Publishers to fine 25,000 game pirates

[sniffy]

Can they trace you if you use site like rapid share? Just wondering?

No and even if they could they can't do anything about it I believe. The crime is sharing copy-righted material, not using it.

If I'm wrong then can someone please correct me. I've only heard of "sharers" being pursued and can't find anything on google that actually says being in possession of copy-righted material is illegal in the UK. I've heard a lot of people saying it isn't illegal but can't find a decent source.

 

[fini]

You can be sued for making an unauthorised copy. The question would be who made the copy - you or did rapidshare (or whoever) make the copy and then distribute it to you..

They could theoretically catch you if ISPs became complicit and were tracking your activity online or, more likely, if they managed to get somewhere like rapidshare shut down and then subsequently had access to its log files.

I'd say its far safer than torrents though.

 

[Macro]

**Snip**

Interesting stuff, thanks for taking the time to post it. I can completely see your reasoning, especially around being entitled to keep walking even if someone was having an asthma attack in front of you.

If it was a member of the public choosing to walk past, there could be no obligation to help or rely on any advice they gave. Makes complete sense I suppose.

If you were an qualified doctor specialising in asthma walking past, and you chose not to help yourself (which of course as you are not "at work" is entirely your choice), but gave someone else incorrect advice they relied on because you had told them you were a "qualified doctor specialising in asthma", they could argue surely that they had good reason to believe they could rely on your advice, even if you said "but don't take my word for it". If that subsequently caused loss of life or other injury, although not legally liable, as you say, I suppose the professional body concerned might have something to say. Having said that maybe they'd take the point of view that you were just helping out when you didn't need to so it was nothing to do with them.

Think I've managed to argue myself into a corner!!! ;D

On the bright side of all the professions I suspect lawyers are the best equipped to protect themselves in these cases

In any case you're a brave man to post here with so many "internet lawyerz" (including me) about and it's extremely interesting stuff So kudos! Perhaps if you were taking your personal time to advise someone being victimised by an illegal loan shark or that type of "baddy" I'd not have given you a bit of a hard time. I suppose as a law professional your job is to use the letter of the law to the advantage of the people you advise irrespective of if you or anyone else thinks it's right or not. Says more about my feelings around piracy than yours I suspect

(perhaps atop the Clapham omnibus)

Without doubt this wins quote of the thread .... For some reason I have an urge to add "... and this is the BBC world service...."

*edit* I actually find some disclaimers rather amusing, I just take people to task that use them because it seems to rile them, which I also find somewhat amusing.

-----
Athanor
"Vah! Denuone latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur."




*I propose a truce!!! *

 

[fini]

Without doubt this wins quote of the thread

lol believe it or not it's actually a legal standard. When judges talk of the hypothetical reasonable man he is always 'atop the Clapham omnibus'

 

[BubbySoup]

The cynic in me sees a nice money making scheme here ;

- write crap game knowing it will be torrented because everything gets torrented
- hire scummy law firm
- make a lot of money off your crap game

 

[fini]

If they're getting court orders for each person's names they'll easily be losing ~£700 for each person they threaten - even once the £300 they get back is taken in to account.

 

[BubbySoup]

That's just the ones who don't go to court and pay up. With the numbers they are talking, they will be hoping for a few no-shows and head-in-sand people like the £16k case to end up making a overall fat profit.

I'm sure they will also try to batch process the orders to save a lot of money (not sure if you can do that here as the RIAA & MPAA did in the US courts).

 

[arknor]

these companies would happily sue you for borrowing a game to a friend if they could its still a sale they have lost in there eyes.

 

[Amnesia]

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...

no thats not what i was making out so your wrong and it didnt take me hours either so hey ...your wrong again

If not it'll be interesting to see how many people here (assuming they get a letter) decide to go to court based on the advice they've been given on this forum

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

you're thinking yourself above others...thats why i called u high and mighty.
did u really not see it yourself?

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.

why so angry at others then if u dont follow the rules yourself ? or is it ok to break the ones you do because u say so?

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.

should i reply with 'well you're making your mommy work too hard to pay for all your music,games,movies & porn...give the poor woman some time off' ?

or maybe we can keep families out of this


il quote myself to save me typing

so there is only about 4 of us who have downloaded/watched something without paying for it ? because everyone else who has commented seems to be acting like they never have.

if this is a good representation of the british public then there really shouldnt be a problem and sales should be through the roof.

those that are holier than the 4-5 who have admitted to downloading have
you never downloaded a game that you havent paid for ?

have you never downloaded an app which you havent paid for ?

never downloaded an mp3 which you didnt pay for ?

never downloaded or watched a porn clip that was longer than the intended trailer?(dont like women or subscribe to **** loads?).

never watched a music video on youtube that you didnt own the rights too ?

avoid most clips on the net since they contain music what ppl dont have the right to use in their clips? so youtube really is out of the question

never used google image search as there are always copyrighted images that can come up in the search which others use?

sure i pay for stuff too but im not going to deny that ive downloaded/watched/looked at copyrighted material.

there are other examples but since you can think so much when putting others down to feel all high and mighty, maybe you can put a bit of thought into what else may be someone else's work which gets used without their permission. then ask yourself have i never really done no wrong ?

 

[Macro]

Great argument, you're too tight to pay for something so you think it's OK to dishonestly rip off someone elses work. Anyone saying they don't agree with piracy or you is either "high and mighty", or lying.

You really are quite immature aren't you.

 

[uv]

Great argument

I've learn't that it's really not worth the effort

Just leave the thread, and completely ignore it.

It's the same with every piracy thread.

 

[Amnesia]

Great argument, you're too tight to pay for something so you think it's OK to dishonestly rip off someone elses work. Anyone saying they don't agree with piracy or you is either "high and mighty", or lying.

You really are quite immature aren't you.

do u need glasses ?

why dont u answer some of the questions and lets see if u pay for everything.....or are u just another 'your only allowed to break the rules the way i do'


who here has never paid for any software ?
who here has never watched/downloaded copyrighted material ?

the only real difference i see is that some ppl dont condemn others for the very things they do themselves or have done.

 

[fini]

dishonestly rip off.

You keep saying this but it's such utter rubbish. I don't think anyone's being dishonest about it - people have said they pirate so how are they being dishonest - if anything they're being very honest. You also need to learn what rip off (sic) means

A ripoff (or rip-off) is a bad deal. Usually it refers to an incident in which a person pays too much for something.

 

[Macro]

I've learn't that it's really not worth the effort

Just leave the thread, and completely ignore it.

It's the same with every piracy thread.

You could be right....

Actually even though I disagree with them to a greater or lesser degree, there are some really intelligent thought provoking points in the thread. Fini is a great example of how you can have a good old fashioned, informed robust argument in good humour.

Some others, not so much...

 

[Macro]

You keep saying this but it's such utter rubbish. I don't think anyone's being dishonest about it - people have said they pirate so how are they being dishonest - if anything they're being very honest. You also need to learn what rip off (sic) means

I disagree... They are being dishonest in purposely avoiding paying for something they know full full well carries a condition requiring them to pay for it. This is dishonest. Being honest in owning up to (for example) defrauding an old lady of he life savings doesn't make the act an honest one. Neither does saying you've ripped off other people in a forum where you're unlikely to ever be held to account. Seeing as we're reduced to selective quotes.

dishonest adj not honest; likely to deceive or cheat; insincere.

A ripoff (or rip-off) is a bad deal. Usually it refers to an incident in which a person pays too much for something.

Oh come on, you know better than that, "usually" is hardly a sign that I need to learn what the phrase means, nor categoric and complete definition of the phrase. Even by your definition taking something without paying when you know full well you are supposed to pay is both dishonest, and a "bad deal", for the other person. No where is rip off ever defined as only being over charged for something. In fact according to Cambers English dictionary

rip-off noun 1 an act or instance of stealing from someone, or cheating or defrauding them, etc. 2 an item which is outrageously overpriced.

I'd say that covers it based on both chambers and your definitions. If you want to be really pedantic I'll make sure I phrase it as ripping off the IP owner, rather than ripping off their work.

You're clutching at straws a little I'm afraid.

 

[fini]

I'm hardly clutching at straws I am simply fed up of you using the patently untrue phrase 'dishonestly ripping off'.

They are being dishonest in purposely avoiding paying for something they know full full well carries a condition requiring them to pay for it. This is dishonest.

Choosing not to pay, without hiding the fact that you have chosen not to do so, is hardly dishonest. If you do something openly (with p2p systems you're broadcasting the fact that you're doing so to anyone who cares to enquire), you don't try to cover it up at all and you admit to doing so when asked then how can this be dishonest? Your analogy with fraud is a false one because fraud is an act of trickery.

If we're really going to argue over choice of dictionary then we really should revert to the Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd revised edition) as is standard. It defines rip-off as:

a fraud or swindle, especially something that is grossly overpriced: designer label clothes are just expensive rip-offs.

Clearly no fraud or swindle is occurring.

You forget that my argument is not this moral justification that you seem to find so repugnant, it is one based on economics and legal theory.

 

[Macro]

You keep saying this but it's such utter rubbish. I don't think anyone's being dishonest about it - people have said they pirate so how are they being dishonest - if anything they're being very honest. You also need to learn what rip off (sic) means

Actually having re read this and the tone it's starting to take I'm surprised given your usual pleasant and interesting posts Fini. I'll take the advice of some one else at that point and bow out of this thread.

 

[Macro]

Choosing not to pay, without hiding the fact that you have chosen not to do so, is hardly dishonest.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Hiding, or being open about the fact has nothing to do with honesty, you should know better.

So far your basis for being rude to me is selective quoting and deciding you prefer the definition of one dictionary over another when clearly there is precedence for the phrase being used the way I have. Even the Wikipedia definition of Ripoff you used says further on in the entry "In a related meaning, a ripoff is a blatant or unscrupulous copy or imitation. "

You obviously forgot to quote that bit.

Selective quotes might work for you in other places but it tends to backfire where other people have access to the same sources you do, which is a shame, your earlier posts were extremely informative.

 

[fini]

Hiding, or being open about the fact has nothing to do with honesty, you should know better.

So how exactly do you define honesty, because to me if you're not lying about something, and you're being completely open about it, that would be being honest.

So far your basis for being rude to me

I fail to see where I'm being rude, but apologise if you take any of my posts to be so. I'm simply countering your points.

deciding you prefer the definition of one dictionary over another

You were the person who switched dictionaries. I simply decided that, rather than having some silly argument over which dictionary was best we should go straight to the source - the one dictionary that everyone turns to when you need a definitive answer and the one dictionary that you can actually quote in court without looking very very stupid, The Oxford English Dictionary.

Even the Wikipedia definition of Ripoff you used says further on in the entry "In a related meaning, a ripoff is a blatant or unscrupulous copy or imitation. "

I think if you look at the context and the use of the word 'related' its pretty clear they're talking about specifically the sale of copies or imitations as the entirety of the paragraphs either side are talking of sale of items.

You obviously forgot to quote that bit.

I thought it best not to, and ultimately dull, to quote an entire article. This is neither here nor there though, we've gone back to source now and that source is lacking any implication of not-for-profit ripping-off as you would have it.

Selective quotes might work for you in other places but it tends to make you look foolish where other people have access to the same sources you do.

Well apart from and ignoring the personal attack, I'd point out that everywhere people have access to the same sources I do; I don't have some secret cache of sources for personal use that I keep hidden from the world.

The facts are these. You continuously throughout this thread refer to not-for-profit online file-sharers as 'dishonestly ripping-off' people. I have shown that your use of the word 'ripping-off' is lacking in understanding of the term and furthermore have put forward what I believe to be reasoned argument as to why their actions are completely honest. You seem to believe, and forgive me if I'm wrong here because it's an inference, that committing any unlawful act is always going to be dishonest, which, to me, makes me wonder why everything isn't strict liability.

 

[Moley]

Athanor you seem to be arguing semantics and points of law with someone (fini) who has actually studied the law and who's skills at reasoned debate and making a point may one day be tested to the extent that someone else's liberty may be at stake.

He has also studied the economics and laws of piracy and IP and how they interact.

Gotta say mate, I think you're on a hiding to nothing with this argument.