Ouch. Bad idea buddy, bad idea (uploading the game).

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.

That's an utterly ridiculous fine. Of course, all of these media cartels think that their shit is worth more than it really is. It must be nice to have the world governments believe in your imaginary damages.

The game sold over 10 million copies already and this guy wasn't just some random P2P filesharer, he was the initial source of the game. I'd say the game is clearly worth a LOT.

What's not clear from this story is whether the 1.5M is a settlement or a fine. The text sounds like he got smacked by a court but the title says he "settles".

It's an out of court settlement.  I should have been more clear in the article.

Hey he didn't just upload his own copy for "backup" in the gray-in-law, black-in-intent "filesharing" piracy scene.  He stole the game and put it up on the internet a week before it was even released.

$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.

One time I bought Mario Galaxy on ebay, and I thought I was getting a good deal but what came was an obvious forgery. The disc looked like it had its image printed on it, and it wasn't even the right image for the disc. It also didn't have the manual or case, and didn't even work at all... Man, I was so pissed...

I reported this idiot to ebay, paypal, and also to Nintendo themselves. I don't know what happened to him, but I hope he got prosecuted.

I don't think its ridiculous. I BUY my games (often used, but still...) and since I buy my games you can believe I'm going to be pissed off about people getting for free what I have to pay for. I am also a Nintendo fan, so people ripping them off pisses me off for that reason too... so I'm doubly pissed.

I don't think piraters should be tortured, executed, or receive lengthy prison sentences for what they do, but forced to pay heavy fines seems like appropriate. This guy probably cost Nintendo more in lost sales than what he is being forced to pay. If idiots like him didn't upload pirated games then they wouldn't be available for other pirates to download. The punishments need to be severe like this so that people stop doing it.

Bravo, these stories make me smile.

While what he did is wrong, people that download games are going to download them anyway, and this guy didn't actually cost anyone anything (certainly not 30,000 copies of the game) in lost sales. It's not like someone thinks "If I can't download this game a week before release, I'll just buy it." I agree these people should be gone after, but it's not his fault that it's so easy to play backups on the Wii, and he's not the only person that does this. Lower your prices, increase your security, and watch your game sales increase.

^you are very wrong.
The copy he stole and uploaded to the internet about a week before release could have been downloaded over 100,000x. Would everyone that downloaded that have gone out and bought a copy? probably not. But there are alot of people that might have bought it that felt they didn't have to once it showed up for free on the internet. That is a bunch of lost sales.

It's not like Nintendo tracked down a bunch of random downloaders and tried to prosecute them. This is the guy that intentionally leaked a game to the internet 7 days before it was available to buy to the public legally. That is theft and copyright infringement. If Nintendo was to go after anyone to stop the pirating of their software, this would be the guy. The one at the source of the problem.

I bet this guy won't be uploading anymore copies of anything to the internet anytime soon.

You don't need "sophisticated technological forensics" when the moron bragged about his deeds in public.

Good. even more reason why this moron needed to be slapped with a fine beyond what he will likely ever be able to pay back.

It was bad stuff, too.  He posted an uncensored copy of the receipt, had it on his personal site, where a whois check would show his name, address, and all that jazz.  Really not the smart way to go.

Haha, pirate scum!

Natural selection in action.

This dudes life is OVER. What a waste.

/

the part that is kinda wrong here is that they got access to ALL his information beforehand.  using this jedi forensics of theirs. 

How egotistic must one be if they think they have the privilege to own a game they didn't pay for?

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.

That's what I'm saying. I'm not wrong, there's no way to say how many people downloaded *his* copy, etc. Does it say *where* he uploaded it? Sure, piracy = lost sales, but it's so easy to copy Wii games you can't blame one single guy for 30,000 lost sales.

10 million people disagree with you.

Piracy is so high because it's so easy. 

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.

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).

Guitar already smashed holes in most of your arguments, but I want to add some more stuff. First, price has NOTHING to do with piracy. Piracy is rampant even among PC download games that are $10-$15, and even among iPhone/iPod Touch games that are $1. Most people who pirate games don't factor in the price of a game when deciding to pirate it.

While a lower price MIGHT boost some games sales numbers, that doesn't guarantee success at all.

This guy got off light. If anything, punishments for people who are pirates are too lenient.

The ONLY argument I agree with on people who argue against these copyright violation lawsuits is how much money was lost. I know people who download PSP ROMs, and most of the time they would never have bought the game anyways. I myself have downloaded music online. Did the record companies lose any money? No, because if I wasn't able to download them I just would not have those songs at all, so I wouldn't have bought the songs anyways.

^ that's exactly why I agree with companies going after the source of the leak and not so much the downloaders themselves.

Yes, downloading stuff is bad if that's how you got around buying a legit copy, but 70%-90% of downloaders would have just rather done without something than go out and buy it anyway.
The real problem is the people putting up for download. Those are the people that are violating copyrights and numerous other things that may be against the law. If you go after individuals, you will forever be at war and never out of court.

I don't understand why you think his punishment is severe. He isn't going to spend 1 day in prison. Geez, you are acting like he got the death penalty. All he has to do is pay a fine. Odds are he won't be able to pay it and that will be  the end of that.

Chances are he'll have payments taken out of every check for the rest of his natural life.
I hope he gets a good paying job.

Maybe he'll be a chicken farmer.  I hear demand is rising.

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.

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".

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.

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 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.

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.

Today I saw someone post, saying one of their friends was too cheap to pirate one game to DVD, and wanted to merge several games to one disc to save cash.

I nearly cried.

Edit:  I do second that time and money are wasted on complex DRM schemes.  While I think the initial platform can be as difficult to crack as the company wants, firmware updates for any cracked platform get broken through in just a few days, if not only a few hours, and cause general problems for all users.  It's a waste of Nintendo's time to pursue making back-ups incompatible via firmware, and I think this type of action is much more effective.

24 years old and lives at home working parttime at the docks?  Why did he even settle for 1.5million anyhow?  If it went to courts he would have ended up at $25-50k because he wasn't charging or selling a product.  All he did was upload it to the internet--which isn't an actual crime, the crime is the people downloading the product. 

I'm against privating myself and find the whole it's not worth $50 a joke.  You can always RENT games and that's legal :).

Actually it's the other way around, copyright infringement is uploading (broadcasting a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder), downloading is not even illegal in some countries where uploading is.

Yeah it does, its called "supply and demand".

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.

Maybe there will always be those who pirate no matter what. However, if you remove DRM you will invite more people to pirate, and as these people pirate they'll tell their friends and it will spiral out of control. Can companies like Nintendo stop piracy completely? No. But they should still fight it tooth and nail anyway because they can at least minimize it if they can't stomp it out completely.

And furthermore, whether its lost sales or not, I don't want pirates getting for free what honest consumers like me have to pay for. I don't care if they would never have bought the game anyway or that it isn't losing sales for Nintendo. Either way it still pisses me off that they are getting something for free that legally must be purchased. So whenever one of these pirates gets taken to court for it I rejoice. Maybe there are still thousands of more pirates out there that keep getting away with it, but every one Nintendo nails is a victory as far as I'm concerned and the other pirates will have trouble sleeping at night worrying that they might be next. Well good, because I don't like them or what they do. They sicken me and piss me off.

It most certainly is Nintendo's decision. However, that doesn't mean that it is a justified price. Simply having the power to do something does not make you right in actually doing it. 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. Sadly, the courts tend to cave into the media companies and actually punish people in excess of what they would had they merely stolen a copy from the store. 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.

Oh, and piracy goes against religious teachings? Are you serious?! What a pitiful fallback. I'd be careful saying stuff like that, as it may just be against the coveted forum rules.

What?? I'm the one buying the games! The "jealous little kids" would have to be the pirates.

It sounds to me from your defense of pirates and piracy that you must be one yourself. If you actually bought games you would be as pissed off about piracy as I am, but since you're not it must mean you aren't buying games because why else would you be okay with other people getting for free what honest people have to pay for?

So it must be that you are the "jealous little kid" because you advocate pirating the games your parents won't buy for you. I'm an adult and can afford to buy my own games so this isn't an issue for me, but apparently it is for you.

Bullshit. That is just crap that pirates and people who support piracy claim.

As for courts, the punishment is different. Stealing a physical item will get you jail time (plus maybe a fine), stealing a digital item will just get you a fine. This guy is like a  store that is selling stolen items.

The religious factor comes into play here too as most religions preach that stealing is wrong, and piracy IS the same as stealing.

I have to agree with Choze, you sound like you pirate games yourself. All of your arguments are the same that pirates make, plus you keep defending pirates and saying people who pay the MSRP of games (especially one of the best games of 2009, New Super Mario Bros. Will, IS worth $50) are basically idiots because they don't just steal the game.

Just chiming in to ask everyone to remember to keep the conversation civil.  Also, please keep religion out of this discussion.

Also grammarians.  For example, I can say piracy isn't theft without condoning it or even finding it less than totally reprehensible.  Piracy is not theft, nor is piracy murder, nor is murder theft, nor is murder jaywalking, nor is jaywalking piracy. 

Of course, this pet peeve of mine is completely separate from your flame war, so carry on.

This guy got off easy. He could've ended up with a good old-fashioned Reggie punting instead.

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.

But none of the things you mentioned would ever curb piracy. Ever.

WRONG. He was being fined 1.5Million for get an early copy of the game and uploading it on the internet for others to download for free instead of buying.

and just so you know, video games and other such products are not your right. They are a privilege bestowed upon you by the people that spent million/billions of dollars and 100's/1000's of man hours to allow you to enjoy it. They set the price they feel is worth of the time and effort that went into the product. If you don't feel the price is justified, then don't support the product with your money, but that doesn't give you the right to bypass the company that put the R&D, Manufacturing and marketing behind a product and just give it away for free.

I think there are lots of things that are over priced, but it's my choice to ignore it since it is not a necessity in my life. If I really need whatever it is they are offering and feel that I deserve that product at a much smaller price, then I can either find a competing product or invent one of my own.

I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that I (or friends)have never downloaded/streamed something off of the internet for free that was probably on sale somewhere, but you need to get off your "piracy isn't theft" high horse when all you have are your own selfish interest at heart.

You think NMBWii is overpriced? then fine, don't buy it. or go buy it used. or talk a friend into buying it so you can play it too or go halves on it with a friend, but to say "Fuck You Nintendo, I took your game, that you spent 1.5yrs creating, made using a brand that you've spent 25+ years building and billions of $$$ marketing, and just gave it away for free because I think it should have only cost $35!!". Then Nintendo has every right to suit up their lawyers and say "No, Fuck You! $1.5 Million in potential loss of sales".

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.

Did you really think arguing that Nintendo should back off and let piracy go unchecked, or arguing that NSMB isn't worth $50 and therefore should be pirated was going to get anywhere on a site which is dedicated to Nintendo fans? Maybe on a Sony or MS forum they would be tolerant of pirating of Nintendo games just to be done out of spite and so Nintendo doesn't make money, but on this site people actually like Nintendo so why did you think anyone would ever agree with you that "NSMB is crap" or that pirating it is acceptable?

Most of these comments have already been responded to by fellow members, but they were directed to me so I'd like to get my thoughts in.  I have a sense that Morari enjoys trying to belittle us, so I will take a stand.

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.

Nintendo is right to charge $50.  10 million people agree.  If they didn't, they would not have handed over their money.  Don't call them stupid - one would consider you stupid for thinking you know how everybody should spend their money.  You aren't better than these 'drones', no matter how lowly you consider them.

Nintendo isn't a monopoly, so don't question the desires of the market.

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).

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).

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.

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.

Length of entertainment is not so much important as quality of entertainment.  Yes I might be entertained by a book for hours upon hours, but I'm willing to spend much more at an amusement park because the quality of entertainment is greater.  This relates back to the cost of development.  I know NSMBWii cost little to develop, but this concerns me not.  Output (quality of entertainment) is what I pay for, and in this case 10 million people judged that this condition was satisfied.  Your argument, on the other hand, suggests that people are more concerned with the number of pages in a book (material value) than what's written on them.

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.

For someone who claims to be familiar with the law, it's silly for you to deny the illegality of software piracy.  Maybe there isn't any physical theft, but it's still criminal.  If it wasn't criminal, why wouldn't the uploader challenge in court?

Chozo Ghost, I never said NSMBW is crap. I rather liked it. It wasn't worth $50 however, simply due to its length and the actual effort that went into making it. That simply illuminates a problem you have. You are unwilling to truly listen to and comprehend what others say. You skim over and take away from it what you want, because you opinion is unchanging. That's pretty typical of a consumer drone. You'd fight to defend the very construct that abuses you.

That aside, the main and initial point was that copyright law is broken (fact) and that stiff fines such as these should not go unchecked, as they are simply inane sacrifices presented to certain lobbyists. That isn't exclusive to Nintendo by any means, and in some ways is even truer for Microsoft in particular. Anyone with half a brain would be greatly concerned that corporations have so much say and influence over the world's governments. Do you truly believe that they are acting in the best interest of the consumer?

You feel personally wronged by pirates because you are a fanboy, who now feels as if his copy of the game is worthless because someone else acquired it for free. That's sad, and a real testament to just how these corporations gets away with what they do. I wonder if you feel that people who buy used copies of games should be sent to court as well? After all, they're essentially acquiring a piece of software without in any way compensating the original creator. Maybe one day you'll have a $1.5 million fine thrown at you because you ripped a CD in order to listen to it on your MP3 player. It's that kind of avalanche that allowing these shill trials to continue creates.

This has nothing to do with advocating piracy. It has nothing to do with getting software for free. It does however have everything to do with maintaining personal freedoms. Of course, I guess I'll go to Hell because of my opinions. After all, copyright infringement is a sin and goes against every religion ever invented. That's alright though, I don't think I'll mind my predestined eternity if I get to spend it with the likes of Robin Hood.

I never said that is wasn't criminal. It is copyright infringement, which is clearly documented as an illegal activity. It is not theft and it did not cause Nintendo $1.5 million worth of damages. They man most likely refused to challenge it for the same reason that no one has ever stood in judgment with the RIAA. These corporations have untold amounts of money just sitting around to blow on lawyers. They're willing to drag the case out for years, waiting for you to back down and settle. They know that they'd never get their way, so they use scare tactics to bully people into settling out of court. This man probably could have gotten off with far less, but ultimately would have spent a lot more battling it out for years and years. It's a broken system that is created specifically to favor the corporations at every turn of the way.

I can see it now. Nintendo using this sophisticated forensics of theirs to read all these posts by morons condoning piracy of their IPs, and dishing out fines for conspiracy or intent to pirate.
Just to add my two cents, here in Australia, where this happened, this game retails for $99.95 AUD, which at the moment is roughly $90 USD. And yet, the game is STILL selling out of stores like hotcakes. The reason games are so expensive here? Official reports say that they bump up the price on games (and DVDs, CDs, the list goes on) because the public doesn't care about price. There have been no official complaints about the high price of media in Australia, raising or lowering the cost has no effect on sales, so the industry feels free to put whatever RRP they see fit. A 360 game suddenly costs $110 here simply because it has two discs? That's potential lost revenue for the competitors so they follow suit - and the buyers don't mind. If they want a game, they'll buy it.

That's not to say we're all idiots and throw our money away without thinking, people will flock to discount sales and shop around to get the best price. A lot of stores have an introductory sale with $20 off for the first week of a new game's release.
Just adding a little fuel for thought on this "price has nothing to do with piracy" topic.

Forget the amount settled, was it right for Nintendo to go after this man (the source of piracy)?

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?

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

If Nintendo stopped making games they wouldn't be a victim of copyright infringement or theft or piracy. Problem solved!

QFT

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.

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.

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 !

http://i35.tinypic.com/14indkh.jpg

Here's an interesting theory about the whole situation.

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

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.

The truth is out there...

LETS PIRATE IT!

So that is the theory that ejamer was referring to.

Makes sense to me.

BINGO! The cycle is complete and Nintendo wins.

SUCCESS.

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.

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

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.

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

I would post a Captain Picard face Palm, but I am just too lazy for that.

I never said that Copyright infringement couldn't be a criminal matter. It just that in a majority of cases it is a civil matter. One of the ways it can become criminal is if you were to profit from the infringement or your actions had lead to a direct impact of a significantly large scale.

The FBI couldn't prosecute this guy if they wanted to, luck had nothing to do with it. The guy is an Australian. What are they going to do? Send the CIA after them. Interpol? Extradite him over copyright? Not saying the DVD warning isn't true, however it is one of those instances of cover your ass and meant for commercial scale level of infringements. Like the Chinese CD factories. It is also American law. Are you willing to ignore another country's sovereignty over Copyright?

Edit proof reading...

Perhaps not, but Interpol does, and I have seen them mentioned in the warning at the beginning of movies as well. I would also think the Australian equivalent of the FBI would also intervene in such matters.