$1.6m fine for illegal upload

[Iron Zombius]

from Sydney's Daily Telegraph

IT'S game over for one over-zealous player who was fined $1.6m for illegally copying and uploading a pre-release version of a popular game.

James Burt, 24 from Brisbane, received an early copy of Nintendo's Super Mario Bros Wii and made it available for download from a website, which has since been shut down.

As a result of his actions the Federal Court ordered Burt to pay Nintendo $1.5m in damages and also cover the $100,000 in court costs.

The Super Mario Bros games are among the most popular ever produced by Nintendo with millions of copies sold around the world.

Super Mario Bros Wii, which was due for official release on November 12, 2009, was copied and offered by Burt online from November 6.

The title in question was the first time the popular side-scrolling game was available for the popular Nintendo Wii console with up to four players able to join the action at the same time.

Once Nintendo was aware of the breach the company employed a forensic investigator which eventually tracked down and revealed Burt as the offender.

The game had already been downloaded "many thousands of times'' according the Nintendo's legal representatives Maddocks Lawyers in Melbourne.

On November 23 Nintendo obtained a Federal Court search order for Burt's residence in the Brisbane suburb of Sinnamon Park and obtained evidence which was used in the case.

Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin says the case a victory against piracy.

"Piracy is massive and getting bigger and bigger but I think the courts are taking it more seriously now as you can see by this,'' she said.

"As an industry it's a major problem and the cost is massive to the industry and to developers.

"Some of these guys say there are more downloads and patches than there are actual sales for them.

"That's shocking for our industry.''

Sucked in buddy!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I would like to see more frequent punishments for piracy and see it more in the media. Make examples of these people to help reduce the problem.

 

[Mark]

Agreed. Making copies for your mates is one thing, but putting it online for download by anyone? You're asking for it.

Of course, there's no way he'd be able to pay $1.6m, so what happens then? Jail time? Or does he have to make monthly payments?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Good question!

 

[phlogiston]

They'll appeal the decision, it'll get reviewed down to a coupla hundred thousand bucks, they'll appeal that, then it'll either be community service and/or a garnished wages type situation.

 

[FerretallicA]

Most likely the dude in question declares bankruptcy, Nintendo has to write it off as a bad debt, surprise surprise no-one really wins except the lawyers.
Disclaimer: I am most definitely not a lawyer and have no fucking idea what I'm talking about. My statements do not reflect the opinions of Nintendo or the defendant in question, nor the lawyers involved in the case. No liability is accepted for losses or damages occurring as a direct or indirect result of my comments. I don't do cocaine. But let's face it: in most cases like this, the only winner is the system itself.

In related matters, I don't know if any of you have bothered following the Hollywood vs iiNet case but no-one seems to have mentioned it yet despite the ruling being nearly a week ago now, so:

iiNet Wins Australian ISP Copyright Case, Hollywood Studios To Pay Costs

Australian ISP iiNet has won its copyright infringement case against the Hollywood studios in a major win for commonsense copyright law in Australia.

The case, lodged in the Australian Federal Court by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network in November 2009, argued that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users from engaging in illegal file sharing over BitTorrent. The suit sought an order to force iiNet to prevent its customers from engaging in copyright infringement over its network, and asked that iiNet pay damages for allowing copyrighted work to be downloaded.

Justice Cowdroy threw the case out, stating that “It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorized copyright infringement… (it) did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring.”

Reaffirming that iiNet was a carrier of data, and not responsible for the actions of its users, Cowdroy said “In the law of authorization there is a distinction to be drawn of the means of copyright infringement… the mere provision of access to the Internet [does] not authorize infringement.”

“iiNet has no control of the BitTorrent system and is not responsible for its use by users…iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring about copyright infringement … the law recognizes no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another.”

In a further blow to the studios, the judge also ruled that the studios were liable for iiNet’s costs in the case.

A spokesman for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, representing the studios, said in a statement that they were disappointed by the result, and are now considering whether to lodge an appeal.

Not the outcome I was expecting but a bloody good one none the less. The judement was a lot more thorough then required for the particular case and sets precedents which give fresh hope to a legal challenge of the proposed nation-wide internet filter succeeding.

 

[Iron Zombius]

Now they have won a case against the sale of the R4

Computer game giant Nintendo Australia has had a court win against the suppliers of a gadget for pirating games.

For a small cost, the R4 card allows consumers to pirate hundreds of games and Nintendo says it has lost millions of dollars as a result.

The software giant took the case to the Federal Court and now IT Solutions, which trades as Gadget Gear, has agreed to stop selling the device online.

It also has to pay over $500,000 in damages.

It's to easy to understand why the copying device card is appealing to customers.

For around $50 a gamer can buy the card and download hundreds of games - games which normally sell for around $50 a piece.

So while gamers were saving hundreds, it was costing Nintendo millions.

Rose Lappin is the managing director of Nintendo Australia. She says her company had no choice but to take the importer of the R4 card to the Federal Court.

"It was millions and millions of dollars in the games sales that we were losing - that's not just for us," she said.

"It was also for all the third-party companies in Australia, plus the developers in Australia that develop games for DS and our developers in Japan that take years to put these games together.

"The cost is really quite huge and then on top of that you put all the time and effort involved in putting a case like this together and the time that's been spent and the fees.

"We had sent a cease and desist letter to Gadget Gear as we do with most companies who are infringing our intellectual property and they refused to listen and take it off show.

"We got a lawyer's letter back from them saying they were prepared to take us on, which I'm sure they're now sorry they did, but that's the way it was."

No-one from Gadget Gear was available for interview.

But in an out of court settlement, the company and its directors agreed to pay Nintendo $620,000 in damages, while the directors have agreed to stop importing and selling the cards.

Ron Curry is the CEO of the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association.

He says it was not just Nintendo suffering.

"The use of R4 cards is in fact illegal and also [the law suit] illustrated to people that there is a cost in piracy," he said.

The court action is the latest win for Nintendo. Since 2008 it has pursued over 800 actions in 16 countries.

Last week Queensland man James Burt agreed to pay $1.5 million in damages after he illegally copied and uploaded one of Nintendo's games before it was due for sale.

Producer of ABC TV's Good Game, Janet Carr, says it's another example of piracy damaging the video game industry.

"It's a massive problem affecting the game industry across the board," she said.

"If you think about the development costs that go into a game, then people can break the code and download it for nothing.

"Why would game companies even bother developing games? I think for those of us who work in the industry, our fear is that it's going to be the innovative.

"Those smaller titles that maybe take a little bit of a risk, that aren't the dead certainties, they're the ones that are not going to get made because it's unlikely that any profit is ever going to be made from them."

 

[Winmar]

Nintendo could try making some games that are worth buying.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I'm a Nintendo fan. I am amazed that sale of the R4 was allowed for as long as it was. A nifty gadget, but as bad a piracy tool as any torrent site or backyard burnt dvd salesman.