Topic: Mario Pirate Settles For 1.5 Million

[Morari]

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.

[EasyCure]

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.

Theres tons of excellent games out there, though, that are "the best game possible" when released and yet they still get pirated. If someones used to getting something of value for free, there's NOTHING that can be done to suddenly get them to stop.

It's as if you're saying that if Nintendo made NSMBW in HD with 16-player online multi and 1000 unique levels, etc etc that the pirates who can get the game for free will suddenly pay for it.. do you REALLY believe in this?

[Guitar Smasher]

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)

[MoronSonOfBoron]

Quick note, Valve does make good games, but "value of service" basically means "online authentication and access to multiplayer resources via Steam", in other words, your connection to the Steam player network and server listings, without which the multiplayer and online components of a lot of Steam games simply would not work. There was a time when many people could pirate and play online games alongside legit players, and that's what Steam addresses.

No Steam -> Can't play online with friends -> Buy legit copy to play online with friends

It's simple DRM.

So I guess my point here, in agreement with EasyCure's comment about how priceline and budget have nothing to do with piracy, is that the perceived value of a game goes beyond the price tag. If it's just a single payment that's the difference between a legit copy and a pirated copy, then the pirated copy doesn't lose any value in comparison to the legit one. If there is some other component that would require a legit copy in order to get the full experience, the pirated copy loses value.

This was also the case with Battle.net: Starcraft, Diablo II, and Warcraft III were/are widely pirated, and I'm certain a lot of those pirates can play single player just fine, but the moment online authentication and CD Key registering entered the picture, those players can miss out on the real meat of those games, the online multiplayer.

Now here's the thing: Nintendo doesn't have an online service to authenticate and service their games. This means that on their end, both the monetary value and the consumer value lie entirely within the hard copies of the game. Sure, one might argue that more people playing the game means more people talking about it, but the fact is more demand could mean higher incidence of willingness to pirate. Nintendo has little to no reinforcement for its games' consumer value, at least not in the form of a community-building and authentication service.

[BlackNMild2k1]

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?

[Guitar Smasher]

It's risky, because you'd be forfeiting the sales to people who plan on reselling the game later on.

[Morari]

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)

That I cannot say for sure. I obviously only represent a very small fraction of their customer base. For me though, I'd rather see them put that money into development of games. For as much money as Nintendo is making, they really don't have a lot to show for it. Maybe it's all going into Wii 2.0, or is being put into yet unseen games. In the case of NSMBW in particular, I would have liked to see more thoughtful level design. As fun as the game was, it was ultimately very short due to the straight forward and downright easy approach Nintendo took to level design. The platforming wasn't as well done as SMB3 (my personal favorite) and the exploration wasn't as well done as SMB World.

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?

I think that would, in many ways, only encourage further piracy. Treating your paying customer like criminals and making them jump through hoops is no way to promote business. DRM for the sake of DRM is a huge turn-off. I think the reason DRM schemes like Steam get by is because it offers a good trade-off for many people. Sure you have to put up with Steam, but in return you get a unified friends list and near-instant access to your entire library from any computer.

Of course, I would argue that things like this aren't really about piracy either. It's about control. Publishers want more and more control so that they can kill their percieved enemies, like the used game market. Furthermore, they can enact a sort of planned obsolescent so as to better "promote" sequels.

[that Baby guy]

In this case, Nintendo's enemy is someone who took their code and shared it with people, code that was worth about $90 Australian dollars a pop on the American market, without earning Nintendo a cent.

The argument isn't about whether Nintendo lost any money from this happening.  They own the code.  Period.  If you're not happy with what they do with it, if you're not happy with what the game contains, do what other people said.  Buy it secondhand.  Buy a first-hand copy, then sell it when you finish.  Play a friend's copy.  Don't play it at all.  So long as you traditionally put money forth on Nintendo's products, you've got a voice.  If you cease to put money forth, you're using that voice to say so.  But saying that this punishment isn't fair, that's ridiculous.  Why?

The guy settled out of court.  He made Nintendo an offer or Nintendo made him one, but regardless, he chose to take it.  He could've gone to court and fought for something different.  He could have chosen to make the argument you're making, but he knows it wouldn't hold up in a court.  The game is worth it's full value.  It sold over ten million copies at it's full value.  The marketplace has spoken, and decided it's a fair price.

And then the pirates disagree.  Why isn't it fair?  Because it didn't cost Nintendo the market value to develop, produce, advertise, and get the game approved and shipped to the various countries?  That's true, yes.  They're a business, they're in it to make a profit.  If they don't, they go under, eventually.  The intellectual value is also something you pay for.  The people who thought of the enemies, stages, and similar things.  Even if it is downright "cheap" to make something like New Super Mario Bros, quite a bit goes into making it the game they want it to be.

And so Nintendo feels their product is worth the value they priced it at in whatever marketplace.  There's way to buy it for lower values legally, and some people use those ways.  However, to pirate, or to call piracy something that isn't immoral to do, or even to sympathize with someone who pirated and settled out of court, essentially admitting he has no defense for himself, is just a ludicrous thing.  He deserved the fine.  He decided he deserved the fine.  The game is worth market price, and he allowed people to get it for free.  Whether they'd get it through other means is irrelevant.  Whether they'd buy it or not had piracy not happened is irrelevant.  Because of him, however many downloads of his copy got out there are copies that the value of the game wasn't paid for.  Plain and simple.  It would be one thing if everyone who pirated the game bought a copy at retail, and for those that do, I honestly have no moral problem with that.  However, that's not how things happen.  Since that's the case, I don't see how anyone aside from a pirate, who steals code, pirates, skimps out on the market price, or however you want to say it, can disagree that he didn't receive a fair punishment.

[Arbok]

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.

Not going to quote the entire post, but essentially: bravo BlackNMild2k1, you had me applauding your point here and the way you stated it.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Retard pirates get caught, laughed at.

The upstanding intelligent pr0n pirates appear to buy things as part of their collection, but have this crazy tendency to share share SHARE.

[Chozo Ghost]

I'm sorry, but piracy most certainly is theft. If you pirate something, you might not be stealing it in a physical sense, but you are stealing it nevertheless. The law is pretty clear on this, and something intangible can be owned by someone in the form of intellectual property. The Mario franchise is Nintendo's intellectual property, so to take it for free via piracy is theft just as it is if you shoplifted a copy from wal-mart. You may not agree with that, but the law does agree with it and its the law's opinion that matters.

As for Robin Hood, it isn't confirmed whether he was actually a real person, but even if he were real you can't really judge him in black and white. To some he would be a hero, but to others he would be a murderous thieving villain. I guess he would be kinda like Che Guevara. Lots of young people think Che is cool, but they base their opinion on only superficial information about his character. Many of them don't realize he was also a mass murderer. But this is getting offtopic, so please disregard this paragraph.

Bottom line is, whether you think piracy is theft or not it IS considered theft under the legal definition, and the legal definition is what actually matters.

[oohhboy]

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

Once again, piracy isn't theft, not even under "Legal" definition.

[Plugabugz]

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!

[Morari]

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

Once again, piracy isn't theft, not even under "Legal" definition.

QFT

[Ymeegod]

Isn't the higher costs in Aus because their government has import tax that's kinda high.  So you add 20% import tax and extra for shipping and you'll get end up with high retail prices.

But it's still entertainment--meaning you'll not going to DIE because you didn't play the lastest game.  If you're not happy with the pricing Mori then wait for a price drop or even RENT the game.  Also you never did mention if you actually buy games?  Seems like you avoided the question.

As for pirates it really doesn't matter what the retail price is (they proved this time and time again with publishers releasing games without DMR and underpriced).  Hell I know a few guys that I work with do and these guys make 100K a year. 

Developers have families just like me and you.

[ejamer]

It's interesting to see all the chatter on different boards about this case.
 
The only thing that bugs me about the entire situation is the feigned innocence - a couple of interviews seemed to indicate that he only uploaded the game due to peer pressure to prove he bought the game early, but common sense and online evidence clearly suggest that he knew exactly what he was doing by uploading the game.
 
Is the punishment too severe?  Not really, and obviously the guy agrees since he accepted the settlement.  Avoiding any jailtime and having to suffer through a few years of bankruptcy really isn't that bad... never being convicted of anything also works in his favor.  The guy was already living at home and (judging from his father's comments) not accomplishing much, so this might be the kick he needs to smarten up.
 
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.
 
As to dicussions about whether copyright infringement on this level deserves the penalty received, I have no opinion to share.  Obviously what he did was wrong and he knew it.  He's now paying the penalty.  Hopefully he'll be able to make better decisions in the future.

[EasyCure]

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]!

[vudu]

Here's an interesting theory about the whole situation.

Something's Not Quite Right About Nintendo's Aussie Pirate

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.

[EasyCure]

The truth is out there...

LETS PIRATE IT!

[BlackNMild2k1]

Here's an interesting theory about the whole situation.

Something's Not Quite Right About Nintendo's Aussie Pirate

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.

So that is the theory that ejamer was referring to.

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.

[Plugabugz]

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]!

BINGO! The cycle is complete and Nintendo wins.

SUCCESS.

[TJ Spyke]

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.

Copyright infringement IS a criminal matter, not just civil. Nintendo just agreed not to press charges as part of the settlement. Nintendo could have just let this guy get sent to jail, but they wanted to send a message to people that if your pirate their games you will end up losing a LOT of money.

[blackfootsteps]

You're both right. It isn't 'theft' per se, but it can be a criminal matter. He was looking at 5 years.

[Chozo Ghost]

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

Once again, piracy isn't theft, not even under "Legal" definition.

No, you're wrong. Copyright infringement IS A CRIMINAL MATTER. Have you ever started up a dvd and seen an FBI warning at the beginning? This warning says the FBI aggressively investigates copyright infringements AND that if you are guilty of it you can face a $500,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison (or something like that).

The FBI are police, they're federal police, and they do investigate and prosecute these crimes. Just because they didn't in this instance doesn't mean they don't in others, and I would say it is damned fortunate for this pirate that Nintendo was the one doing the investigating and prosecuting instead of the FBI because they probably would have been more severe.

[Morari]

Actually, I think this guy would have been better off dealing with the FBI... They don't have much say in Australia, after all.