Man must pay $1.3 million for piracy on NSMB

Mase · 02-09-2010, 11:23 AM

While I think thats a bit much, its interesting to see the new techniques being employed to stop the uploading of pirated copies..

http://kotaku.com/5467320/pirate-ord...ndo-15-million

Quote:

Nintendo sent out a press release today triumphantly boasting of victory in an Australian court over a man accused of pirating New Super Mario Bros. Wii. And how this single man now owes the mega-rich company $1.5 million.

Last November, Nintendo says it was able to "employ the use of sophisticated technological forensics" to catch the man, James Burt, who has been convicted of uploading the word's first pirated copy of New Super Mario Bros. Wii onto the internet.

Burt - a single man, not a company or group - now must pay the Japanese publisher and platform holder AUD$1.5 million (USD$1.3 million), "to compensate Nintendo for the loss of sales revenue caused by the individual's actions."

Yes, he broke the law. And as a pirate, should be punished. But this is a game that's sold over 10 million copies in just three months.

Nothing like a little disproportionate punishment to maintain that lovable image, eh Nintendo?

Razor05 · 02-09-2010, 11:29 AM

As the saying goes, if you can't do the time then maybe you shouldn't have done the crime.

railven · 02-09-2010, 11:52 AM

Hmmm...this makes me wonder...

Reading a lot of crime articles, and watching way too much Law and Order, there are multiple instances where they go for the source, and probably settle with the distributors in exchange to get the source.

If this guy is the first to pirate, the very first, the Alpha, than I can understand the fine.

Nintendo must have argued in court (and won) that this guy, the source, leaked one copy of NSMB:W and in result the game was pirated X-amount of times, and thus costing Nintendo x-amount of dollars.

If this is how they sort of argued it, than this can be a big case for future endeavors on piracy.

If you are linked/proved to be the source, it could be argued that you are the sole reason for the breach/piracy.

Interesting. The digital age is going to open a whole new can of worms man.

MikeRox · 02-09-2010, 11:55 AM

Seems very excessive to me, but when you're bleeding money I can understand why you'd go after every penny you can get... oh wait!

I do feel sorry for the guy, don't know if Australia is like the UK, but can he not just declare himself bankrupt?

Mase · 02-09-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by railven

Hmmm...this makes me wonder...

Reading a lot of crime articles, and watching way too much Law and Order, there are multiple instances where they go for the source, and probably settle with the distributors in exchange to get the source.

If this guy is the first to pirate, the very first, the Alpha, than I can understand the fine.

Nintendo must have argued in court (and won) that this guy, the source, leaked one copy of NSMB:W and in result the game was pirated X-amount of times, and thus costing Nintendo x-amount of dollars.

If this is how they sort of argued it, than this can be a big case for future endeavors on piracy.

If you are linked/proved to be the source, it could be argued that you are the sole reason for the breach/piracy.

Interesting. The digital age is going to open a whole new can of worms man.

You have a very valid point, although he is a source he was not the only, apparently on just BitTorrent alone it has been DLed some 1.5 million times and that was in just 3 weeks of being released... However this could set a precedent and perhaps is the best way to stop or at least slow piracy down.. Those that upload it will likely see less of an incentive to do so.

Mase · 02-09-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRox

Seems very excessive to me, but when you're bleeding money I can understand why you'd go after every penny you can get... oh wait!

I do feel sorry for the guy, don't know if Australia is like the UK, but can he not just declare himself bankrupt?

Nope under AUS law not even BK would save him, he would still owe Nintendo.. I dont feel sorry for him, he knew what could happen and he is the seed that allows the millions to pirate..

MikeRox · 02-09-2010, 12:01 PM

Thinking about it, I don't feel sorry for him either, I know there are loads of great games out there that haven't sold, yet strangely everybody seems to have played them thanks to an easily available pirate ver. maybe this will serve as a strong deterrent.

mshulman · 02-09-2010, 12:06 PM

Winning and being "awarded" money are two very different things. I doubt this guy has the money to pay.

