U.K. Legal Firm Warns Of Further Action Against File-Sharers

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
U.K. Legal Firm Warns Of Further Action Against File-Sharers


U.K. law firm Davenport Lyons [http://www.davenportlyons.com/] has pledged to step up its fight against game copying, and has called on the country's videogame industry to support its efforts.

The firm came to prominence in late August after it was contracted by a group of companies including ordered to pay [http://www.atari.com/] almost $30,000 for downloading Dream Pinball 3D from a file-sharing site.

Commenting on that case, Roger Billins of Davenport Lyons told MCV [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/31730/Law-firms-declare-war-on-pirates], "This is significant because it's one of the first cases of its kind in the U.K. It's sending a message to file-sharers that if they continue to do what they do, then they're running the risk of having to pay considerably more than the retail cost of the work. We're very happy to assist other companies that are interested in taking part in this campaign."

"It's difficult to deal with piracy, especially peer-to-peer networks, and we believe that our campaign is a way of reducing piracy," he continued. "File-sharing has become very serious, with many millions downloading copyright material, and software like BitTorrent is making things easier."

Several companies in the U.K. and elsewhere have criticized the legal campaign against file sharers, saying it's a mistake to punish consumers, but Billins disagrees, advocating a more hard-nosed approach to the problem. "People who steal your product are not your customers," he said. "We do not have a very high opinion of such statements. There's too much sympathy for people who've been asked to stop infringing companies' copyrights."



Permalink
 

maxusy3k

New member
May 17, 2008
166
0
0
It's difficult to disagree with penalising pirates, but when the first case is to fine somebody who clearly can't afford it, and to fine them an obscene amount, it's also pretty difficult to maintain sympathy for the prosecutors.

Does it suggest nobody is exempt? Yeah, it does... does it also suggest they'll be looking to make the biggest, boldest example or statement for the opening lawsuits? Certainly smells like that over here.
 

Bigdom

New member
Sep 9, 2008
9
0
0
What do you expect though really. A Law firm see's an opportunity to get a cheap shitty headline and a big pile of legal fees. The level of the fine itself is pretty fucking disgraceful. When the roles are reversed (i.e. some greedy little shit spots a loophole and hands a lawsuit to some enormous company) I can't think of a single case i've read about where the company is ever required to pay anything more than what would be considered pocket shrapnel, presuming they lose in the first place given they can get far better legal counsel than the average idiot on the street. In conclusion Atari, Codemasters et al are twats. At the risk of sounding all 'peace and love' Stardock is an example of a company that reduces piracy by not treating consumers like scum in the first place and sueing the little guy will not stop people ripping off their software. Everyone will just hate them more.
 

meatloaf231

Old Man Glenn
Feb 13, 2008
2,248
0
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU&feature=related

Watch the bit at 46:17. That's what I'm referring to.

The entire thing is good though.
 

stompy

New member
Jan 21, 2008
2,951
0
0
Malygris post=7.71287.718923 said:
Several companies in the U.K. and elsewhere have criticised the legal campaign against file sharers, saying it's a mistake to punish consumers, but Billins disagrees, advocating a more hard-nosed approach to the problem. "People who steal your product are not your customers," he said. "We do not have a very high opinion of such statements. There's too much sympathy for people who've been asked to stop infringing companies' copyrights."
Thing is though, they never were your customers to begin with. Why waste money on prosecuting people, with many who can't really afford it, and lowering your reputation, while you could take more affirmative action, like include physical extras or something when they purchase a copy?
 

TheWickerPopstar

New member
Dec 6, 2007
117
0
0
Not to defend piracy, but have they ever considered that people will download games because they don't think the game is worth the price? They make statements like, "Pirating is costing the industry billions," and you have to wonder if they realize that just because someone downloads a game/movie/song doesn't necessarily mean that they'd spend the money on it if the free download wasn't available. They probably just wouldn't play it...and wouldn't buy it.

Lord knows I wouldn't have paid for a pinball game.
 

GothmogII

Possessor Of Hats
Apr 6, 2008
2,215
0
0
Here's an idea...why not charge people for the price of the game? As in, they catch someone who has say 200 dl'd games on their computer, why not rather than impose an arbitrary fine, instead charge them for each individual cost of a game.

So, say I dl Spore, I have it, it cost me ?49.99, so if I dl it, make me pay that 49.99 instead, with maybe a small fee on top of that, say make it about ?55 instead, thus I'm actually better off buying it than dl'ing it.

Although, the problem with that is, you'd only have to pay it of course if you got caught...
 

KSarty

Senior Member
Aug 5, 2008
995
0
21
These things pop up every once in a while and they like to make you think that they are making big strides in prosecuting pirates. But in reality thats 1 person out of the many millions of people that pirate. After 8-9 years, why haven't they realized that the scare-tactic is not catching on? These guys are even insulting companies like EA that said they wouldn't join in because it obviously wasn't working.
 

dekkarax

New member
Apr 3, 2008
1,213
0
0
HalfShadow post=7.71287.719434 said:
Meanwhile, here in Canada, I could download Spore right now (if I cared enough to) and EA would have to suck it up and look the other way.

As long as I'm not hosting the file, it's not against the law to download from a file-sharing site. Anything.

Gives me a warm glow of superiority even now.
Lucky Bugger. But seriously? $30,000?? couldn't they just ask for the game's RRP plus a bit extra?
 
Dec 1, 2007
782
0
0
"People who steal your product are not your costumers"

And people who use the public's ignorance on the subject of IP to elicit moral sympathy are not not engaging in Mccarthyism.

Glad we could agree, man from the article.
 

shadowbird

New member
Feb 22, 2007
66
0
0
Quoting http://torrentfreak.com/uk-game-piracy-the-propaganda-the-evidence-and-the-damages-080821/ :
Let's get something clear. The defendant, Isabella Barwinska, didn't turn up in court - that's according to Simon Perry over at Digital Lifestyles: "The text [in the article] was from the official comment that I received from Davenport's PR company Bell Pottinger," he told us. And here it is:

The initial default judgment was made against her was at the London County Court on 27 May. Subsequently the Patents County Court in London handed down damages of £6,086.56 plus costs and disbursements of £10,000.

For those still unconvinced, this Channel4 news report states clearly that Miss Isabella Barwinska, the recipient of this huge penalty, did not defend herself, she did not respond to letters and her side of the story has never been heard. Thankfully, not every news outlet fell for the 'landmark victory' line.

Just in case this still isn't clear (please forgive me for this reiteration but it's vital): It was impossible for her to win her case so this defeat (default judgment) means little for the other people facing these accusations who actually have a defense.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
dekkarax post=7.71287.721971 said:
Lucky Bugger. But seriously? $30,000?? couldn't they just ask for the game's RRP plus a bit extra?
They originally asked for £300 but she decided to fight it. That brings in all the legal fees...boosting it to that and then backed out by not replying.

I'm struggling to see why Gamestop or others are not getting taken to court for 'file-sharing' though. Because that's basically what they're doing.
 

ElArabDeMagnifico

New member
Dec 20, 2007
3,775
0
0
HOW DARE YOU SHARE! Err...STEAL!

This reminds me of Disney suing schools that showed their movies to multiple people.
 

Phoenix Arrow

New member
Sep 3, 2008
1,377
0
0
Wouldn't it be more beneficial cracking down on the crime on the street? Yes, it's against the law, but is it really paining anyone? You get the occaisional story of companies going out of business but when you think about it, people are only going to torrent expensive, popular games. Is it still legal to torrent a game you already own?