[LINK] Does copyright have a future? [WAS: iinet wins!!]

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Wed Feb 10 17:07:18 AEDT 2010


On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 01:44:28AM +0000, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> > > Costs are an issue, but the various industry bodies in the States have
> > > proven that they will litigate on an individual (and relatively wide)
> > > basis to stem the flood-tide as they see it. I'd anticipate that
> > > they'll do the same here picking their targets for maximum publicity 
> > > and minimal ability to defend themselves ... as they have done in the 
> > > States .. the ancillary benefits of contested legal action from their 
> > > perspective are publicity they don't have to pay for and attendant 
> > > fear and expectation of dire consequences for piracy amongst their
> > > user base ..
> 
> And, i'd guess that in some cases, piracy is clear-cut and well-defined,
> and probably NOT be supported by most people, who realize that on-going
> industry development of favourite media needs to be sometimes protected?

for the most part, people only see commercial for-profit
copyright-infringement as wrong. they do not, and can not be made to
believe that sharing stuff for free is in any way wrong....regardless of
what the law may or may not say on the matter.


> For example ..
> 
> Queensland Nintendo pirate cops $1.5m fine 
> 
> Mahesh Sharma From: Australian IT February 09, 2010 4:09PM 
> 
> The Federal Court has ordered Queensland man James Burt to pay Nintendo 
> $1.5 million in damages after he illegally copied and distributed a part 
                                                                    ^^^^^^
> of the Super Mario Bros. videogame for the Nintendo Wii console a week 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> before its official release. 

huh?  a *part* of the game?  only a part?  a 1.5 million dollar fine for
distributing part of a game?
 
was this a summary judgement? did the guy just not turn up to court to
defend himself?

> The Japanese gaming company announced the settlement today and said the 
> damages would compensate for the loss of revenue caused by the piracy.

and how, exactly, did they prove the damages? did they just, as is
traditional for them by now, make up astronomically absurd figures?

"a hundred million people might have seen this torrent on the internet
and all of them would have bought a copy otherwise at $79.99. the fact
that we haven't sold 100 million copies proves that damages are $7.999
billion"

> According to Mr Burt's MySpace site, he is 24 years old and has worked
> as a manager at games retailer Electronics Boutique in a store in
> Brisbane since 2004.

i don't know enough about the case to know whether he was doing it for
profit or not, but most people would only think it was seriously wrong
if he was selling the copied games.

most would also think it was wrong that he abused his position of trust
at a games retailer.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>



More information about the Link mailing list