News - Game Pirates check your post! UK publishers sending out 25,000 letters demandi

[aidanjt]

The quality arguement has been bandied about by lots of cheapos but actually seems to have little to do with it - infact higher quality games seem to be pirated more.

With piracy up, and PC game quality down, I fail to see the corrilation, nevermind causation.

[omen]

Im confused in this, What if your downloading a patch from there p2p severs or program or other sites p2p or even beta p2p. Any of them too are going to get mixed up with them and end up costy for them that have buyed game.

[kalniel]

Im confused in this, What if your downloading a patch from there p2p severs or program or other sites p2p or even beta p2p. Any of them too are going to get mixed up with them and end up costy for them that have buyed game.

No of course not. Legal use of p2p is fine.

[MMilitia]

This story seems a little dodgy. Firstly how do they plan on sending out 25,000 letters if they've only obtained 5,000 addresses? Secondly if only 12,000 people downloaded the game (a statistic I find hard to believe they were able to track) how could they fine 25,000? Thirdly what makes them think they have the right to fine anyone?
And finally which ISPs are giving out people's information and what is their methodology for identifying a person pirating this specific game? Surely some sort of deep packet inspection would be required.

[Jay]

Its pretty bad that they can simply request addresses and be given them! They should be punished but I feel sorry for all those Cable customers that have had their modems cloned.

[shaithis]

I know it won't be popular with a number of people here but I will continue pirating games until they start to inconvenience the pirates instead of the legitimate purchasers.

I gave up buying a lot of originals when I realised that most games needed a "no cd" crack before they stopped irritating me.

[Saracen]

This story seems a little dodgy. Firstly how do they plan on sending out 25,000 letters if they've only obtained 5,000 addresses?

By getting more addresses later. The 5,000 is just the start.

Secondly if only 12,000 people downloaded the game (a statistic I find hard to believe they were able to track) how could they fine 25,000? Thirdly what makes them think they have the right to fine anyone?

Because the 12,000 downloads relates to ONE game from ONE company. There are five companies (Atari, Topware Interactive, Reality Pump, Techland and Codemasters) involved in this, and each of them have multiple games.

Thirdly what makes them think they have the right to fine anyone?

They aren't fining anyone. That's merely a loose and technically incorrect term people use to describe this.

The process is :-

- games are protected by copyright law
- people infringe that copyright by copying games
- if you infringe copyright, you can be sued by the copyright owners for damages
- if you infringe copyright, in some circumstances you can be prosecuted by the authorities and can get large fines, or jail time, or both.

So .... if these companies have evidence that you have infringed their copyright, they can sue you and if they win (note, if they win) the Court will impose the penalties. You will also end up paying your own legal bills and quite possibly the games company's legal bills too.

So when this letter arrives in the post, the recipients have a decision to make - are they prepared to risk that this is just a bluff? Because if it isn't and you reject this offer to settle, you risk ending up in court and if you lose, facing far, far larger bills.

This letter, therefore, is NOT a fine. It's an offer to let you pay compensation for infringement without involving the court. It's up to you, if you receive a letter, whether to accept that offer or to risk that they actually take court action.

But make no mistake on one thing - if they have decided they're going to make a few examples of people, it is quite likely that this is not an idle threat. Record companies have done exactly this, and been successful.

And finally which ISPs are giving out people's information and what is their methodology for identifying a person pirating this specific game? Surely some sort of deep packet inspection would be required.

The ISPs, at least in these cases, don't have or need any sort of methodology .... and I suspect, don't want one. They won't want to get involved.

What's happened so far, in the (nearly) 5,000 cases reported, is that the games companies, or their lawyers, have gathered evidence of copyright infringement and gone to the High Court seeking the names. The Court has reviewed the evidence and granted a court order compelling the ISPs to surrender the relevant names. The ISPs 'methodology', therefore, is "we've been given a court order and will be in contempt of court ourselves if we don't comply with it".

