Discussion
The following is stolen from Sky News (I hope they dont fine me)
The makers behind popular games such as The Lord Of The Rings and the Colin McRae rally series are set to serve 25,000 people with the legal notices.
The families targeted must then pay £300 to settle out of court or face the possibility of a trial.
They are accused of sharing games by top makers Atari, Codemasters, Topware Interactive, Reality Pump and Techland, illegally.
Roger Billens from the law firm leading the action, Davenport Lyons, said his clients were "incensed" by the large numbers of file-sharers.
"In the first 14 days since Topware Interactive released Dream Pinball 3D it sold 800 legitimate copies but was illegally downloaded 12,000 times. Hopefully people will think twice if they risk being taken to court," he said.
Partner David Gore blamed faster internet download speeds for the problem and said it results in "millions of pounds of losses to copyright owners".
The scale of the crackdown dwarfs the efforts made by the UK music business against illegal downloaders as they have reportedly launched action against just 150 people in the last decade.
Teach them for making s
t games then....
The makers behind popular games such as The Lord Of The Rings and the Colin McRae rally series are set to serve 25,000 people with the legal notices.
The families targeted must then pay £300 to settle out of court or face the possibility of a trial.
They are accused of sharing games by top makers Atari, Codemasters, Topware Interactive, Reality Pump and Techland, illegally.
Roger Billens from the law firm leading the action, Davenport Lyons, said his clients were "incensed" by the large numbers of file-sharers.
"In the first 14 days since Topware Interactive released Dream Pinball 3D it sold 800 legitimate copies but was illegally downloaded 12,000 times. Hopefully people will think twice if they risk being taken to court," he said.
Partner David Gore blamed faster internet download speeds for the problem and said it results in "millions of pounds of losses to copyright owners".
The scale of the crackdown dwarfs the efforts made by the UK music business against illegal downloaders as they have reportedly launched action against just 150 people in the last decade.
Teach them for making s
t games then....Mattygooner said:
Teach them for making st games then....
t games then....
Ask them how they got the details of the people they are contacting. Using dodgy methods and German companies.. Google Davenport Lyons.
I still haven't managed to find out if the lady that lost her case actually turned up in court. I know they have won before, but in all other cases the defendant didn't turn up so they automatically won.
I also don't see how they can prove it was 'Joe Bloggs' if the Bloggs family residence has Wireless. Wireless is NOT secure, and there is no law that means you need to secure it. It could be anyone on that wireless network doing the downloading.
Edit. Spelling
Edited by Altrezia on Wednesday 20th August 12:25
I would be embarressed to go to court for downloading 3d pinball....
I don't blame faster connections, i blame the humongous amount of ste made by game companies now, nothing is special, nothing is something that you would que outside game at midnight for. GTA4 was the only one in recent time that had this craze, and that was nothing special. You have to buy a game to use it online, the best games are those where the online playability is so good, i doubt the makers of Cod4 are worried by this because everybody paid for that game because it was worth the money.
Oh the poor developers! stop making a £40 wankfest! most arent even worth the bandwidth (not that i ever have) Atari and codemasters, makers of... most of the cack around, Codeies did OFP which was worth the money, after that... all wank, here is hoping they get OFP2 right and keep it as a War simulation and don't turn it in to bejewelled with guns. Atari, only slightly better now they have scooped up all of 10tacles games (the GTR/GTL/Race series) all of which i have a lovely copy of because like L'oreal, they are worth it.
Wake up games industry, stop seeing the $ signs and make something good.
I don't blame faster connections, i blame the humongous amount of s
te made by game companies now, nothing is special, nothing is something that you would que outside game at midnight for. GTA4 was the only one in recent time that had this craze, and that was nothing special. You have to buy a game to use it online, the best games are those where the online playability is so good, i doubt the makers of Cod4 are worried by this because everybody paid for that game because it was worth the money.Oh the poor developers! stop making a £40 wankfest! most arent even worth the bandwidth (not that i ever have) Atari and codemasters, makers of... most of the cack around, Codeies did OFP which was worth the money, after that... all wank, here is hoping they get OFP2 right and keep it as a War simulation and don't turn it in to bejewelled with guns. Atari, only slightly better now they have scooped up all of 10tacles games (the GTR/GTL/Race series) all of which i have a lovely copy of because like L'oreal, they are worth it.
Wake up games industry, stop seeing the $ signs and make something good.
Well, perhaps all these whingers (music, film, software) should consider pricing their crap appropriately. All my software is legit but I wait until they're well out of date (just bought full Battlefield 2, for instance) and, therefore, cheap... or rather... at a price I think it is worth paying. I tend to only buy CDs and DVDs in the sales, too, because they're at a price that I think is worth buying. Sure, you could complain that I'm a tight fisted git but that doesn't deal with the problem. Reduce the prices to something affordable (£40 for a game???) and you might (1) sell more (2) get less pirates.
not downloaded a game that way for years, most seem to not work or want some complicated way other than burn to disk to get them to work, the games I do like seem to be online anyway 
although have stopped buying EA after they sunk earth n beyond
Guess it is one way to persude punters to buy dodgy games, would have been so much better if the downloaders were given the choice of paying for the retail game or getting sued, but then the lawyers would not get paid so much
although have stopped buying EA after they sunk earth n beyond
Guess it is one way to persude punters to buy dodgy games, would have been so much better if the downloaders were given the choice of paying for the retail game or getting sued, but then the lawyers would not get paid so much
Scraggles said:
would have been so much better if the downloaders were given the choice of paying for the retail game or getting sued, but then the lawyers would not get paid so much
But surely that would just put everybody in the mindset of "well if I download it illegally then the worst case scenario is that I have to pay for it"? This is probably scaremongering, i would like for them to prove that someone has downloaded content without actually seeing the dogy content on their hard drive, for instance, Wireless networks are not 100% safe, a file can be called "britneys Gash" but actually be something entirely different.
Game companies should just make it harder for games to be cracked.
Game companies should just make it harder for games to be cracked.
Or as said earlier put more effort into making the games (instead of rushing them due to deadlines and being buggy as hell) and price them more sensibly.
I've taken to renting the kind of storyline games that will only ever get played once from lovefilm as it's a lot cheaper than buying a game that will only ever sit on your shelf. I rarely get games on release date as I just don't think they're worth the silly price that they go for (£35-£50).
I've taken to renting the kind of storyline games that will only ever get played once from lovefilm as it's a lot cheaper than buying a game that will only ever sit on your shelf. I rarely get games on release date as I just don't think they're worth the silly price that they go for (£35-£50).
from some other posts on some other forums
What to do if you receive a £300 demand from Davenport Lyons?
What follows is not legal advice. I am posting anonymously and I am pretty sure the Register is not endorsing it.
First: if you really have been doing a lot of file-sharing of copyright material – pay up and learn from the experience.
But if you haven’t, you may want to consider this:
Reply to the letter, do not ignore but simply say: “Please prove you client’s alleged loss”.
You are doing several things: by engaging with the solicitor you are preventing them from going to formal litigation until they can show the court they have exhausted reasonable attempts at settlement.
You are not admitting anything.
The claimant (ie Davenport Lyons’ client) now has to show several things. First they have to demonstrate that an IP address associated with you appears to have been file-sharing. (They will almost certainly be able to do so). Second, and this is much more difficult for them, they have to demonstrate how many copies of the copyrighted item was actually taken away from you by third parties. Third, they have to prove their actual loss per copy – this is of course not the retail price but what they get from their wholesaler, less the unit cost of manufacturing the physical item. Fourth, they have to prove that each downloaded copy represents an actual sale from which they would otherwise have received income. Fifth, if it is being suggested that a copy downloaded from you by one other person could then be further shared and downloaded by others, the claimant has to prove the extent of this – not guess, but prove.
This is a civil matter so proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The problem for the lawyer and the claimant is that proving all the above could be very expensive.
The solicitor could attempt to require disclosure from you of your computer so that it can be forensically examined. The solicitor’s client has to bear the cost of this, including any inconvenience to you, until he “wins” the case. You can argue that full disclosure of a computer for forensic examination may exceed their reasonable needs in the case and violates your privacy rights by virtue of giving them access to information which is personally sensitive (your bank passwords??).
A claimant is under an obligation to keep costs proportionate to the sum in dispute, otherwise the court won’t allow the costs. (Civil Procedure Rule 1). In practice this means that, on receipt of your letter, the lawyer and client have to do a risk analysis – do they think they will be able to prove losses to a scale sufficient to justify the expense involved.
If you follow this line or anything like it, you will need to be robust and focused.
One of Davenport Lyons' ambulance chasers was interviewed on Channel Four News yesterday lunchtime. Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked him about unsecured (wireless) networks & how they could prove any wrongdoings. The guy basically said "if you tell us someone else might have had access to your network we won't pursue you"! Remarkable thing for him to admit, I thought
What to do if you receive a £300 demand from Davenport Lyons?
What follows is not legal advice. I am posting anonymously and I am pretty sure the Register is not endorsing it.
First: if you really have been doing a lot of file-sharing of copyright material – pay up and learn from the experience.
But if you haven’t, you may want to consider this:
Reply to the letter, do not ignore but simply say: “Please prove you client’s alleged loss”.
You are doing several things: by engaging with the solicitor you are preventing them from going to formal litigation until they can show the court they have exhausted reasonable attempts at settlement.
You are not admitting anything.
The claimant (ie Davenport Lyons’ client) now has to show several things. First they have to demonstrate that an IP address associated with you appears to have been file-sharing. (They will almost certainly be able to do so). Second, and this is much more difficult for them, they have to demonstrate how many copies of the copyrighted item was actually taken away from you by third parties. Third, they have to prove their actual loss per copy – this is of course not the retail price but what they get from their wholesaler, less the unit cost of manufacturing the physical item. Fourth, they have to prove that each downloaded copy represents an actual sale from which they would otherwise have received income. Fifth, if it is being suggested that a copy downloaded from you by one other person could then be further shared and downloaded by others, the claimant has to prove the extent of this – not guess, but prove.
This is a civil matter so proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The problem for the lawyer and the claimant is that proving all the above could be very expensive.
The solicitor could attempt to require disclosure from you of your computer so that it can be forensically examined. The solicitor’s client has to bear the cost of this, including any inconvenience to you, until he “wins” the case. You can argue that full disclosure of a computer for forensic examination may exceed their reasonable needs in the case and violates your privacy rights by virtue of giving them access to information which is personally sensitive (your bank passwords??).
A claimant is under an obligation to keep costs proportionate to the sum in dispute, otherwise the court won’t allow the costs. (Civil Procedure Rule 1). In practice this means that, on receipt of your letter, the lawyer and client have to do a risk analysis – do they think they will be able to prove losses to a scale sufficient to justify the expense involved.
If you follow this line or anything like it, you will need to be robust and focused.
One of Davenport Lyons' ambulance chasers was interviewed on Channel Four News yesterday lunchtime. Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked him about unsecured (wireless) networks & how they could prove any wrongdoings. The guy basically said "if you tell us someone else might have had access to your network we won't pursue you"! Remarkable thing for him to admit, I thought
Mattygooner said:
Wake up games industry, stop seeing the $ signs and make something good.
Making games is expensive (and hard), there are often deadlines involved which means you have to cut corners (usually the developer is getting paid by a publisher too, so this is out of their hands), they can't all be like Activision-Blizzard or iD with unlimited budgets and time. Edited by scorp on Thursday 21st August 08:57
scorp said:
Mattygooner said:
Wake up games industry, stop seeing the $ signs and make something good.
Making games is expensive (and hard), there are often deadlines involved which means you have to cut corners (usually the developer is getting paid by a publisher too, so this is out of their hands), they can't all be like Activision-Blizzard or iD with unlimited budgets and time. te products because of tight deadlines 
Altrezia said:
scorp said:
Mattygooner said:
Wake up games industry, stop seeing the $ signs and make something good.
Making games is expensive (and hard), there are often deadlines involved which means you have to cut corners (usually the developer is getting paid by a publisher too, so this is out of their hands), they can't all be like Activision-Blizzard or iD with unlimited budgets and time. te products because of tight deadlines Saying, "well the game is s
t because we made it in a week" is asking for trouble.Please name, in the last year, games that you have bought and deem money well spent. Consoles do not really count so for PC.
Crysis
Company of Heroes and Expansion
Race... ok but i like racing
Iracing, expensive but worth it.
A lot of console games, all have been pretty much worth it, but the standards are higher.
Mattygooner said:
Altrezia said:
scorp said:
Mattygooner said:
Wake up games industry, stop seeing the $ signs and make something good.
Making games is expensive (and hard), there are often deadlines involved which means you have to cut corners (usually the developer is getting paid by a publisher too, so this is out of their hands), they can't all be like Activision-Blizzard or iD with unlimited budgets and time. te products because of tight deadlines Saying, "well the game is s
t because we made it in a week" is asking for trouble.Please name, in the last year, games that you have bought and deem money well spent. Consoles do not really count so for PC.
Crysis
Company of Heroes and Expansion
Race... ok but i like racing
Iracing, expensive but worth it.
A lot of console games, all have been pretty much worth it, but the standards are higher.
Kidding of course.
I never understand the mentality of ripping off games that are good, and cost peanuts to download/buy legally anyway. I bought and downloaded Sins of a Solar Empire for around £20, and have 'wasted' over a week playing it thus far (PC)
Crysis is good, but very generic under the 'froth' - enemies re-spawning if you stay in a particular area! But I digress.
Altrezia said:
I wish my clients were happy to receive ste products because of tight deadlines
Your missing my point, the point is, the developers do not set schedules, it's generally publishers, and it's restrictive time frames that lead to shoddy development.te products because of tight deadlines As the saying goes; Cheap, Fast, Good, pick two.
Edited by scorp on Thursday 21st August 11:51
scorp said:
Altrezia said:
I wish my clients were happy to receive ste products because of tight deadlines
Your missing my point, the point is, the developers do not set schedules, it's generally publishers, and it's restrictive time frames that lead to shoddy development.te products because of tight deadlines As the saying goes; Cheap, Fast, Good, pick two.
What seems to be the sentiment here, unless I'm mistaken, is that it's OK to steal a game if that game is crap, and that it's fault of the publisher/software house because it's a crap product?
On that basis it should have been ok for me to steal my 1988 Seat Ibiza but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been...
On that basis it should have been ok for me to steal my 1988 Seat Ibiza but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been...
scorp said:
Altrezia said:
I wish my clients were happy to receive ste products because of tight deadlines
Your missing my point, the point is, the developers do not set schedules, it's generally publishers, and it's restrictive time frames that lead to shoddy development.te products because of tight deadlines As the saying goes; Cheap, Fast, Good, pick two.
Edited by scorp on Thursday 21st August 11:51
Excuse my rambling but it just pisses me off when a developer puts a lot of hard work into a game which should be good and a publisher comes along and screws it up. For the record I think Valve got it pretty spot on with HL2, they messed up at first with giving a very premature deadline but they didn't release the game until they were happy with it, just have to excuse the fact they screwed up not telling the community and the being hacked part. I suppose that's the handy part about being your own publisher.
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff