Publishers to fine 25,000 game pirates

uvmain said:
so your defense for pirating is to call law abiding people names?

wow. I've changed my mind.. I don't want to be called names, I best go download me a game!
Click to expand...

calling someone high and mighty is calling them names ?
next you will be offended by me callling u law and abiding:p
 
How am I a hypocrite? Do you need a screenshot of my extensive Steam collection? A photo of my PCDVD games?

I no longer pirate, and haven't done for quite a while. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me reformed. If you really want to call me a hypocrite, then that's fine; it doesn't change the fact that you're a pirate, and I'm not. Notice the present tense there ;)

I hope that when you get older and grow up, you start paying for your games, just as I did.
 
At least you admit it you were a Warez Monkey. ;)

Still once a thief always a thief even if you stop, same as any crime really (not talking about you, talking overall).

I pay for all my Windows/Office/APP's (well ones MS dont give me).

I pay for an odd game. :)

Same with Music, pay for odd one thats hard to get and own 100's of CD's from launch in 1986/87.

I do not own many movies as once I watch I wont watch again or for years but I own many films now due to PC and TV Series that I would have to wait 6months or so to see in UK. ;)
 
Last edited:
Athanor said:
If it all goes boobies up it wouldn't surprise me if we saw a bit of legal action going on round here to recover some of the the costs. Lets face it, if you're happy to rip off someone elses work, and confident enough to try to fight it in court you're not likely to have a problem trying to get money out of someone that gave you advice about an apparently water tight defence if you end up with £16k out of pocket instead of £300.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find whenever I talk of s28A I do so in a relatively abstract sense talking about what the current legal position is rather than talking about individual posters. The one time I did respond to an individual poster who'd received a letter I made sure to add a great big disclaimer on the bottom specifically stating not to use it as advice. In any case one could only be sued if the advice was negligent, which I can't see how any advice certainly I've given could be seen that way.
 
fini said:
I think you'll find whenever I talk of s28A I do so in a relatively abstract sense talking about what the current legal position is rather than talking about individual posters. The one time I did respond to an individual poster who'd received a letter I made sure to add a great big disclaimer on the bottom specifically stating not to use it as advice. In any case one could only be sued if the advice was negligent, which I can't see how any advice certainly I've given could be seen that way.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, in a completely non-official/off the record sense, if i were to get a letter about a game i've bought years ago (op flashpoint) demanding money cos i downloaded it as well, i wouldn't have a leg to stand on would i? Just asking because you seem to be the guy in the know on these things, i'm not after concrete legal advice.
 
Now standard disclaimer: Nothing in this post is intended nor given as legal advice. No warranty nor indemnity is given as to the accuracy, suitability or any other facet of this post. By reading this post you agree that I shall not be liable for any and all direct and indirect losses including but not limited to damages and loss of profits as a result of this post. This post is given purely for novelty value and I in no way recommend that anything in it is taken as any sort of advice or acted upon as if it were. In any legal matter I suggest that you seek adequate legal advice.



The fact that you bought it wouldn't make a difference. You'd have to rely on other defences if any were present.
 
uvmain said:
How am I a hypocrite? Do you need a screenshot of my extensive Steam collection? A photo of my PCDVD games?

I no longer pirate, and haven't done for quite a while. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it makes me reformed. If you really want to call me a hypocrite, then that's fine; it doesn't change the fact that you're a pirate, and I'm not. Notice the present tense there ;)

I hope that when you get older and grow up, you start paying for your games, just as I did.
Click to expand...

so your the exactly opposite of me in that example :D
 
memory said:
speaks the high and mighty one....have u never watched/downloaded copyrighted material onto your computer without paying for it ?
Click to expand...
Don't think so, no, what's your point? Oh, I see, you're trying to make out not bragging about being dishonest is somehow "high and mighty". Gosh, you're clever, bet it took you hours to think up this informed and useful reply... :rolleyes:

I quite openly admit to not being perfect in this case and if you'd bothered to read other posts you'd have a better understanding of my point of view.

If you're happy to dishonestly rip off other peoples hard work as a matter of course then great for you. I prefer not to, although as I've explained in other posts I'm sure i'm just as guilty of lending a mate a DVD for example which would usualy break the licensing agreement.

Perhaps when you're old enough to have a job rather than daddy paying for everything for you you'll understand why it's annoying to have people think it's clever to rip off your hard work because they're too tight to pay for it.
 
Last edited:
*edit* Sorry actually, that's a bit harsh and I removed the post although as it's already been quoted it seems a bit pointless :)
 
Last edited:
fini said:
Now standard disclaimer: Nothing in this post is intended nor given as legal advice. No warranty nor indemnity is given as to the accuracy, suitability or any other facet of this post. By reading this post you agree that I shall not be liable for any and all direct and indirect losses including but not limited to damages and loss of profits as a result of this post. This post is given purely for novelty value and I in no way recommend that anything in it is taken as any sort of advice or acted upon as if it were. In any legal matter I suggest that you seek adequate legal advice.



The fact that you bought it wouldn't make a difference. You'd have to rely on other defences if any were present.
Click to expand...
Actually, just out of interest and completely off topic for this thread, how do disclaimer like that work.?

