Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

October 30, 2008

GamePolitics readers may recall an August report that several British game publishers were targeting alleged file-sharers with heavy-handed, RIAA-style enforcement tactics (see: UK Game Publishers Get Medieval on File-Sharers).

The BBC now reports that some innocent people have been caught up in the controversial anti-piracy campaign. Citing a story in Which? Computing, the BBC reports that a couple from Scotland, Gill and Ken Murdoch, were accused by Atari of file-sharing Race07. The Murdochs dispute the claim, which was apparently based on an analysis of IP addresses. From the BBC story:

In the case of the Murdochs, a letter was sent giving them the chance to pay £500 compensation or face a court case. Gill Murdoch and her husband, aged 54 and 66 respectively, told Which: "We do not have, and have never had, any computer game or sharing software. We did not even know what 'peer to peer' was until we received the letter."


...The case has now been dropped by Atari, although the firm is yet to comment on the reasons why. According to Michael Coyle, an intellectual property solicitor with law firm Lawdit, more and more people are being wrongly identified as file-sharers...

Most commonly problems arise when a pirate steals someone else's network connection by "piggybacking" on their unsecured wireless network, he said.

The BBC report also mentions that, in an effort to confuse investigators, file-sharing group The Pirate Bay inserts random IP addresses into the list of users who are swapping files.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Yay to atari! Get a better lawyer idiots, actually research the people your sueing.

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Uh huh.

If you carpet bomb a city, you can't just go "woops" when civilians get vaporized.

Same applies to the Anti piracy people's carpet bombing tactics.

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

"If you carpet bomb a city, you can't just go "woops" when civilians get vaporized."

Of course you can. The Palestinians and Israelis do that all the time to each other (less so in recent times, of course). US did so in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Vietnam (with napalm).

-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

OK, so you can go "whoops". But no one will believe you.

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't carpet bombings.  Also, I don't recall the government ever saying whoops about it, seeing how the stated goal from the beginning of the nuclear bombins was to a) flex our new found nuclear powered weapons, and b) get Japan to agree to an unconditional surrender after showing said power. 

The targets were also intentionally picked to impose civilian casualties while not maximizing them.  While the number of civilian lives lost in both those bombings combined is still less than the firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin, etc, which were done with dozens if not hundreds of bombers and thousands of bombs, the nuclear bombings involved only 2 bombers, and 2 bombs.  The weight behind this move was enough to fully demoralize the Japanese government, and they called for an unconditional surrender.  Had they not surrendered, we would have done a land invasion of Japan, which would have drawn out the war for many more years and racked up an even larger number of casualties for both sides.

It sucks, but it was the method which would have minimized casualties and brought an end to an already drawn out Pacific War.  This is why no one says "oops" about the atomic bomings, simply because they were used in such a way as to prevent an even greater bloodshed.  However, we do say "oops" about the lingering radiation fallout, as we didn't really fully understand that part at the time.

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Don't forget, before we dropped the bombs, we sent planes overhead to drop flyers to warn residents that if they weren't out of the city by the time we strike, they would die.

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

A lawyer.....do research????

Isn't that like Jack Thompson winning a court case?

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

No, plenty of lawyers do research. Just not is cases like this where they're carpetbombing lawsuits against unidentified people.

-Gray17

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Yup. SO not doing research is more Thompson like than actually doing research.

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Wow, seriously.

Either do your research or stop suing,  atari. end of discussion

 

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

That's the problem with many of these laws. They do not care who gets targeted, nor do they pay attention to any programs. This is an example of such a time.

Another example is theoretical:

Let's say we have Bob, a respectable doctor, who happens to look up adult porn sites. Certain sites are set up to use those who look at adult porn for an address to send out child porn.

So the FBI or something raid his place thinking it was him.

 

Yeah, heard that this type of thing has occured while listening to Kim Camando (spelling?).

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

I hope these people file a counter suit for damages. After all what is good for the goose is always good for the gander. Maybe £1000 would cover it plus legal fees.

--------------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

I was just thinking the same thing.  "Whoops" definitely doesn't cover this debacle.

"Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Hmm.. let's see.

Pirate games.  Risk of getting sued.  Reward is you get the game.

Don't pirate games.  Risk of getting sued anyway.  No reward.

Touch choice..

 

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Burn down a village in hopes of getting a few thieves. No, that's not a metaphor. It's the new DRM.

Re: Oops! Game Piracy Crackdown Targets Non-Gamers

Anybody else think this is funny?

--- Official Protector of Videoland!

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:22pm
Valdearg: @AE: And that's fine. Official "Church" functions are fine, despite the fact that it's discrimination, it's what I guess I would consider "acceptable" discrimination, despite the fact that I hate to use "acceptable" to define it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:21pm
Valdearg: What's stopping someone from working with the church to declare a Catholic Corporation, that would retain it's "right" to discriminate against non-Catholics?
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:20pm
Valdearg: Let me ask you this. What defines something as "catholic"? There are Catholic Schools, Churchs, Charities, and even law firms.
Login or register to post shouts