Nintendo Australia managing director Rose Lappin commented on the situation, calling the leak a mar on the game's release, especially since the Australia release came before other countries. Lappin said, "It wasn't just an Australian issue, it was a global issue. There was thousands and thousands of downloads, at a major cost to us and the industry really. It's not just about us. It's about retailers and if they can't sell the games then they have to bear the costs associated with that. Once it's on the internet it's anyone's really."
That's an utterly ridiculous fine. Of course, all of these media cartels think that their **** is worth more than it really is. It must be nice to have the world governments believe in your imaginary damages.
The punishment seems a bit harsh at least he did upload the game.
These are at least the people to go after since punishing downloaders of a few titles with excessive fines seems ridiculous.
$1.5 million is getting off light. Just 30,000~ stolen copies. Nintendo could have had his ass in hock for $50 X times downloaded.
Nintendo, and other entertainment creators, should be more proactive in their anti-piracy practices. Make good games (with no DRM!) and charge a fair price for them. New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a great game, but it's not worth $50.10 million people disagree with you.
Most games aren't worth $50 and that's why piracy is so high.Piracy is so high because it's so easy.
These games are marketed towards age groups that do not have jobs and do not have money.If we're talking about young adult males, they have more disposable income than other demographics as they don't have to support dependents or pay mortgages or save for retirement. They're also more likely to know how to pirate.
They're people that usually can't purchase the game anyway. If developers began charging $20 for games, I guarantee that they'd see a huge boost in sales, and probably even make more of a profit than by selling fewer units for more money like they do now.If that was the case, then they'd already be doing that. They do have financial analysts, you know. Otherwise they wouldn't have any shareholders.
No, they couldn't have. That's why they settled out of court. That's why all copyright infringement cases settle our of court. To say that this guy caused $1.5 million in damages is asinine. He could have stolen an entire shipment of the game from Wal-Mart and got off easier. Copyright infringement cases are ridiculous.
Nintendo, and other entertainment creators, should be more proactive in their anti-piracy practices. Make good games (with no DRM!) and charge a fair price for them. New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a great game, but it's not worth $50. Most games aren't worth $50 and that's why piracy is so high. These games are marketed towards age groups that do not have jobs and do not have money. They're people that usually can't purchase the game anyway. If developers began charging $20 for games, I guarantee that they'd see a huge boost in sales, and probably even make more of a profit than by selling fewer units for more money like they do now.
No, they couldn't have. That's why they settled out of court. That's why all copyright infringement cases settle our of court. To say that this guy caused $1.5 million in damages is asinine. He could have stolen an entire shipment of the game from Wal-Mart and got off easier. Copyright infringement cases are ridiculous.
Nintendo, and other entertainment creators, should be more proactive in their anti-piracy practices. Make good games (with no DRM!) and charge a fair price for them. New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a great game, but it's not worth $50.10 million people disagree with you.
QuoteMost games aren't worth $50 and that's why piracy is so high.Piracy is so high because it's so easy.
QuoteThese games are marketed towards age groups that do not have jobs and do not have money.If we're talking about young adult males, they have more disposable income than other demographics as they don't have to support dependents or pay mortgages or save for retirement. They're also more likely to know how to pirate.
QuoteThey're people that usually can't purchase the game anyway. If developers began charging $20 for games, I guarantee that they'd see a huge boost in sales, and probably even make more of a profit than by selling fewer units for more money like they do now.If that was the case, then they'd already be doing that. They do have financial analysts, you know. Otherwise they wouldn't have any shareholders.
EDIT: Let's try your $20 idea.
At $50 NSMBWii has generated $500 million in revenue (10 million copies sold, assuming $50 US is the average earned per copy sold). At $20 the game would have to sell 25 million copies to just match overall revenue. It would have to sell even more to match marginal profit if we consider the cost of producing an extra 15 million copies. I don't think this is very probable...
Regardless, even at a more affordable price, the majority of people who pirate games are still going to choose the free option. If one has no issue with pirating (ethically), there's still no incentive to pay (other than tangible benefits like artwork or a manual).
All he did was upload it to the internet--which isn't an actual crime, the crime is the people downloading the product.
Just because something is popular does not make it right.
Those people will pirate the game regardless. The game could be $1 and they would still take it for free. Those people are not lost sales, and should not be treated as such. Developers should stop wasting time and money on developing DRM schemes to hinder non-customers. They should instead be focused on making the experience as fun as possible for their actual customers. It's a greedy, ass-backwards way of looking one's install base. How much more profitable do you think NSMBW could have been had Nintendo not created and implemented new copyright protection for it? How much money and time do you think they could have saved had they not been hunting down and ruining the lives of people that were not doing anything at all to harm their product? This is copyright infringement we're talking about, not theft. No product was stolen and no units were lost. Potential loss does not equate to $1.5 million. Of course, you probably feel vindicated every time the RIAA sues the life savings out of someone's grandmother for downloading a single MP3.
And furthermore, it is Nintendo's property so whether they charge $50, $5, or even $500 for it that's their right because they own it. People don't have to buy it, but no matter what they do not have a right to pirate it. Piracy is theft and it goes against pretty much any religious and moral code there is.
It sounds to me that you're just a jealous little kid that doesn't like seeing other people having the things you can't afford.
Furthermore, software piracy is not theft. Don't let the media conglomerates brainwash you into thinking that downloading a copy of a game is on the same level as swiping a physical product from the store, because it's not.
Furthermore, software piracy is not theft. Don't let the media conglomerates brainwash you into thinking that downloading a copy of a game is on the same level as swiping a physical product from the store, because it's not.
Bullshit. That is just crap that pirates and people who support piracy claim.
There are numerous things that could be done to truly curb piracy...
This isn't going to get us anywhere. When people are unable to even see the different between theft and copyright infringement, you know you're not dealing with the sane. You need serious mental help and a lesson in law if you truly believe that it should be common place for someone to be fined $1.5 million for downloading a game, a movie, or a song.
I have not condoned piracy. I have not berated it. I have merely mentioned that the commonly witnessed punishment for copyright infringement (not theft!) is unjust and unfairly in favor of the media cartels. There are numerous things that could be done to truly curb piracy, but these companies opt instead to distort the law, waste tons of development money on copyright protection schemes, and generally annoying their real customer base by charging high prices and treating them just the same as they treat the pirates.
If such copyright infringement equated to lost sales, the entire industry would have tanked a decade ago. The same is true for the movie and music industry as well. Circus courts like this are merely spectacles of old corporations that can't keep up with the times. Instead of giving their customers what they want, they're going to go after non-customer in an attempt to halt their own stagnation. Not only is this unfair to the real customer (who has to put up with unjustified prices and intrusive DRM) but it also sets a dangerous precedent in a variety of law cases.
This isn't going to get us anywhere.
Just because something is popular does not make it right. Most people (10 million being a drop in the bucket, after all) are completely uninformed, unthinking, consumer drones. One needs to only look at some of the comments throughout this thread to see that.I can't tell if you're anti-industry or anti-consumer. Your comments suggest both. Either way your attitude seems to be pro-piracy and for this you should be ashamed.
That's entirely subjective. The common gamers (common Wii owner especially) has no idea that such piracy even exists, let alone how to do it. Besides, there's a huge element of "time vs. cost" to take into account when copying games. A lot of people would be willing to simply pay for the product simply to make sure it "just works".Now come on, it's obvious that piracy levels are a function of ease. Are you suggesting that piracy would be as high even if all copies disappeared from the internet? I think record stores would have to disagree with you. Even after they reduced their prices, few were buying (and this was before iTunes).
No, we're talking about Nintendo's target audiences; children. Most twelve to fifteen year olds do not have jobs and cannot purchase videogames themselves. Mommy and daddy are only going to purchase so many games for them. Looking back at my previous point, what these kids do have an abundance of is time. The time it takes to download and implement a games is worth it to them, because they cannot meet the $50 toll.As an aside, I'd like to posit that NSMBWii wasn't targeted towards 12-15 year olds. They haven't played 2D mario before and wouldn't have much interest (overall). It was targeted to older gamers who remember the 2D games (and were asking for more).
Perhaps we should rethink what a marginal profit would be. NSMBW didn't take very much at all to produce. It's ridiculously simple and has very little in the way of visual assets.If it was so simple, why didn't another developer do it beforehand? Why did it take Nintendo 20 years to realize the revenue-generating potential of such a cheap game? Wasn't the industry calling Nintendo crazy for planning to charge $50, which the market would not be willing to pay? Yes, once the game was committed to, relatively little investment was needed. This is Nintendo's reward for coming up with the idea. It's the game of business. Without it, companies wouldn't be making your video games. If they think they can make more profit working on something else, that's where they'll move.
If developers can't make a profit off of a $20 game then they're doing something wrong. Hollywood spends a ton more making lame blockbuster movies, yet the theater tickets only cost $5 and the DVD release sits around $20. Or how about a new novel? You can go purchase a brand new hardcover novel for $35. It's going to give you a longer-lasting amount of entertainment, and has actual, material costs involved in its manufacturing.I didn't even mention shipping costs (which are significant), but don't deny that marginal costs matter. Yes, it may be less than other products, but I assure you all video game producers are aware of them.
Those people will pirate the game regardless. The game could be $1 and they would still take it for free. Those people are not lost sales, and should not be treated as such. Developers should stop wasting time and money on developing DRM schemes to hinder non-customers. They should instead be focused on making the experience as fun as possible for their actual customers. It's a greedy, ass-backwards way of looking one's install base. How much more profitable do you think NSMBW could have been had Nintendo not created and implemented new copyright protection for it? How much money and time do you think they could have saved had they not been hunting down and ruining the lives of people that were not doing anything at all to harm their product? This is copyright infringement we're talking about, not theft. No product was stolen and no units were lost. Potential loss does not equate to $1.5 million. Of course, you probably feel vindicated every time the RIAA sues the life savings out of someone's grandmother for downloading a single MP3.Did you read the article? They sued the uploader - the source of piracy. If there's drugs in your neighborhood, you go after the dealers, not the users. Same principle applies.
If it wasn't criminal, why wouldn't the uploader challenge in court?
Was it with their legal right to go after him? Yes. I've never argued that it wasn't. Certainly they could have put their capital to better use by pleasing their customers however. I had once read an article about Valve where they essentially state that pirates are "underserved customers". By providing a service of value, they saw a huge drop off in piracy. They're not concerned about hunting down and punishing non-customers. They're concerned about how to make the best game possible, which not only makes their customer happy, but also converts a huge amount of "underserved customers" into buying consumers. It's something I think the industry as a whole should really, seriously think about.
Was it with their legal right to go after him? Yes. I've never argued that it wasn't. Certainly they could have put their capital to better use by pleasing their customers however.I know this really isn't your point, but how do you figure their capital could please their customers? As far as I can tell, the only capital involved in this case are their lawyers, which they are being reimbursed for. Has nothing to do with customers, really.
Was it with their legal right to go after him? Yes. I've never argued that it wasn't. Certainly they could have put their capital to better use by pleasing their customers however.I know this really isn't your point, but how do you figure their capital could please their customers? As far as I can tell, the only capital involved in this case are their lawyers, which they are being reimbursed for. Has nothing to do with customers, really.
Maybe Iwata got upset that people were pirating his game, and refused to greenlight more projects until the man paid? (kidding)
Speaking of Steam and Nintendo, what if now that every system is online, what are the chances of one of the 3 doing an online authentication for disc copy games. I know that there are ways around something like that , like not taking that system online, but what if one of the big three found a way to authenticate disc and essentially register each game to an account/system. What is the likely hood of something like that being implemented assuming the internet connection wasn't the issue?
It's foolish to think that even if the price was $15 lower that the same cheap skates out there would just say "why pay for it if I can get it for free", then go right to the internet and keep doing what they are doing.
There are numerous things that could be done to truly curb piracy...
But none of the things you mentioned would ever curb piracy. Ever.
Chozo, once again, Piracy isn't theft. If there is one thing everyone can take away from this thread is that:
Piracy isn't theft, it's Copyright infringement
If it was theft, the Police would have prosecuted him, NOT Nintendo. Theft is a criminal matter, Piracy is a civil matter. However to every rule there are caveats where piracy can become a criminal matter.
Please at least skim read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement)
Once again, piracy isn't theft, not even under "Legal" definition.
There are numerous things that could be done to truly curb piracy...
But none of the things you mentioned would ever curb piracy. Ever.
If Nintendo stopped making games they wouldn't be a victim of copyright infringement or theft or piracy. Problem solved!
Consider this, then, as a potential scenario: Burt isn't going to owe Nintendo a cent. Or, at least, won't owe them anywhere near $1.5 million. As the publisher is so fond of public displays of aggression against game pirates, I think they settled out of court, slapped a gag order on him, let the media parade him around for a week showing how sorry he was and how hard Nintendo has cracked down on a single, lonely "pirate", and will then let him be, his punishment served, Nintendo's point, well and truly made.Plausible? Conspiracy theory? Might explain why the settlement was for so much cash, but I can't see Nintendo thinking this would actually work. If true, the real story will find its way onto the Internet eventually and anyone who would be potentially deterred by piracy as a result of the original story will certainly be aware of the truth.
Here's an interesting theory about the whole situation.So that is the theory that ejamer was referring to.
Something's Not Quite Right About Nintendo's Aussie Pirate (http://kotaku.com/5468379/somethings-not-quite-right-about-nintendos-aussie-pirate)QuoteConsider this, then, as a potential scenario: Burt isn't going to owe Nintendo a cent. Or, at least, won't owe them anywhere near $1.5 million. As the publisher is so fond of public displays of aggression against game pirates, I think they settled out of court, slapped a gag order on him, let the media parade him around for a week showing how sorry he was and how hard Nintendo has cracked down on a single, lonely "pirate", and will then let him be, his punishment served, Nintendo's point, well and truly made.Plausible? Conspiracy theory? Might explain why the settlement was for so much cash, but I can't see Nintendo thinking this would actually work. If true, the real story will find its way onto the Internet eventually and anyone who would be potentially deterred by piracy as a result of the original story will certainly be aware of the truth.
Are the conspiracy theories that Nintendo is using him as an example for publicity but not intending to punish him at all reasonable? Partly. The suggestion that a gag order on settlement details is to hide the fact that he's getting away without penalty in exchange for saying the "right" things to media outlets is silly, but Nintendo obviously knows that they aren't going to see that $1.5 million. Making an example of this guy is all they can hope for in this situation... but that doesn't mean they will be so forgiving to just forget and move on.Makes sense to me.
There are numerous things that could be done to truly curb piracy...
But none of the things you mentioned would ever curb piracy. Ever.
If Nintendo stopped making games they wouldn't be a victim of copyright infringement or theft or piracy. Problem solved!
It makes so much sense now! Let the pirates do what they do, Nintendo goes bankrupt and the company collectively psills their guts out short sword and stop making games, thus ending piracy [of Nintendo games]!
(http://i35.tinypic.com/14indkh.jpg)
If it was theft, the Police would have prosecuted him, NOT Nintendo. Theft is a criminal matter, Piracy is a civil matter. However to every rule there are caveats where piracy can become a criminal matter.
Chozo, once again, Piracy isn't theft. If there is one thing everyone can take away from this thread is that:
Piracy isn't theft, it's Copyright infringement
If it was theft, the Police would have prosecuted him, NOT Nintendo. Theft is a criminal matter, Piracy is a civil matter. However to every rule there are caveats where piracy can become a criminal matter.
Please at least skim read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement)
Once again, piracy isn't theft, not even under "Legal" definition.
Actually, I think this guy would have been better off dealing with the FBI... They don't have much say in Australia, after all. :P: