What i'm curious is about is people like myself, i downloaded operation flash point years ago, so i'd be willing to bet i'll be getting a letter in the post sometime soon. Fair enough, they caught me, but does it matter in the slightest that i did infact buy operation flashpoint and over a period of time i've also bought all of its expansions? Surely the developers have gotten my money at the end of the day, but i bet if i could produce an old receipt (which i bet i could) for it i really doubt it would help in my defense in any way.
Publishers to fine 25,000 game pirates
- Thread starter dafloppyone
- Start date
There's no mention of how far back they will be looking is there?
Can someone find me the laws that directly state it is illegal, im having trouble just googling for it. (im being serious)
On a side note im pretty sure 90% of the country is guilty of illegaly downloading.
Personally i think if its illegal currently to download something like this it should not matter when you comitted the "crime" even if it is 25 years ago. Saying oh i dont pirate now does NOT get you off the hook. So instead of all this bashing think long and hard and then turn yourself into the nearest police station, thank you
Note you may keep your high horse for turning yourself in.
It's very difficult to prove such loss of income. The only way to argue a case for income loss would be to speculate people will treat that free commodity as neccessity, and that's nearly impossible to prove. Certainly you could then argue any second hand shop with records, games or any equipment really creates income loss. Our "Member's market", freecycle communities or even your local council recycling scheme. It's even more difficult to prove when you consider game and software industry is actually growing, rather than shrinking.
So you argue that copyright infringement is not copyright infringement if it doesn't involve large timescale and pricetag? Where does it start? Is £2.99 The World according to Jeremy Clarkson ok to re-distribute in a bog but Fidel Castro's Speeches: Building Socialism in Cuba Volume 2 would be off limits because it took 20 years to create and retails for £49? It's either a infringement or it isn't - in which case that tape of Rick Astley you copied from school budy in 5th grade, box of Jugs and Bottoms you borrowed from your older cousin in 8th grade to redistribute among your closest MILF pals, Riverdance CD left over from your "folk era" you flogged on ebay and Pinball 3D you downloaded from torrents is in the same category.
Because you aren't avid gamer if you only have illegal copies. Just like there is no audiophile with dodgy mp3 collection off emule or art lover with Xerox copies of books on DaVinci. Avid gamer does not skip multiplayer parts of the game and long term experience to settle for single player, "unplug network, chant "gone is the CD check" twice and run YASU" release with a crack. One almost entirely disqualifies the other.
Why would they though. It's not like the freeloaders sipping starbucks over a book on the floor of Waterstones for hours then carry a tag "I'm too tight to buy a book I'm enjoying" afterwards?
Last edited:
Last edited:
Because the markets, cultures and sales are different in each locale. Can you confirm that the game buying demographics are identical in all three countries?
Because the buying patterns are very different between the two products. People do not buy games and music in the same way. The demographics are also different all of which will have an impact. It would be the same as saying that TV sales and car sales are the same what with them both being tangible products.
Do you think cost has an impact on the purchasing decision? Therefore different costs will have different impacts.
Modern games are considerably more expensive to produce than Music CDs. Even figuring in all of the additional costs that apply to music (which is some cases also applies to games).
I dare say that many downloads could easily happen in the space of just 1 year.
Maybe, but common sense might suggest otherwise. To think that there is a possiblity that stopping illegal downloading would have no impact whatsoever is surely hypothetic thinking on the most extreme level?
It might still be technically copyright infringement but that doesnt mean it should attract similar penalties - if you really want to be rigid about it then yes, all you examples were probably infringements...
hmm well thats subjective isn't it, I know quite a few people who play a lot of games yet never pay for any of them. I know anecdotal isn't any better, but its not a fact either way.
well they bloody well should, they annoy me as well!
As internet connectivity isn't yet up to 90% then it probably isn't...
they could but its unlikely on such an old game and the 25000 just being uk residents alone
Im sure most people go to school or work, and im pretty sure most of these strange places have internet connections
Yeah, factory floors and call centres are great places to download illegal software...
Going through the history - sudden death of napster in it's day, with no immediate popular alternative did not create sudden surge of income for music industry. In fact it probably closed few doors and created relative loss of popularity to anti-sharing movement progenitors (Metallica's case).
And this is where bootlegging I think is so much different from internet piracy - in case of bootleg sellers the case is simple - they found customers, money was exchanged - people were interested to buy the product - the loss of revenue is the number in bootleggers pocket - there is a simple, solid and proven number to fall on. With downloads it's pretty much presumption. The case of Radiohead - if you will Your Honour
- 38% of people who downloaded their free album decided to pay for it. Does it mean 62% of their fans would otherwise warez it? Or does it just mean that 62% curious people tried it and decided it's not worth es?
Last edited:
Saying oh i dont pirate now does NOT get you off the hook. So instead of all this bashing think long and hard and then turn yourself into the nearest police station, thank you
Note you may keep your high horse for turning yourself in.
rofl.
1) The police don't deal with piracy issues, unless you're reselling copies
2) If I get a letter from DL about my past crimes, I'll pay the £300 straight away.
Off topic, Flammy.. did you see VNV at Infest? I may have bumped into you
Last edited:
I doubt Metallica's loss of popularity really had anything to do with their stance on piracy and more on their change of musical direction..
Why is it an either/or situation? It is quite possible that quite a few of those 62% would have bought it anyway but decided to save some cash and have it for free instead? Across that 62% you would probably have had the curious that decided it wasnt worth it, the people who would have pirated it anyway, those that would have bought it anyway but decided to save some cash and probably a host of others.
rofl.
1) The police don't deal with piracy issues, unless you're reselling copies
2) If I get a letter from DL about my past crimes, I'll pay the £300 straight away.
Off topic, Flammy.. did you see VNV at Infest? I may have bumped into you
So whats the problem? Its "illegal" go turn yourself in to the games publisher then instead of going on about how its wrong to do it. God some people.
And does everyone that has a phone also have a computer and internet connectivity? You statement was just hyperbole to try and justify piracy.