If you add a disclaimer to an email or post saying "Nothing in this post is intended nor given as legal advice." when clearly given the context, the advice and your qualifications it is, would it stand up?

Not suggesting it wouldn't, and I'm sure you know much more about it that i do. It just strikes me that a lawyer or someone who has posted as being qualified with a masters in a particular field of legal work, giving advice specific to that field would have a hard time suggesting to a judge/magistrate/whoever if taken to task, that the post was only of novelty value and not meant for the reader to take seriously. Wouldn't the receiver of the post be entitled to believe you were giving expert advice given the surrounding circumstances? Isn't that exactly the reason OCUK doesn't permit medical advice threads?

Or is there a metaphorical "wink" after the disclaimer? ;)

Having said that I suppose you're under no professional requirement or contract to give the right advice as your post is gratis so you could argue it wasn't advice, it wasn't right, you didn't know all the facts and actually it was a bit of a joke.

I'm actually genuinely interested so perhaps it's a topic for another thread where it doesn't disrail this one. Just wondering how far one can limit their liability by advising someone to do something and then say "be it on your own head" as it were.

Given it's generaly lawyers that write the laws I fully expect there to be protection in place :D
 
Last edited:
Athanor said:
I wasn't talking about you specifically but interesting to see you add get outs and you're not particularly confident of your advice if it means you might have something at risk personaly. :confused:
Click to expand...

Where was I not particularly confident of my advice? As anyone who's done a modicum of legal training will know the one thing that training forces upon you is looking at every possible possibility. Disclaimers are thus not added because you think you'll be able to use it, but because what if... In addition disclaimers are also often added to stop things getting as far as court - even though you know that you'll win. It's far easier to point to the disclaimer and say 'erm no, no you're not going to sue me' than spend time preparing to argue in court.

@Athanor - I'm really not sure there is a precedent for suing someone for giving free advice on a forum - and I'm far too lazy to go checking for one now. Certainly there have been cases where people have been sued for libel - but that's a very different, and much easier to make out, issue. Ultimately the action would have to be one of negligence. Negligence requires four things - duty, breach of that duty, causation, loss/injury.

Now if we take the legal advice of 'steal everything you can just claim you were drunk lol' well that's clearly bad advice. If someone then followed it through it would be easy to show loss and causation. Equally if a duty of care was found it would be easy to show that it had been breached. The question would thus really be whether there was a duty of care in the first place.

The first step is to say that generally nobody has a duty to anyone else. For example if someone started having an asthma attack in front of you, you'd be completely within your rights to just carry on walking and not look back. There are situations when duties are imposed though - either by statute, by the courts or by contract. This is where it starts getting a bit grey. Normally you'd say 'well I paid you so there's a breach of contractual duty'...but nobody paid me (:(). There's no specific duty under statute either. So what you're left with is the court imposing a duty. The court will only do so if harm/damage was reasonably foreseeable, there is proximity between us (not literal lol) and it's fair just and reasonable for such an action to proceed. So the question would really, in this context, be two-fold - would a reasonable person (perhaps atop the Clapham omnibus) think my advice would lead to damage/loss and, secondly, is it fair in this case for the claim to succeed. Now I would argue that it is highly highly unlikely that either of these two would be found in my case. In the case of the person telling people you can steal stuff if you're drunk - well the first would definitely be found, but the second one may not due to it being clear, to most, that he wasn't being serious. Unfortunately then you get all the egg-shell skull nonsense complicating stuff but that's the basics.

<breath>

How does this answer your question? Well the disclaimer does two things. Firstly it tries to make some sort of contractual arrangement (banking on the consideration being the value of the post on the one side versus the agreement to certain terms of use on the other). This contractual arrangement wouldn't be enough to work in the claimant's favour (using it as showing a duty), but may be enough for me to show that the person contracted not to use my information as advice and thus cannot now rely on using it as advice. Secondly if I've said 'don't use it as advice' then it makes it less foreseeable that my post would lead to loss as the post is specifically marked as non-advice. Equally it would help with whether it would be fair to impose a duty as I've gone to lengths to stop it being used as advice.

There's also the matter of professional body's. Whilst you might not win a court case you could potentially try to get me through my professional body (no clues to you lot who that is :p ). They would likely be far easier to persuade that advice was given inappropriately and thus stop me from practising, but equally they'd probably take more kindly to a disclaimer than the courts would.

ALL disclaimers are a punt in the dark with probably about 90% containing at least one clause that is not legally enforceable. That's just how they are - you put stuff in firstly so that the client is happy, secondly so you can point to it and say 'you can't sue x look here' and thirdly so that maybe just maybe you'll be able to make some sort of argument based on it in court.

The disclaimer is also slightly tongue in cheek as I find it amusing in itself and it does seem to rile some people for some reason - which is also amusing.

OcUK doesn't allow medical threads because it's running scared of the thought of someone dying after advice given on here. Then you're looking at possible criminal negligence and it's just not a nice place to be whether you have a strong legal defence or not. If you want to know more about this specifically try to get hold of ten1a - its far more her area than mine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom