Last time on “I Wouldn’t Be Caught Dead Downloading This,” GameCyte posited that there were far better ways to spend $100,000 than on pirating Call of Duty 3. But speaking on condition of anonymity, one of the defendants in Activision’s new RIAA-style lawsuits has informed GameCyte that though he himself was guilty of copyright infringement, neither the sub-par CoD3 — nor the reported $100,000 — were involved.
Asked the extent of his guilt, our source was unwilling to provide concrete details. “There was some [wrongdoing],” he admitted. But over the course of a brief telephone conversation, he remained adamant that the punishment did not suit the crime. Audibly shaken, our contact explained how he was scared into a costly settlement by attorneys who determined how much to sue based not on the actual material infringed, but on his purchase history, the equity on his home, and the number of cars in his driveway.
If he were to get an attorney, he was informed, he would have to pay even more.
When asked why he chose the sub-par Call of Duty 3 in particular to infringe, our contact told us that the title was not involved, and was something Activision had scrounged up all on their own. “They told us they had strong evidence,” he said, “but they never showed it or proved they had it.”
Though the defendant believes that Activision shouldn’t be ruining lives over a matter of copied merchandise, he told us that his in particular was “not totally” ruined, in part because the $100,000 figures touted in the lawsuit were inflated for shock value. Though he said the monetary loss was still substantial, he told GameCyte that having his name “slandered all over the internet” also plays a large part in his current predicament.
Asked why Activision might be keeping these lawsuits in the dark, he theorized that if word of these scare tactics became public, people might stop buying Activision games.
In 2004, the RIAA was taken to court for pressuring filesharing individuals into costly settlements, and although the case was dismissed in 2005, the ill will the organization has generated lasts to this day.
In a report commemorating the five-year anniversary of RIAA litigation, Wired.com claims the only RIAA lawsuit to ever go to trial is now on the verge of being overturned.
UPDATE: The claims of a settlement fee inflated in official court documents have been seconded by another anonymous defendant.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Awesome little article, I’m glad you were able to get in contact with one of the accused. How the decided the amount is very interesting. I wonder exactly how much the actual amount was inflated for shock value, as your contact said.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 am
If it’s on the internet, it must be true. Like this couldn’t have just been some disgruntled Activision fanboy? Or an ex-employee? Or someone just wanting to have fun? I don’t buy a word of it. There is no way a judge would award a judgment based solely on the defendant’s ability to pay.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
@Anon: I appreciate your skepticism, but please note that:
1.) This was not on the internet. We spoke to a defendant over the telephone after confirming their identity to our satisfaction.
2.) I’m not a lawyer, but I believe you are right that a judge would not award based on the defendant’s ability to pay. However, this was not a judgment — this was a settlement. As Wired notes, the only RIAA case that actually went to court will probably be overturned by by the very judge who rendered its verdict… but these alleged pirates, pressured into a settlement, never had the chance to find out whether the courts would redeem them.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:07 am
There is a way to avoid this… don’t pirate games.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The gall of Activision to go after people that illegally pirate their software. The jerks! If you know that what you are doing could get you in trouble, regardless of your feelings on the matter, can you really be surprised by messing with other people’s money?
September 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
80s:
Cassette tapes let you share your music with friends.
VHS tapes let you share movies or TV shows with friends.
Floppy discs allow you to share games with friends.
Industry has a fit. Epic fail to stop it all.
90s:
CD Burners let you share music with friends.
DVD Burners let you share movies with friends.
CD & DVD Burners let you share games with friends.
Industry has a fit. Epic fail to stop it all.
Mid-90s until Present:
Internet + File sharing let’s you share anything and everything with friends and strangers.
Industry has a fit. Epic fail to stop it all - to be repeated.
Truly, which of you would call your dad or uncle or grandpa a “thief” or “pirate” for taping Star wars off HBO back in the 80s and insist he get jail time or thousands in fines? It was illegal and had the FBI disclaimer even back then.
Even if this guy was selling copies, he should not be ruined for life for a 1st time offense. He may have to answer to the IRS for tax evasion, which would scare the living sh!t out of me.
Hell, I’ve seen coke and X dealers get lighter sentences, pay smaller fines, no jail time with nothing but probation and a little community service as punishment.
You really think a pirate/bootlegger is worse than a drug dealer?
September 24th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Also…
If he truly settled without a lawyer, he
is dumb as they come and/or easily spooked.
For about $2000, a good criminal lawyer would
have gotten him off with a slap on the hand.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
@nastygamer,
You really don’t get it, do you?
Your taping Star Wars example is just plain wrong. The FBI warning isn’t about making a copy, it’s about public broadcast or display. Making a copy for your own use is fine. If you make a copy and invite the whole neighborhood to watch it, you’re breaking the law.
And the fact that ways to copy stuff has been around for years doesn’t make it any less illegal. Motorcycles and cars have been able to do double the speed limit for decades. Does that make it okay, because the capability exists?
If you copy someone’s work and then sell it for profit, you’re breaking the law.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I can certainly understand the predicament with piracy. Many wrongfully believe that pirating said products isn’t stealing, because it doesn’t involve removing an actual tangiable copy but what they fail to realize is that piracy is stealing in the way that slavery is theft of an individual’s labor. Piracy is wrong and in society we do somewhat downplay the seriousness of it. But with that said, I don’t think that they so aggressively peruse end users who pirate content - it’s a bad practice to anger the public in such an obvious manner. Instead they should go after the platforms that enable individuals to get this pirated content, but again that’s difficult and the easiest path is to just do away with it and DRM and just rely on boosting sales through other items with which piracy would not be able to intervene (eg: multiplayer requiring cd keys, or things like the sporepedia from spore which is not available to pirated copies of the game).
What Activision is doing, if this is true and I don’t put it past them, could be considered both badgering and harassment. It’s against US law to prevent a party from obtaining legal counsel under the threat of increased monetary punishment for doing so.
So if this is true, assuming the contact didn’t lie, Activision’s team of legal eagles are liable for harassment and obstruction of civil freedoms. If I was that guy, I would have consulted a lawyer - and seen what my options are before committing to either the lawyer or Activision/Blizzard’s claims for money.