And the issuing of those orders tells us all a couple of things. One, the games companies are spending a fair bit, certainly in the thousands if not tens of thousands, on investigations and court processes, so far. That suggests to me this isn't just a bluff or wild threat. I think they mean it and are looking to make publicity over it first and foremost, but the most persuasive form of publicity will be a batch of successful court cases. And that, in my view, is why this isn't just an idle threat.

But secondly, it also tells us that evidence has been gathered, and is sufficient for the high court to grant those orders for names and addresses. There is, therefore, at the very least sufficient evidence to convince the court that there's grounds for legal action. That's a long way from saying they'll win it, but I'd say there's certainly grounds for taking it to court.


The article asked .... would I pay it? I wouldn't, no, but that's because I haven't downloaded any games. But if I had, and got one of these letters, then I'd certainly take a bit of advice but at the end of the day, yes I probably would. Because if I knew I was guilty, I'd rather pay a nominal £300 than risk it being a LOT higher if I fight and lose, and besides, it'd be worth £300 to avoid the hassle, inconvenience and worry of fighting it.

I think that that £300 is pitched at the right levels. It's enough to hurt and send a message, but it's low enough to be attractive as an alternative to a court case.

And as for how they justify it, the article did say the letters were being sent out to people "sharing" games, not just about downloading. If you've been uploading to P2P networks, for example, your one copy could be responsible for dozens (or more) of downloads. And that is how damages would be assessed by the court if you fight and lose - it's about compensation for losses incurred as a result of your actions, and what the company can convince the court you cost them. That's also one reason why losing could get seriously expensive - this isn't about fines or punishment, but about compensation for losses suffered.

[aidanjt]

I know it won't be popular with a number of people here but I will continue pirating games until they start to inconvenience the pirates instead of the legitimate purchasers.

I gave up buying a lot of originals when I realised that most games needed a "no cd" crack before they stopped irritating me.

I agree with your sentiments here, origional copies frequently punish ligitmate users and assume them to be evil pirates. While the peer to peer images that float around the intardwebs usually have the viral drm stripped out. As an example, at Christmas I bought a somewhat recent game, that used Starforce copy protection, installed on Vista 64, of course the starforce driver was 32bit only and had no acompanying driver signature, so not only would the game not load, my Operating System was rendered unbootable, if I was Joe Blogs average windows user I would have had to get on to my PC manufacturer and possibly have to send it back for repair, depending on the OEM. Fortunately I knew how to bypass the driver signing enforcement and purge the viru.. I mean 'protection' driver.

[Saracen]

Its pretty bad that they can simply request addresses and be given them! They should be punished but I feel sorry for all those Cable customers that have had their modems cloned.

They didn't "just ask".

From the Times article ...

The law firm is applying to the High Court for an order requiring internet service providers to hand over the names and addresses of 25,000 individuals suspected of illegally downloading computer games. They have already obtained almost 5,000 addresses after providing evidence that illegal file-sharing had taken place.

[aidanjt]

But make no mistake on one thing - if they have decided they're going to make a few examples of people, it is quite likely that this is not an idle threat. Record companies have done exactly this, and been successful.

The only problem with making examples of people, is they can (and often do) make mistakes and point fingers at innocent people. When they start touting speculative evidence as a matter of fact, they can damage peoples lives.

I can understand them wanting to protect their investments, but at some point you have to draw the line. This kind of mass-mailing of threats looks more like a litigation business rather than careful and meteculous research of each infringement case. I think this kind of behaviour is dangerous and irresponsable.

[Lyall3s1]

In my opinion, they should they be going after the people uploading them rather than targeting 25,000 people who have downloaded a game illegaly. I mean if you kill the root of weeds they stop growing whereas if you dont they still keep growing.

[dangel]

So when this letter arrives in the post, the recipients have a decision to make - are they prepared to risk that this is just a bluff? Because if it isn't and you reject this offer to settle, you risk ending up in court and if you lose, facing far, far larger bills.

I believe it's called "extortion". The reality, as you point out, is that people will pay up regardless - and I mean guilty or not. Even if you "ain't done it guv" you're still left trying to prove your case - and i'm pretty sure the opposition, replete with expensive lawyers with self-interest in winning will dazzle the court. To most people £300 quid is better than weeks of stress, a court case and (again as you say) the potential for 5 figure fines which would bankrupt most people.

I say this is a great way to make money.

[aidanjt]

I say this is a great way to make money.

A brilliant way to make money, it only reqires shoddy 'evidence' to convince a judge to turn over a big address list for mass-mailing, so requiring next to no effort or investment, and rakes in millions. All it requires is someone with no sense of morality (say like, any lawyer/solicitor taking directions from an equally unethical businessman) with the will to warp and break the law in their favour.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

In my opinion, they should they be going after the people uploading them rather than targeting 25,000 people who have downloaded a game illegaly. I mean if you kill the root of weeds they stop growing whereas if you dont they still keep growing.

EXACTLY its the hackers and uploaders who are the cause of piracy. not the people who download them. its why drug offenders get a slap on the wrist when they get caught taking drugs whilst any drug dealers gets the hefty jail sentance.

[Saracen]

I believe it's called "extortion". The reality, as you point out, is that people will pay up regardless - and I mean guilty or not. Even if you "ain't done it guv" you're still left trying to prove your case - and i'm pretty sure the opposition, replete with expensive lawyers with self-interest in winning will dazzle the court. To most people £300 quid is better than weeks of stress, a court case and (again as you say) the potential for 5 figure fines which would bankrupt most people.

I say this is a great way to make money.

No, it isn't extortion, and what you say there most certainly ISN'T what I pointed out.

I said I wouldn't pay it, if I got a letter like this, because I haven't downloaded illicit games. What I said was if I had and knew I was guilty, I'd pay it rather than risk court. That's not at all the same thing as saying people will pay up, " guilty or not".

And there's another way of looking at this. The companies don't have much choice but to make this type of offer before proceeding to court, if that is indeed what they really intend to do. If this does end up going to court, it'll be a civil case, and in civil cases, the courts always expect both parties to have tried all reasonable avenues to resolve the issue before involving the courts. The courts, quite rightly, regard themselves as the final recourse when all other steps fail.

If, therefore, these companies just said, "right, we've got the evidence, and we're not interested in negotiating so we're going straight to court", the courts would take a very dim view and that is likely to reflect in the outcome. So from a practical perspective, if they intend court action, they pretty much have to make a settlement offer first, and it had better be a reasonable and realistic one too.

To be honest, as I did say, the size of that settlement says to me that they probably are serious about court action.

But, that publicity I mentioned as being what they may well be after cuts both ways. If they take loads of people to court and start comprehensively losing, it'll do both the public image and the "fairness" of their claims huge damage. For that reason, I doubt they'll take court action unless they're convinced they've got a very good case. They aren't setting precedents or anything with this and it isn't a test case ..... but in terms of public perceptions, it comes close.

And if they do have such strong evidence, then it's very likely that the people they're taking to court are guilty as hell of infringing their copyrights. And if that's the case, they deserve what they get. And if those that have been well and truly at it get an offer of a free pass for £300, they'd be monumentally stupid to pass it up and let this go to court.

If, therefore, they have strong evidence, and it's eminently clear from the High Court granting the orders that they at least have reasonable evidence, then it's the games companies that have been wronged and lost out, and the people getting these letters that are in the wrong.

If they are persecuting innocent people without reasonable grounds, it's going to come out. But if they're not, and they're going after people that have been pirating their rights, then I wish the games companies the very best of luck with their efforts.

[Saracen]

The only problem with making examples of people, is they can (and often do) make mistakes and point fingers at innocent people. When they start touting speculative evidence as a matter of fact, they can damage peoples lives.

I can understand them wanting to protect their investments, but at some point you have to draw the line. This kind of mass-mailing of threats looks more like a litigation business rather than careful and meteculous research of each infringement case. I think this kind of behaviour is dangerous and irresponsable.

Perhaps. There have been some widely publicised own goals before with music companies doing this type of operation, but hopefully, the games companies have learned from that and will qualify their data before they start getting heavy. If they don't, they deserve the embarrassment when it blows up in their faces. But if they're careful in who they go after, I don't see a problem.