A British woman has been ordered to pay out a £16,000 fine after downloading a Pinball game from a file-sharing site.
The unlucky file-sharer has been ordered to pay the hefty fee to Dream Pinball 3D developer Topware Interactive, which has demanded £6,000 in damages and £10,000 in costs and disbursements.
According to MCV, the company has led similar legal moves against file sharers in the past, launching civil proceedings against 100 suspected file sharers in Britain.
Apparently, the High Court has ordered internet service providers to release thousands of names and addresses of suspected file sharers.
"Illegal file sharing is a very serious issue resulting in millions of pounds of losses to copyright owners," said law man David Gore.
"As downloading speeds and internet penetration increase, this continues to be a worldwide problem across the media industry which increasingly relies on digital revenues.
"The damages and costs ordered by the court are significant and should act as a deterrent. This shows that taking direct steps against infringers is an important and effective weapon in the battle against online piracy."
Seems pretty steep to me like they want to make an example of her, I doubt she'd be able to appeal the ruling but she might be able to appeal the amount she has been fined!!
16 grand isn't nearly enough, they should make it a mandatory £50K fine for downloading or pirating software, that'll make these cretins think twice about it!
16 grand isn't nearly enough, they should make it a mandatory £50K fine for downloading or pirating software, that'll make these cretins think twice about it!
Surely that means shoplifters should be executed on the spot. Burglars should be hung, drawn and quartered. Fraudsters should be burnt at the stake for the public to watch.
£16,000 is a ridiculous fine for such a paltry crime. I hope this isnt used to justify publically flogging everyone who has ever downloaded an mp3.
It's an absolute disgrace. It just goes to show that in the eyes of the British courts a corporation's profits are worth far more than a person's life.
16 grand isn't nearly enough, they should make it a mandatory £50K fine for downloading or pirating software, that'll make these cretins think twice about it!
You saint! I know you've never downloaded anything illegally, or bought any pre-owned games that give no revenue to the content creators or...
how bout if you get caught pirating, you get forced to pay for the game plus a 50% mark up or something. At least thats fair. But i suppose it needs to be a bit harsher so that you actually dont do it again.
ridiculous. the fine is far too big. she downloaded a game, and got 16,000 fine.
that guy RAN DOWN AND KILLED a girl on his bicycle and got fined £2,500!
punishment suits the crime? not when big companies are behind it.
She downloaded it, but it doesn't say whether she then shared it herself and to how many people. I agree though that in other cases, including the one you mentioned people got off far too easily, however £16,000 is hopefully a strong deterrent for your average person and with ISP's and governments looking to clamp down on file sharing, it could be moreso.
16 grand isn't nearly enough, they should make it a mandatory £50K fine for downloading or pirating software, that'll make these cretins think twice about it!
You saint! I know you've never downloaded anything illegally, or bought any pre-owned games that give no revenue to the content creators or...
That's not even illegal - hardly the same, is it?
It is a harsh amount, but they're obviously trying to make an example here - I fully expect an appeal to bring the amount right down.
Nope never downloaded anything illegal in my life and thinking about it £50,000 is too lenient. It should be £100K for the first offense, home repossession for the second and "the chair" for the third.
Nope never downloaded anything illegal in my life and thinking about it £50,000 is too lenient. It should be £100K for the first offense, home repossession for the second and "the chair" for the third.
It's kind of weird that one company can make up for lost profits on a s**te game by completely shafting somebody to the tune of £16,000 for such a small thing, but entirely expected.
I think file sharers should be fined about that amount-they're sharing the game.
The downloaders should get charged something like £1000 IMO. A deterrent if enough people are charged. YUou don't usually hear of cases from just downloaders-it's mainly the file sharers.
Nope never downloaded anything illegal in my life and thinking about it £50,000 is too lenient. It should be £100K for the first offense, home repossession for the second and "the chair" for the third.
Wait a second....
You're David Cameron aren't you?
If only he had the nuts to put forward a sensible policy like mine then the UK would be a better place...oh and the tazer for all users of Limewire and eDonkey
I think file sharers should be fined about that amount-they're sharing the game.
The downloaders should get charged something like £1000 IMO. A deterrent if enough people are charged. You don't usually hear of cases from just downloaders-it's mainly the file sharers.
The moral of the story is be selfish and don't share.
Ususl CVG c**k up, SHE WAS FINED FOR UPLOADING THE GAME.
The fine was based on the number of times the game was downloaded multiplied by the selling price, from the site she uploaded it to.
It may seem harsh, but it's the only way the public will ever stop pirating.
I think it also gives a really good idea of the scale of the problem. If this PoS game was downloaded so much from one site, how many downloads does an AAA title get?
Ah dear, the day George Bush stops taking it up the ass from the Chinese president, and thus Gordon Brown stops blown him off will be the day pirating will stop. It's pathetic how THE biggest pirating country on the planet gets untouched by the west but a single person who downloads a game or film or music gets fined thousands! The story didn't even say the women shared it back out! Double standards at the highest level.
It's kind of weird that one company can make up for lost profits on a s**te game by completely shafting somebody to the tune of £16,000 for such a small thing, but entirely expected.
Not only that, what this will do is encourage small-time developers to put out pirated software in order to trap individuals and make a small fortune.
She should have been made to pay the price of the game and not a penny more.
The fine is not just for downloading the game but also making it avliable to others. The problem with bit torrent is they make a move away from kids copyying from their school mates to very quickly iternational distribution.
Yes compared to running down a kid the fine is high, but is that because this fine is to high for the punishment for that (running dwn the kid) was too low?
I work for an ISP but this has nothing to do with me, however. The feeling is ISP's don't give a s**t and are only going to help because they are effectively being forced to and they have to pay to do it. The methods required to be used to track what people are downloading is also on the brink of being legal. Everyone is going to pirate, take Apple, the European Court has ordered it to reduce it's iTunes tracks costs and charge the same as in America, it said it would but has now declared it won't and get stuffed Europe. But hey we live in a world where my government looses the records of every child in the UK so why shouldn't ISP's be forced to use illegal methods to track what people download and then pass the information onto private company's.
I can mow down some one or drive while drunk and kill someone and get off more or less scott free. As soon as I upload a crappy band or a rubbish game I get fined beyond belife? If they didn't charge for such crap in the frist place people would feel confident in buying the stuff. It's only because they put any crap out there they can and wonder why sale figures are down. You should be able to buy a game play it and return it if you don't like it. Hit them where it hurts! Failing that their pockets.
I'm surprised the womens lib hasn't had a go back and stated 'its sexist' only done to a women, she was pick on, against her human rights, against freedom of sharing, b******s! Serves her right! should be more of a fine to make a bigger example of file sharing...i get mine from nigel at the carboot far safer!
I'm surprised the womens lib hasn't had a go back and stated 'its sexist' only done to a women, she was pick on, against her human rights, against freedom of sharing, b******s! Serves her right! should be more of a fine to make a bigger example of file sharing...i get mine from nigel at the carboot far safer!
are we going to see that seek and hide game coming back again when police raided local markets in order to check the legal (or rather illegal) status of the software sold there? A few more such 'examples' and it could be the case as the people will turn away from downloading to buying from pirates.
I'm surprised the womens lib hasn't had a go back and stated 'its sexist' only done to a women, she was pick on, against her human rights, against freedom of sharing, b******s! Serves her right! should be more of a fine to make a bigger example of file sharing...i get mine from nigel at the carboot far safer!
are we going to see that seek and hide game coming back again when police raided local markets in order to check the legal (or rather illegal) status of the software sold there? A few more such 'examples' and it could be the case as the people will turn away from downloading to buying from pirates.
Nope never downloaded anything illegal in my life and thinking about it £50,000 is too lenient. It should be £100K for the first offense, home repossession for the second and "the chair" for the third.
Wait a second....
You're David Cameron aren't you?
Did anyone else notice his username or is it just me? Haha.
Nope never downloaded anything illegal in my life and thinking about it £50,000 is too lenient. It should be £100K for the first offense, home repossession for the second and "the chair" for the third.
Wait a second....
You're David Cameron aren't you?
If only he had the nuts to put forward a sensible policy like mine then the UK would be a better place...oh and the tazer for all users of Limewire and eDonkey
LOL, Tonyb. Have you actually thought about what you're saying??
I think your "sensible" policy seems a bit emotive and utterly ignorant of reality and lacking any sense of reason or good judgement. In fact, your views are better placed in the context of a particular central European country's leading political party during the period of 1939-1945! Can you guess what I'm referring to??
Punishment has to fit the crime, end of story; otherwise it has no effect at all on positively changing people's behaviour, and only forces the issue to become more complicated as people just seek to find ways around it, and also find ways to gain their own retribution.
The moral message claimed by the industry just gets undermined and loses any credibility.
It's obvious that the reasoning for this action has nothing at all to do with justice and is a pathetic attempt by the industry, pwning the judiciary and exploiting it to gain undeserved "damages".
It's just sick that they've reduced our acclaimed legal system to nothing more than a whip to crack at anyone who they perceive as a threat to their agenda.
They can't, or dont prove that each copy downloaded equates to a lost sale, and are simply being opportunistic bullies.
Also, I'd love to know how they managed to pin this on her.
Did they do a stake-out or something to prove it was specifically her who shared the game?
I mean all that the information that ISP's have had to hand over states that a particular account has distributed said IP.
How do they prove that it was a particular person who committed such an atrocious crime?
If they can't pin it on an individual, how can a particular individual be punished for it???
Nope never downloaded anything illegal in my life and thinking about it £50,000 is too lenient. It should be £100K for the first offense, home repossession for the second and "the chair" for the third.
Wait a second....
You're David Cameron aren't you?
If only he had the nuts to put forward a sensible policy like mine then the UK would be a better place...oh and the tazer for all users of Limewire and eDonkey
LOL, Tonyb. Have you actually thought about what you're saying??
I think your "sensible" policy seems a bit emotive and utterly ignorant of reality and lacking any sense of reason or good judgement. In fact, your views are better placed in the context of a particular central European country's leading political party during the period of 1939-1945! Can you guess what I'm referring to??
Punishment has to fit the crime, end of story; otherwise it has no effect at all on positively changing people's behaviour, and only forces the issue to become more complicated as people just seek to find ways around it, and also find ways to gain their own retribution.
The moral message claimed by the industry just gets undermined and loses any credibility.
It's obvious that the reasoning for this action has nothing at all to do with justice and is a pathetic attempt by the industry, pwning the judiciary and exploiting it to gain undeserved "damages".
It's just sick that they've reduced our acclaimed legal system to nothing more than a whip to crack at anyone who they perceive as a threat to their agenda.
They can't, or dont prove that each copy downloaded equates to a lost sale, and are simply being opportunistic bullies.
Also, I'd love to know how they managed to pin this on her.
Did they do a stake-out or something to prove it was specifically her who shared the game?
I mean all that the information that ISP's have had to hand over states that a particular account has distributed said IP.
How do they prove that it was a particular person who committed such an atrocious crime?
If they can't pin it on an individual, how can a particular individual be punished for it???
It's called tongue-in-cheek or taking the p**s depending on your sense of humour, which if you think I was being serious, then you need to aquire one.
Just read here that originally she was charged with £300, nothing really, and what you would expect. However, she decided not to pay and to fight it in court bizzarely. Surely its a case of "busted, better just pay up" ? She obvisouly thought otherwise, bad move on her part!
Just read here that originally she was charged with £300, nothing really, and what you would expect. However, she decided not to pay and to fight it in court bizzarely. Surely its a case of "busted, better just pay up" ? She obvisouly thought otherwise, bad move on her part!
Haha, I think i just peed myself a little laughing at her!! I read that article...WTF? Why did she just not take the £300 fine, she deserves the £16000 fine for being so thick.