The real problem in any kind of lawsuits like this though is that they always overestimate the damage. I would bet that the majority who pirate wouldn't buy even if there was no pirated copy available. Yet they still want to recoup this "loss" in a suit.

railven · 02-09-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mase

You have a very valid point, although he is a source he was not the only, apparently on just BitTorrent alone it has been DLed some 1.5 million times and that was in just 3 weeks of being released... However this could set a precedent and perhaps is the best way to stop or at least slow piracy down.. Those that upload it will likely see less of an incentive to do so.

That's what I mean, from the article:

Quote:

Last November, Nintendo says it was able to "employ the use of sophisticated technological forensics" to catch the man, James Burt, who has been convicted of uploading the word's first pirated copy of New Super Mario Bros. Wii onto the internet.

If he was the very first, the original, and Nintendo some how proved this, than it can be said all their losses due to piracy are the sole responsibility of this guy. That is a big statement to make and more so prove (but it seems the courts agreed with Nintendo.)

Regardless who else shared the ISO, they're basically saying that doesn't matter cuz we got the originator!

marcallo · 02-09-2010, 12:34 PM

So if someone downloads a pink floyd discography for example that they have ZERO intention of ever buying and then 500 people leech it from their Utorrent... for example can the record company hold that guy liable for 500 copies? Cause that's insane. It's also the reason I never ever ever host a torrent. And only on the rarest of occasions demo anything.

mshulman · 02-09-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcallo

So if someone downloads a pink floyd discography for example that they have ZERO intention of ever buying and then 500 people leech it from their Utorrent... for example can the record company hold that guy liable for 500 copies? Cause that's insane. It's also the reason I never ever ever host a torrent. And only on the rarest of occasions demo anything.

Yep. Because the company can argue that the person MAY have bought it if it wasn't available to download.

It really just comes down to if you want it, buy it. Otherwise be prepared to face the consequences. I'd be many people who pirate don't think of stealing from a store (or at least think twice about it), but probably don't give pirating electronically a second thought.

awol · 02-09-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshulman

It really just comes down to if you want it, buy it. Otherwise be prepared to face the consequences. I'd bet many people who pirate don't think of stealing from a store (or at least think twice about it), but probably don't give pirating electronically a second thought.

This is pretty much how I feel about it. But then I get into very gray areas too. I used the borrowing example in another thread. I have no intention of buying Bayonetta. But I will likely borrow it from a friend. Is this the same as pirating? Some would say yes. Some would say that any time a game is played without a license purchased, it's pirating. And I can understand how the publishers and devs would think it would be. The thought being that you shouldn't be able to enjoy and partake of the license without rightfully obtaining it.

railven · 02-09-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcallo

So if someone downloads a pink floyd discography for example that they have ZERO intention of ever buying and then 500 people leech it from their Utorrent... for example can the record company hold that guy liable for 500 copies? Cause that's insane. It's also the reason I never ever ever host a torrent. And only on the rarest of occasions demo anything.

The major difference in your scenario and what is happening here, and again this is what has my interest peaked, is that Nintendo is claiming this guy is the source of all pirated copies of the game.

Change your example to this guy bought a Pink Floyd disography, ripped it, and then shared it with 500 people and you have the same scenario.

In such a scenario - I to would see this guy as the source, and thus the sole cause for the piracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awol

This is pretty much how I feel about it. But then I get into very gray areas too. I used the borrowing example in another thread. I have no intention of buying Bayonetta. But I will likely borrow it from a friend. Is this the same as pirating? Some would say yes. Some would say that any time a game is played without a license purchased, it's pirating. And I can understand how the publishers and devs would think it would be. The thought being that you shouldn't be able to enjoy and partake of the license without rightfully obtaining it.

When you buy a game, you buy that license and you can do what you wish with that license you bought except present it what it stands for as your own or replicate it or separate the medium from the content of which the license adheres to protect. (Why legal the industry has no means to stop second hand stores like EBGames/Gamestop - legally they can't tell you what you want to do with your license within means of its usage.)

In the case of borrowing, if you let your friend borrow your PS3 game that isn't piracy as there is still only one physical copy of the product, one physical license (that is being exchanged when you exchange the game, because consoles the license and keys are stored on the disc themselves) and there is no simultaneous execution of the license - ie only one person can excerise the license at a given time.

