British Woman gets £16,000 bill for uploading a game! Game sharers face legal crackdown. - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

British Woman gets £16,000 bill for uploading a game! Game sharers face legal crackdown.

csiman Avatar
banned8y, 3m agoPosted 8 years, 3 months ago
A British woman who put a game on a file-sharing network has been ordered to pay damages to the game's creator.

Topware Interactive has won more than £16,000 following legal action against the woman who shared a copy of Dream Pinball 3D.

Three other suspected sharers of the game are awaiting damages hearings.

The test case against the unnamed woman from London could see thousands of other Britons suspected of sharing the game in court.

'Thousands' more

In the case heard at London's Patents County Court the game maker won damages of £6,086.56 plus costs of £10,000.

"The damages and costs ordered by the Court are significant and should act as a deterrent," said David Gore, a partner at Davenport Lyons who acted for Topware.

He added: "This shows that taking direct steps against infringers is an important and effective weapon in the battle against online piracy."

"This is the first of many," said Mr Gore. "It was always intended that there would be a lot more."

Mr Gore said details of "thousands" of suspected file-sharers of the game who might now face legal action were known.

On file-sharing or peer-to-peer (P2P) networks the files being shared are held on members' computers and those who want a particular game, music track or video get bits of it from everyone else who has it.
CD being placed in computer, Eyewire
The music industry has taken a softer line against suspected pirates

Topware Interactive started its campaign against pirates of Dream Pinball 3D in early 2007 after legal action forced 18 British net firms to pass on details of suspected pirates that it had identified.

Following this it sent out about 500 letters to Britons it had identified as making the game available via file-sharing networks such as eMule, eDonkey, Gnutella and many others.

In the letters the company asked for a payment of about £300 as a "settlement" figure that would head off further legal action.

Some of those accused of sharing the game chose to fight the legal action and it was in one of these contested cases that Topware Interactive won its claim for damages.

"This is a proper Intellectual Property (IP) court that has made this judgement," said independent IP barrister David Harris. "The previous ones were default judgements where defendants never turned up."

The hearing in the IP court meant the case had been rigorously analysed and the law properly understood, said Mr Harris.

"It's a much more interesting case in that respect," he said.

But, he said, he was not sure if this case meant game makers were getting more aggressive about chasing and prosecuting pirates.

"I do not get any sense that there's been any fundamental shift in the desire to litigate," he said.

Becky Hogge, director of the Open Rights Group that campaigns on cyber liberties issues, said: "An open court process with a full report is certainly preferable to justice of the type being mooted by the government on P2P, where activity takes place behind closed doors through industry action."

She added that awards for damages had to be realistic and not made to act as a "deterrent".

"In relation to the orders for release of personal data, it is important that court processes do not become rubberstamps for industry action but retain judicial safeguards and independence," said Ms Hogge.
csiman Avatar
banned8y, 3m agoPosted 8 years, 3 months ago
Options

All Comments

(62) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
banned#1
I wonder if they will start to do the same for music/film sharers.......................
#2
usenet.
#3
Well it wasn't going to go on forever was it !!
#4
i wonder when they will start targeting news groups

as you as a user are not sharing the file ther is no breach of copyright
just the guy(s) running the server
:roll:
#5
Hilarious 16k for a pinball game, could of bought it for £4.99 i bet haha :thumbsup:
#6
shame, because its such a bad game.

i don't think this will change anything tho.
#7
pretty sad..but action's like these will open others eyes if not their wallets
banned 1 Like #8
This news story seems to have been copied here in its entirety, which is itself a breach of copyright. A short excerpt and a link to the original would have been better.
#9
catinthehat
shame, because its such a bad game.

i don't think this will change anything tho.


i agree, until its widespread and this is hapening every other day it aint gonna stop people torrenting, also as people said there is newsgroups, i reckon they will be targeted big time soon by the powers that be.
banned#10
Morganwg;2776149
This news story seems to have been copied here in its entirety, which is itself a breach of copyright. A short excerpt and a link to the original would have been better.

Oh dear - how very sad! :thinking:

Why would a link be better, apart from consuiming more bandwidth?
#11
csiman
I wonder if they will start to do the same for music/film sharers.......................




They have started already...
#12
Morganwg
This news story seems to have been copied here in its entirety, which is itself a breach of copyright. A short excerpt and a link to the original would have been better.


He has a point, you haven't even identified the original author in the post :thumbsup:
#13
Morganwg
This news story seems to have been copied here in its entirety, which is itself a breach of copyright. A short excerpt and a link to the original would have been better.


Although completely incorrectly done (no source reference, etc.) - one would argue that since the intention is a review of the article (which is fairly short), including it in its entirity without permission would probably be fair use and therefore legal.

I bet the defendant wishes they had paid the £300 settlement now.
#14
This is why I have never gone near P2P, newsgroups all the way and Rapidshare and cannot really trace what is being downloaded!!
#15
mcallim7;2776122
i wonder when they will start targeting news groups

as you as a user are not sharing the file ther is no breach of copyright
just the guy(s) running the server
:roll:


Dream on. Anyone who downloads illegally is just as guilty as breach of copyright and theft as the person who uploaded it or hosted it in the first place. It's just that so far, they've mainly been going after the uploaders.
banned#17
Gazbert
Dream on. Anyone who downloads illegally is just as guilty as breach of copyright and theft as the person who uploaded it or hosted it in the first place. It's just that so far, they've mainly been going after the uploaders.


Post a link to cases to show that please.
There is a massive difference between downloading and uploading, the latter being much more serious, and could result in a prison sentence.
#18
This will just increase the number of people who buy the game and copy it for their own use and sell the original.
#19
About time
#20
colinsunderland;2776701
Post a link to cases to show that please.
There is a massive difference between downloading and uploading, the latter being much more serious, and could result in a prison sentence.


It's theft. Pure and simple.

For example 12 year old girl sued for downloading

Virgin warns illegal downloaders

Illegal music downloads hit record high

Anyone that thinks downloading is not illegal wrong. Granted the industry has not gone after downloaders as much as uploaders. But just because downloaders haven't been targeted much does not mean that the industry can't or won't go after them.

I believe it's just a matter of time.
banned#21
colinsunderland
Post a link to cases to show that please.
There is a massive difference between downloading and uploading, the latter being much more serious, and could result in a prison sentence.


Agreed. Plus the fact downloading numerous rar files isnt illegal. (though joining them and using the content obviously is). If it were illegal, why haven't all the usenet hosting companies been targeted? Its clear they are the biggest distributors (and commercial enterprises) on the planet.
#22
Ah of course. The "it hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen" argument". Genius!

The law is there, it just hasn't been enforced........yet.

What is the real difference between uploading and downloading? In a real-world analogy, would the uploader be providing stolen goods and the downloader receiving/handling stolen goods?
#23
guv;2779084
Plus the fact downloading numerous rar files isnt illegal. (though joining them and using the content obviously is).


Wrong, it's the content, not the packaging that counts. It doesn't matter if it's rar'd, pgp'd or whatever.
banned#24
everyone does it so cant see it stopping
banned#25
Gazbert
Ah of course. The "it hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen" argument". Genius!


Ah the old "you cant prove that God doesnt exist argument." Great!

The law is there, it just hasn't been enforced........yet.


By all means explain why they would go for the small fry and leave the big boys alone. That doesnt sound very sensible to me. It wouldnt be very difficult for them to find millions and millions of illegal MP3s, films and software on their equipment.

What is the real difference between uploading and downloading? In a real-world analogy, would the uploader be providing stolen goods and the downloader receiving/handling stolen goods?


And where does usenet hosts sit in this scenario? Provider and receiver?
banned#26
Gazbert
Wrong, it's the content, not the packaging that counts. It doesn't matter if it's rar'd, pgp'd or whatever.



Er thats not true at all. Until it is unrared it is just a series of meaningless 0s and 1s.
#27
I don't understand this..

"Some of those accused of sharing the game chose to fight the legal action and it was in one of these contested cases that Topware Interactive won its claim for damages"

At the start it says:

"A British woman who put a game on a file-sharing network has been ordered to pay damages to the game's creator."


So was she a file-sharer or the original uploader?
banned#28
Gazbert
It's theft. Pure and simple.

For example 12 year old girl sued for downloading

Virgin warns illegal downloaders

Illegal music downloads hit record high

Anyone that thinks downloading is not illegal wrong. Granted the industry has not gone after downloaders as much as uploaders. But just because downloaders haven't been targeted much does not mean that the industry can't or won't go after them.

I believe it's just a matter of time.


Did you think that posting links that don't actually show what I asked would confuse me or something?
The first one is in the US - so nothing to do with the UK law
The second and third don't prove downloading is as serious as uploading at all.

The law is there, it just hasn't been enforced........yet.

So where is this law?
Uploaders (ie anyone distributing) could be taken to court under criminal law, and could go to prison for it. If for downloading you can get the same then it must be a very recent addition to the copyright act.
#29
guv;2779327
Er thats not true at all. Until it is unrared it is just a series of meaningless 0s and 1s.


Of course. That must be why the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act doesn't have a section on it. Oh wait. It does. They can also demand you hand over encryption keys to render that allegedly meaningless string of 1's and 0's into it's true illegal form.
banned#30
from your second link

File-sharing and the law

*If you use peer-to-peer applications to copy or distribute copyrighted material such as music, films and software, and do so without paying royalties, you are almost certainly infringing the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.


doesn't mention downloading is illegal, just sharing (ie uploading)

And from the Copyright designs and patents act

Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c

(1) A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—

(a) makes for sale or hire, or

(b) imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or

(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or

(d) in the course of a business —

(i) sells or lets for hire, or

(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or

(iii) exhibits in public, or

(iv) distributes, or

(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.


Criminal penalties for distribution

A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(a), (b), (d)(iv) or (e) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_5
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_6

Which part of that applies to downloading?
#31
This bit "posseses an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work."
banned#32
Gazbert
This bit "posseses an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work."


That refers to distributing does it not?
banned#33
Gazbert
This bit "posseses an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work."


wheres that?
banned#34
colinsunderland
wheres that?


Under your highlighted text.
banned#35
guv
Under your highlighted text.


i don't see it starting with 'posseses', which makes a big difference
banned#36
colinsunderland
i don't see it starting with 'posseses', which makes a big difference


I agree. Just answering your question!:thumbsup:
banned#37
guv
I agree. Just answering your question!:thumbsup:


sorry it came across wrong, wasn't meaning you had changed it or anything.
Funny how someone who can't back up what they say will change what others have written to make themselves seem right :-D
#38
It could be argued that in the case of torrents and file-sharing websites that you 'are' effectivley uploading because whilst your busy downloading all of your stolen games/films/music you are also seeding other people. In effect you personally are contributing toward the distribution of copyrighted material.
banned#39
Ritchie 2
It could be argued that in the case of torrents and file-sharing websites that you 'are' effectivley uploading because whilst your busy downloading all of your stolen games/films/music you are also seeding other people. In effect you personally are contributing toward the distribution of copyrighted material.


With p2p you are contributing, which is why people have been done for doing this. What is being referred here is usenet where SOME users do upload loads of stuff. (No argument they are on a sticky wicket.) But its completely different to downloading - unless of course you recreate the film for example by unzipping the collection of files and use it.

I have lots of rar files on my machine which have been downloaded. As long as they stay that way, no offence is being committed.
banned#40
guv
With p2p you are contributing, which is why people have been done for doing this. What is being referred here is usenet where SOME users do upload loads of stuff. (No argument they are on a sticky wicket.) But its completely different to downloading - unless of course you recreate the film for example by unzipping the collection of files and use it.

I have lots of rar files on my machine which have been downloaded. As long as they stay that way, no offence is being committed.


and even if you do, its still not a criminal offence - unlike most uploading :thumbsup:

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!