but these people knew what they were doing when they store that software and the knew the consequences.  They chose to pirate those games, and it's their own fault they have to pay those hefty fines.  Not Activisions.

I think Chemical's point that the punishment needs to fit the crime stands. $100,000 sounds like a reasonable sum if these people were all distributing copies of Activision games for profit (actually distributing, not just using Bittorrent).

$100,000 seems completely out-of-line if these people were simply downloading games for their own use. The punishment would be far less severe if they had simply shoplifted the games from a retailer, to go with the flawed analogy of theivery that always comes up in these discussions. Is downloading really so much more heinous than shoplifting?

It's not clear whether these people were distributing or profiting from illegal copies, but if they weren't, then there is no justice here. Just a big company (ab)using the state to protect their bottom line by stringing up some petty criminals to serve as an example to the rest us.

And I hate to sound like a broken record as well, but how is it NOT hurting you. Back in the day you would pay for the game and you would have access to it for as long as the CD lasted, now you pay full price for the game and if you ever feel like playing it again, tough luck. What gaming companies want is a very expensive rental, you pay 50$ and then you get to play the game for a few months, and after that you can go and shove your computer up your nose you aint getting the game.

I am going to repost this link since you obviously ignored it

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080921-playstation-3-video-drm-two-strikes-and-youre-out.html

PS3 has on average 60gigs of harddrive space on their consoles, so if you buy something for the playstation store and ever delete it to make some space you will have to pay for the download again in the future. Is this what you desire twestern? Paying full retail price for a rental. Just recently I pulled out Medievel 2 Total War and I am playing it again, but what if I bought the game from EA store. My current PC is a new one, i built this one from a few months ago because my old PC crashed and I could not recover any data. Well, I would have to pay for the game again for the privelege of playing it.

I remember you talking about not having a problem with used game sales. I personally do but this is no way of doing this. Steam is the utopia of gaming future. You get to play games offline, you can install them on as many PCs as you want. In fact, I had a very easy time of getting Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2 to play on my new PC. Hell, I played Portal again the other day and then uninstalled it to save space, most likely my 3rd or 4th time.

I understand that you hate piracy, in the end it kills developers but at the same time dont allow multibillion corporations to screw people over, because once they get the public to agree with a small offense then they will start pushing more and more.