Now, if you were to copy your Windows Office 2k2 CD, and let your friend borrow the CD, that is piracy for obvious reasons. Even if your friend deletes the installation after testing it, the fact that you are still using that license while he demos it is an act of piracy (why the whole "sharing over the internet with strangers" arguement is a wash when people try to use it when defending piracy.)

marcallo · 02-09-2010, 01:27 PM

I'm actually pretty hard core against stealing peoples intellectual property. I've really never stolen any music, I was against napster, I wouldn't copy a PC game and I try to buy games first hand for the most part.

But then you get into situations like this. My wife has an Ipod, and a copy of Itunes. I formatted her computer, reloaded her itunes software and the backed up libarary from DVD and then synced her ipod. All of a sudden she couldn't use 15 songs she had legitimately paid for. Something about the DRM being expired. Made no sense.

Then there's this example. I can't sync 2 ipods for my own personal use to Itunes. I own a Nano 16gb 5th gen, my wife has an 8gb Nano 3rd Gen. Only ONE of them can have itunes purchased music even if we register them both under her or my name.

Screw that. I burned every one of my substantial CD collection to itunes and put it all on my Ipod. Can I borrow my friends CD's and burn them as well? How is that different than recording from Digital Radio?

With games and movies it's a bit more cut and dry at least. Music seems to be the grey zone. I'd consider books a big gray zone as well. A lot of things you can BUY on the Nook you can apparently also get for free as a library checkout from certain sources if you look hard enough. Very odd mediums.

awol · 02-09-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by railven

When you buy a game, you buy that license and you can do what you wish with that license you bought except present it what it stands for as your own or replicate it or separate the medium from the content of which the license adheres to protect. (Why legal the industry has no means to stop second hand stores like EBGames/Gamestop - legally they can't tell you what you want to do with your license within means of its usage.)

In the case of borrowing, if you let your friend borrow your PS3 game that isn't piracy as there is still only one physical copy of the product, one physical license (that is being exchanged when you exchange the game, because consoles the license and keys are stored on the disc themselves) and there is no simultaneous execution of the license - ie only one person can excerise the license at a given time.

See, that's why I think it's grey. I didn't pay for a license, so by the strictest idea, I shouldn't be able to play it. And he still owns it. I get the idea that with borrowing, only one person can use the license at a time, but ultimately, multiple people are using the license without paying for it. But then, like you said, this is likely why the industry would like to shut down used game sales too, just like borrowing, it's revenue that they aren't getting. Crimony, it is all a very grey area.

Quote:

Now, if you were to copy your Windows Office 2k2 CD, and let your friend borrow the CD, that is piracy for obvious reasons. Even if your friend deletes the installation after testing it, the fact that you are still using that license while he demos it is an act of piracy (why the whole "sharing over the internet with strangers" arguement is a wash when people try to use it when defending piracy.)

Obviously. Copies are a different situation altogether. And to me, much more black and white.

02-09-2010, 11:29 AM	#2
Razor05 HD = 65 beautiful inches Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 3,835	As the saying goes, if you can't do the time then maybe you shouldn't have done the crime. __________________ Panasonic TH-65PZ850U Sony KDL37XBR6 Panasonic TH-37PX50U Cambridge Audio Azur 640R & 740C Paradigm Studio 60's, 20's, CC-590 & Seismic 12 Panasonic DMP-BD35 Toshiba HD-XA2 & A35 Motorola VIP1200 Monster HTFS1000, PB2100 Audio Authority 1154a MW2 LE & Halo3 LE Xbox 360 + HD-DVD GT: Razor59 Sony PS3 slim GT:Razor_59 Sony PSP - 180 - 55

02-09-2010, 11:52 AM	#3
railven High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,666	Hmmm...this makes me wonder... Reading a lot of crime articles, and watching way too much Law and Order, there are multiple instances where they go for the source, and probably settle with the distributors in exchange to get the source. If this guy is the first to pirate, the very first, the Alpha, than I can understand the fine. Nintendo must have argued in court (and won) that this guy, the source, leaked one copy of NSMB:W and in result the game was pirated X-amount of times, and thus costing Nintendo x-amount of dollars. If this is how they sort of argued it, than this can be a big case for future endeavors on piracy. If you are linked/proved to be the source, it could be argued that you are the sole reason for the breach/piracy. Interesting. The digital age is going to open a whole new can of worms man. __________________ Survivor of the great TWIMTBP Lock Out of '67.

