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

Forums - Sales - Activision suing file-sharers RIAA style

vlad321 on 22 September 2008
famousringo said:
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.

 

Coompletely true. When you steal that DVD out of the box no one else is actually gonna get it, effectively you cost the company twice as much since neither you nor someone else will buy it. If you share it loss is only from the guy who got the copy.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
Ail on 22 September 2008

They broke the law, they got fined, what's the big deal ?

You guys argue with the cops when they catch you above the speed limit ?
I don't think so...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

vlad321 on 22 September 2008

^ I'd go to court if they wanna charge me 20,000 for a first offense so yeah, I guess I would argue with cops as well.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Ail on 22 September 2008
Chemical said:
twesterm said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

 I can see why PSN is doing that way for movies.

There are a huge number of people that trade PSN downloaded games, Sony doesn't need it to be extended to movies ( or they would be in big troubles with the movies studios..)



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Lord N on 22 September 2008
twesterm said:

 


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.

 

1) The legal system is supposed to hand out a punishment that fits the crime. It isn't supposed to impose the punitive fantasies of corporations and ignorant, uninformed zealots. The use of such draconian measures doesn't reflect well on these companies, and as has been seen when the RIAA tried this, it has no effect on the people who are doing it.

2) DRM such as Securom, Starforce, Sony's rootkits, etc, do nothing to stop anyone involved. Instead, they just cause computer problems for people who bought legitimate copies. The people who are using P2P obviously aren't going to be affected by it, and as a matter of fact, it may cause people who may have bought a legitimate copy to instead turn to P2P because they know that the copy that they obtain from that medium will have had the DRM removed.

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3

Around the Network
Lord N on 22 September 2008
Ail said:
They broke the law, they got fined, what's the big deal ?

You guys argue with the cops when they catch you above the speed limit ?
I don't think so...

 

I'm going to ask you the same question: When a law is amended or repealed, or when you're in different cities/states/countries, what you believe automatically changes?

Furthermore, it's not just about the legality. It's about whether or not the actions of the copyright holders are justified or even effective at all, and I think that we can see that the anwer is a resounding "no."



 

Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3

wfz on 22 September 2008

Wait, Activision is richer than Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo? What did they mean in the first sentence?



JaggedSac on 22 September 2008
Lord N said:
Ail said:
They broke the law, they got fined, what's the big deal ?

You guys argue with the cops when they catch you above the speed limit ?
I don't think so...

 

I'm going to ask you the same question: When a law is amended or repealed, or when you're in different cities/states/countries, what you believe automatically changes?

Furthermore, it's not just about the legality. It's about whether or not the actions of the copyright holders are justified or even effective at all, and I think that we can see that the anwer is a resounding "no."

You keep saying this **** about changing your beliefs whenever you go to a different city or when a law is amended.  Not sure what your logic is on that one.  A law is a law whether you believe in it or not. You must live in a fantasy world.  We do not know the details of the case, so we cannot determine if the amounts were justified.  If the person distributed via bittorrent, then there is a good chance that 2000 people downloaded the thing.  Which would have equaled the amount lost from the system.

 

Watch a movie and look at the outrageous copyright notice.  People know you are not supposed to steal **** in any county/city/state.  People know there are repercusions for their actions.



Lord N on 22 September 2008
JaggedSac said:
Lord N said:
Ail said:
They broke the law, they got fined, what's the big deal ?

You guys argue with the cops when they catch you above the speed limit ?
I don't think so...

 

I'm going to ask you the same question: When a law is amended or repealed, or when you're in different cities/states/countries, what you believe automatically changes?

Furthermore, it's not just about the legality. It's about whether or not the actions of the copyright holders are justified or even effective at all, and I think that we can see that the anwer is a resounding "no."

You keep saying this **** about changing your beliefs whenever you go to a different city or when a law is amended.  Not sure what your logic is on that one.  A law is a law whether you believe in it or not. You must live in a fantasy world.  We do not know the details of the case, so we cannot determine if the amounts were justified.  If the person distributed via bittorrent, then there is a good chance that 2000 people downloaded the thing.  Which would have equaled the amount lost from the system.

 

Watch a movie and look at the outrageous copyright notice.  People know you are not supposed to steal **** in any county/city/state.  People know there are repercusions for their actions.

 

You don't get it, do you?

Just because something is a law doesn't make it right. It wasn't that long ago that the law stated that it was okay to dsicriminate and treat people as second-class citizens because of the color of their skin. This whole argument of "it's the law and that's it" is stupid, and if that's your attitude, then you're nothing but a tool box. The reason I brought up those questions is because what constitutes copyright infringement in one place may not in another.

Besides, had you been paying attention, you'd know that the issue here isn't just about whether or not it's illegal but about whether or not the punishment fits the crime and whether or not it even had any real effect on the matter at large. The number of times the song was downloaded doesn't mean shit either. As I've said, every download does not equal a lost sale.



 

Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3

jasonnc80 on 22 September 2008
twesterm said:
Godot said:
Chemical said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
twesterm, you are the biggest tool around. I'm starting to think if a major corporation sent a representative up to you and they kicked you in the nuts that company would become your favorite.

 

 

 

Oh that's a great gif ;)

 

I really don't agree with you twesterm. Pirates may be bad but bullying individuals (who usually are the most defenceless that's why they're the ones getting sued) isn't the solution. In my ethics class, I did my paper on the subject. My question was something like that: "Is it correct for big corporations to defend their IP with legal action?" And my answer was no for small pirates. The ones that they need to attack are the ones that make piracy possible: hackers, torrent site admin, huge uploader (such as klaxxon), etc. Attacking the average Joe is terrible for their image and has no effect on piracy whatsoever.

 

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

That's not really the point at all.  The fact of the matter is that Activision no matter how big or how profitiable they are will only have a limited resource of time and money to pursue these pirates.  Going after the small guy when there are much bigger fish to fry does nothing but make a symbolic gesture which does NOTHING at all to curb the illegal downloads of their products. 

Your thread title right there should illustrate how futile these lawsuits are.  We know how well the RIAA's tactics have been in their quest to stop piracy.  Yeah it sucks that you may have to overlook the small "criminals" here and there but we live in the real world and sometimes you have to ignore the smaller guy to go after what you feel are the real criminals.  This type of utopian and unilateral thinking won't lead to any meaningful results.  I think a good comparison would be how we've handled the "War on Drugs".  Trying to prosecute every crime no matter how big or small.  That seems to be working really well...



Completed X360:
High Def Movie Collection