|
|
|
Activision suing video game pirates?
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 22 September, 2008
According to a GamePolitics report, Activision has sued at least six US-based video game pirates since 2007 and has won each case so far.
The report says a Washington man paid $100,000 USD to settle his suit, after he was accused of "reproducing and distributing copies of Call of Duty 3 for the Wii and Xbox 360." Another man, Chris Hyman, settled his case in a similar fashion, but for ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
windsong
Member
1 product review
|
22. September 2008 @ 14:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Its times like these that Im glad I live in Canada.
I mean, $hit..100,000 dollars?! This is going to get very violent in the coming years.
|
|
Advertisement
|
  |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. September 2008 @ 15:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Can someone show me a crime here?
Whats the profit motive despite Acti's fear tactics...
|
Member
|
22. September 2008 @ 17:33 |
Link to this message
|
Well, the difference here (from RIAA suits) is it is not P2P users. It is SELLERS, people who probably download their copy off P2P and make copies and sell them at a price comparable to the retail price. I think everyone looks at these people with less respect than those who simply download and may share with a friend occasionally at no cost (or cost of the media). Commercially P2P'ing is seriously frowned upon, even by me.
At the same time, I cannot support this kind of action from Activision because their tactic is clearly to rake as much as possible instead of making good games. What has Activision done lately? Oh yeah, don't remind me. They acquired all the big series, such as Guitar Hero, they got Call of Duty early, and they have the Tony Hawk's games series. They are obviously milking the crap out of these, and now they are seeking even more money instead of making original material. Kind of ridiculous IMO.
And what's to say, those pirates were going to buy games anyway, or their customers (if the opportunity to buy them cheap and pirated had not arrived)?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. September 2008 @ 23:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
tatsh
Dose not say if they sold anything tho, that is what worries me.
|
|
pirkster
Member
|
23. September 2008 @ 10:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
tatsh
Dose not say if they sold anything tho, that is what worries me.
What's to worry about if you've done nothing wrong? Obviously, the above offenders have. According to the article, it's illegal reproduction and distribution of Activision's games.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. September 2008 @ 11:25 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
tatsh
Dose not say if they sold anything tho, that is what worries me.
What's to worry about if you've done nothing wrong? Obviously, the above offenders have. According to the article, it's illegal reproduction and distribution of Activision's games.
The trouble they have done nothing wrong, CP infringement is not criminal offense... only the direct sale is....
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. September 2008 @ 11:58 |
Link to this message
|
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/23/d...i-piracy-treaty
Uhg oh yes a multi national secret forum on how government will rap the consumer on the whims of the CP owner...
There is a reason we want to maintain a solid gray area in CP rights.... without it the consumer is not protected from bad media...
|
|
susieqbbb
Suspended permanently
|
23. September 2008 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
Lame.
Activision's games have been going down the toilet for years.
The only reason they are sue-ing these morons is to make money for the lack of sales of there garbage.
And what is even funnier is why in the heck would anyone pirate cod 3 when it has been out now for over a year and is now $20.00 at most gamestop's and why would anyone pirate tony hawks games they suck as well you play for hours and then are bored again 10 minutes later.
This is stupid.
The only tony hawk game i ever purchased was 2 after that i felt he was getting money hungry.
Cod 3 yes i own that as well for my wii and i hate to say it but the controls suck and the game is to short.
So activision can take there lawsuits and well you can fill in the rest
|
Junior Member
|
23. September 2008 @ 13:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
I dunno but im pretty sure activision makes tons of money... why charge so little for so many copies... Why bother is the point!
Anyway I believe if you pay for the internet you have the right to download and burn games... Distributing them however is wrong keep your knowledge to yourself...
Suits them right =X
|
|
yellowjac
Newbie
|
23. September 2008 @ 20:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
All this information is wrong. :)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. September 2008 @ 20:23
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
23. September 2008 @ 20:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Lets see your proof.. links please
|
|
fgamer
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2008 @ 13:50 |
Link to this message
|
I don't condone this type of behaviour but seriously most of the people that these companies sue have families and are strugling to make it month-to-month. These times are extremely hard for people, and I don't think sueing them will be the answer to piracy. It's lose-lose for the developer or publisher due to the bad press and sueing of your customer base really. I know it doesn't justify piracy, but seriously the CONSOLE piracy that goes on here in the U.S. isn't as serious of a problem as some try to make it out to be. But at least they're not sueing in mass numbers like what the RIAA/MPAA do. I don't think the gaming industry wants a big gamer revolt against them because that could be devistating to the whole gaming industry so I think if they do persue people it's gonna be on a "big fish" type of basis. So if you're like me and only download ever so often but NOT redistribute to make money I think you're OK.
|
|
locobrown
Senior Member
|
25. September 2008 @ 20:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
If I can't afford to buy a game, very rarely I do this, I'll wait 6 months then go over to gamestop and purchase the game.
One thing is backing up your originals, even though you have the right to do so but at the same time the FairUse Act contradicts itself so its illegal to do it anyway. Pirate games and attempt to redistribute? Let me say, What a retard! I backup my games because I don't want my 10 year old brother and his friends when they come over to the house on the weekends ruin my original games. They all had it coming.
|
|
Sontiago
Junior Member
|
27. September 2008 @ 04:53 |
Link to this message
|
Let's talk about REAL criminals....
As Washington lawmakers debate as massive, $700 billion, bailout for Wall Street firms that invested in mortgages, CEOs have come under new scrutiny for their multi-million-dollar salaries, even when their companies have suffered.
The bailout plan is likely to have limits on the so-called "Golden Parachutes" for executives forced to leave.
ABC News, in collaboration with James F. Reda and Associates, complied a list of some of the companies in the headlines today and looked at just how much money some of these CEOs are taking home.
CEO Cash Salary Stock, Other Pay Total Pay
Lehman Brothers
2007 Richard Fuld $5,000,000 $66,770,000 $71,770,000
2006 Richard Fuld $7,000,000 $55,323,679 $62,323,679
2005 Richard Fuld $14,500,000 $89,500,000 $104,000,000
2004 Richard Fuld $11,000,000 $24,300,000 $35,300,000
Morgan Stanley
2007 John Mack $800,000 $16,431,500 $17,231,500
2006 John Mack $800,000 $6,321,000 $7,121,000
2005 John Mack $337,534 $30,000,000 $30,337,534
Goldman Sachs
2007 Lloyd Blankfein $27,600,000 $15,500,000 $43,100,000
2006 Lloyd Blankfein $27,800,000 $15,700,000 $43,500,000
2006 Henry Paulson $129,087,000 $34,900,000 $163,987,000
2005 Henry Paulson $600,000 $3,363,422 $3,963,422
2004 Henry Paulson $600,000 $11,660,000 $12,260,000
Bear Stearns
2006 James Cayne $17,300,000 $14,800,000 $32,100,000
2005 James Cayne $12,900,000 $10,300,000 $23,200,000
2004 James Cayne $10,200,000 $9,500,000 $19,700,000
Merrill Lynch
2007 John Thain $15,800,000 $0 $15,800,000
2007 E. Stanley O'Neal $584,000 $161,000,000 $161,584,000
2006 E. Stanley O'Neal $19,200,000 $45,116,327 $64,316,327
2005 E. Stanley O'Neal $14,800,000 $3,120,000 $17,920,000
2004 E. Stanley O'Neal $700,000 $16,766,448 $17,466,448
Washington Mutual
2007 Kerry K. Killinger $1,000,000 $3,468,625 $4,468,625
2006 Kerry K. Killinger $5,100,000 $17,153,715 $22,253,715
2005 Kerry K. Killinger $4,600,000 $8,876,608 $13,476,608
2004 Kerry K. Killinger $2,900,000 $12,335,416 $15,235,416
AIG
2007 Martin J. Sullivan $10,200,000 $5,647,439 $15,847,439
2006 Martin J. Sullivan $16,900,000 $5,838,656 $22,738,656
2005 Martin J. Sullivan $7,750,000 $159,000 $7,909,000
2004 M.R. "Hank" Greenberg $1,400,000 $12,002,880 $13,402,880
Fannie Mae
2007 Daniel Mudd $3,200,000 $5,200,000 $8,400,000
2006 Daniel Mudd $4,400,000 $2,290,000 $6,690,000
Freddie Mac
2007 Richard Syron $5,590,000 $0 $5,590,000
2006 Richard Syron $5,150,000 $0 $5,150,000
Source: ABC News
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. September 2008 @ 05:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sontiago
its simple without focused oversight you have to limit what CEOs make on the front end limit it to no more than 100X what the lowest employee makes that includes bonus and stock options. Pensions can be as great as 300X if they don't wreck the company, 30% or more loss in stock price under their term as executive.
|
|