02-09-2010, 11:55 AM	#4
MikeRox Blu Blu Skies! :D Join Date: May 2007 Location: Huddersfield, United Kingdom Posts: 14,229	Seems very excessive to me, but when you're bleeding money I can understand why you'd go after every penny you can get... oh wait! I do feel sorry for the guy, don't know if Australia is like the UK, but can he not just declare himself bankrupt? __________________ Latest HD additions - The Box - The Taking of Pelham 123 - Angels and Demons - Couples Retreat - Mad Men: Season 1 HD Movies - 312 (161/151) Latest Gaming Additions - Nier - God of War 3 - Ridge Racer 7 - Monster Hunter Tri - A Boy and His Blob

02-09-2010, 12:01 PM	#7
MikeRox Blu Blu Skies! :D Join Date: May 2007 Location: Huddersfield, United Kingdom Posts: 14,229	Thinking about it, I don't feel sorry for him either, I know there are loads of great games out there that haven't sold, yet strangely everybody seems to have played them thanks to an easily available pirate ver. maybe this will serve as a strong deterrent. __________________ Latest HD additions - The Box - The Taking of Pelham 123 - Angels and Demons - Couples Retreat - Mad Men: Season 1 HD Movies - 312 (161/151) Latest Gaming Additions - Nier - God of War 3 - Ridge Racer 7 - Monster Hunter Tri - A Boy and His Blob

02-09-2010, 12:06 PM	#8
mshulman My Projector is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Marlborough, MA Age: 36 Posts: 6,922	Winning and being "awarded" money are two very different things. I doubt this guy has the money to pay. The real problem in any kind of lawsuits like this though is that they always overestimate the damage. I would bet that the majority who pirate wouldn't buy even if there was no pirated copy available. Yet they still want to recoup this "loss" in a suit. __________________ Toshiba HD-A2 and HD-A3 PS3, XBox 360 and Wii Panasonic BD-P1600 Sanyo PLV-Z3 Canon HF-10 and M30 (w/underwater housing!) Onkyo 805 and 606 Panasonic TC-P46S1 and TC-P50S2 Vholdr 1080P HD Helmet Cam "I eat green berets for breakfast and I'm very hungry!"

02-09-2010, 12:34 PM	#10
marcallo HD Lover, 3D Hater... Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,270	So if someone downloads a pink floyd discography for example that they have ZERO intention of ever buying and then 500 people leech it from their Utorrent... for example can the record company hold that guy liable for 500 copies? Cause that's insane. It's also the reason I never ever ever host a torrent. And only on the rarest of occasions demo anything.

02-09-2010, 01:27 PM	#14
marcallo HD Lover, 3D Hater... Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,270	I'm actually pretty hard core against stealing peoples intellectual property. I've really never stolen any music, I was against napster, I wouldn't copy a PC game and I try to buy games first hand for the most part. But then you get into situations like this. My wife has an Ipod, and a copy of Itunes. I formatted her computer, reloaded her itunes software and the backed up libarary from DVD and then synced her ipod. All of a sudden she couldn't use 15 songs she had legitimately paid for. Something about the DRM being expired. Made no sense. Then there's this example. I can't sync 2 ipods for my own personal use to Itunes. I own a Nano 16gb 5th gen, my wife has an 8gb Nano 3rd Gen. Only ONE of them can have itunes purchased music even if we register them both under her or my name. Screw that. I burned every one of my substantial CD collection to itunes and put it all on my Ipod. Can I borrow my friends CD's and burn them as well? How is that different than recording from Digital Radio? With games and movies it's a bit more cut and dry at least. Music seems to be the grey zone. I'd consider books a big gray zone as well. A lot of things you can BUY on the Nook you can apparently also get for free as a library checkout from certain sources if you look hard enough. Very odd mediums.