Just read here that originally she was charged with £300, nothing really, and what you would expect. However, she decided not to pay and to fight it in court bizzarely. Surely its a case of "busted, better just pay up" ? She obvisouly thought otherwise, bad move on her part!
Haha, I think i just peed myself a little laughing at her!! I read that article...WTF? Why did she just not take the £300 fine, she deserves the £16000 fine for being so thick.
Maybe she genuinely didn't do anything wrong? I mean... it's not like the courts actually get anything wrong... is it?
The company spent £10,000 on legal fees... I doubt the woman was able to spend that much on getting a decent lawyer!
Have a read up on the methods used to gather the so called evidence these cases rely on and then pee yourself with laughter at the thought that any one of us could be accused.
Just read here that originally she was charged with £300, nothing really, and what you would expect. However, she decided not to pay and to fight it in court bizzarely. Surely its a case of "busted, better just pay up" ? She obvisouly thought otherwise, bad move on her part!
Just read here that originally she was charged with £300, nothing really, and what you would expect. However, she decided not to pay and to fight it in court bizzarely. Surely its a case of "busted, better just pay up" ? She obvisouly thought otherwise, bad move on her part!
Now THAT changes everything, stupid women. £300 is small fry and fits the crime perfectly IMO. How the hell she thought she would say it was legal is beyond me. And can CVG actually make a news report these day's? There's a hell of a difference between "Asked to pay 300 but refused to" and "Women has been fined 16,000 for DOWNLOADING a game" This website gets worse every day, just fire all the news staff.
I heard an idea a few weeks ago for a site that you could pay a set amount for, and download games and movies from there, similar to filesharing but it wouldnt be illegal. i for one am sick of these insane prices that companies like apple set for the eu compared to " high and mighty america"
until they learn, they aint stoppin nobody. they can threat us with their crap threats of legal fees, but 1 in six million people downloading is laughable.
sorry but im just in grumpy old man mood. its 11 at night and i need a nap!!!!!!!!!!!!
"can mow down some one or drive while drunk and kill someone and get off more or less scott free"
erm no, you'd probably be done for (in)voluntary manslaughter, which goes on your record. given the choice between being done for manslaughter OR file sharing, i'd take file sharing.
The cost was high cos in effect she illegally uploaded the game and allowed anyone to download for free - they can't prove that all the people who downloaded would have bought it, but some would have.
the guy saying that this means we can't share, you would you buy multiple copies of the game and hand them out free to random people? i don't think so. the cost of illegally sharing is free thats why people do it.
also have you people considered why cost for games/music/films is going up? you selfish w****rs who beleive you deserve something for free, do you consider what it costs to make a film? you people are inconsiderate to decent people with good will, as you guys not buying something (which you would if you couldn't get it free (majority)), means that prices have to be pushed up, to recoup a decent revenue, meaning the decent people have gotta pay more, so you c**ts can have it for free.
Nowhere does the story say she distributed the file, only that she downloaded it.
Surely the owners of the site she downloaded it from should get the hefty fine for freely distributing it? Those who actually make pirate games, movies, etc, available should get the harshest punishment, while those who download such content should get a three-strike system.
She could escape by using the loophole: "you can't prove that it was me, only that someone did it on my computer".
It just doesn't say in the CVG article, which I pointed out earlier, as did others CVG got it's knickers in a twist.
She uploaded the game and was fined for it, initially a small amount, but as she decided to fight it, a larger amount reflecting the number of units "lost" plus legal fees.
The people on the forum decrying the legal system appear to have little idea how this works, this appears to be a totally reasonable case, a little like getting a speeding fixed penalty, not paying the fine and going to court and getting a higher fine plus fees.
As I mentioned in my previous post, what this story really bought home is the scale of the problem.
The number of dowloads for this case amounted to around 500, from ONE SITE and for a game that most would agree is not highly desirable.
How many downloads do you imagine a highly anticipated game gets?
You use one of my favourite words (schadenfreude) and have 'Tekeli-li' in your signature. Straight to the top of the class my man.
The costs this gal has to pay do seem inordinately large - how they thought that Dream Pinball 3D would make 6 grand is beyond me. Who buys toilet like that? Honestly, I'd have thought they'd be happy with the publicity.
Yep just to cement other poster's views, she was fined for Uploading the game, which is a different kettle of fish to downloading it in the eyes of the law. Hence the £16k fine. She was alleged to have shared it over 2000 times.
One again some excellent research from the Future Publishing Group. (Edge excluded) How are the ivory towers in Londinium these days?
Nowhere does the story say she distributed the file, only that she downloaded it.
Surely the owners of the site she downloaded it from should get the hefty fine for freely distributing it? Those who actually make pirate games, movies, etc, available should get the harshest punishment, while those who download such content should get a three-strike system.
She could escape by using the loophole: "you can't prove that it was me, only that someone did it on my computer".
You haven't read the other posts mate, she DID upload and share it
"can mow down some one or drive while drunk and kill someone and get off more or less scott free"
erm no, you'd probably be done for (in)voluntary manslaughter, which goes on your record. given the choice between being done for manslaughter OR file sharing, i'd take file sharing.
The cost was high cos in effect she illegally uploaded the game and allowed anyone to download for free - they can't prove that all the people who downloaded would have bought it, but some would have.
the guy saying that this means we can't share, you would you buy multiple copies of the game and hand them out free to random people? i don't think so. the cost of illegally sharing is free thats why people do it.
also have you people considered why cost for games/music/films is going up? you selfish w****rs who beleive you deserve something for free, do you consider what it costs to make a film? you people are inconsiderate to decent people with good will, as you guys not buying something (which you would if you couldn't get it free (majority)), means that prices have to be pushed up, to recoup a decent revenue, meaning the decent people have gotta pay more, so you c**ts can have it for free.
you people should be ashamed of yourselves
On your first point, read the news and you will see what we are talking about. Anyway a criminal record is still a criminal record, doesn't really matter what is for and I speak from experience.
And secondly, are you trying to tell me that just because someone pays for something they are good willed and decent? Are you brain dead?
And your telling me that the majority of people who download can afford it anyway? Not in my experience but maybe your from a posh area. Regardless it is not why prices are expensive at all, you obviously believe everything you read in the papers do you?
Something for you to ponder on braniac, have you ever traded in a game? Bought a second hand game? What about your precious companies now? How will they get their share of that sales?
You are a narrow minded c**t and should be ashamed of yourself. Grow up and stop trying to be a big man calling everyone w****rs and c**ts.
prices are determmined by supply and demand (and by cost of production, so by factoring in supply & demand, a price has to be determined that will produce at the very least enough revenue to break even) (here's a basic example, a fim cost $100m to make plus say $20m spent on advertising, total is $120m. if loads of film tickets are sold, cost is recouped. if less & less people see it (due to downloading yes), chances of breaking even are reduced, so in order to make the break even, prices are raised)
ok the concept of second hand games is as follows. when a new game comes out, GAME buys stock of the game from publisher to sell the game, lets say GTA, average joe walks in and buys GTA. the money for said copy of GTA, has already been earnt (R* have their profit for that copy). what the consumer does with said copy has no bearing on the original money earnt on it. Now, av Joe, goes to trade in GTA for new mario game. Gets say £15 for GTA, mario costs £35, so joe gets it for less. But GAME will sell Joe's GTA for more than £15, and will recoup the mario sale price & GAME will have bonus profit. (as like, i said, the original profit from Joe's copy was earnt when he bought it, so the 'precious' company already had the share.) - i don't trade games in, waste of money to do so imo.
so you believe that cos you are not in the financial position of enjoying/having the good, that you and your ilk deserve it for free? is that what you believe? is that fair? get a job (or 2) and comply with laws. there will be no pity just cos you can't afford it or cos you have a criminal record, stop making out that illegally downloading is a self-righteous activity for the poor. This is not basic human rights, videogames (all entertainment) are luxury goods, they are not essential, and if you can't afford, you don't get it.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
!
and thinking about it £50,000 is too lenient. It should be £100K for the first offense, home repossession for the second and "the chair" for the third.
