Codemasters suing file sharers
I personally feel companies like this should be fined vast sums of money. Those letters are most likely illegal, and certainly wrong. They have no evidence that would stand up for a second in court. If we had a decent legal system in terms of disauding such litigation, then exemplary compensation would (should?) be very high in such cases. In addition, UK courts should not take into account any offers of out of court settlements for compensation or dropping cases that do not include full acceptance of guilt (at present, judges tend to take a fairly dim view of people suing despite being offered more than they would likely recieve - even when no acceptance of guilt, or precedent, is offered).
I don't know how well it stands up in court but if you log onto a torrent and get the list of IP addresses that are sharing the file, as well as the time that you captured those IP addresses, the ISP should have perfect data about which customer was sharing that file. If you do this a handful of times, and different IP addresses line up with the same customer sharing the same file, it's pretty much beyond doubt — you know that file is being shared through that customer's internet connection.
Of course, as mentioned in the blog post linked from TFA, the whole case is void if somebody was sharing the game through their neighbour's insecure wireless network, or if their computer was infected with malware, or if the defendant claims they were downloading the game because of a scratched CD. (Personally I download lots of abandonware games that I used to own but their floppies have gone corrupt, or because it's just more convenient than calling up my mom and digging through her attic to find my old games, or because it's easier to install an abandonware game than it is to try to run an old 16bit installer; I don't feel bad about that, and I don't even think I'm technically breaking any laws.)
When I read news items about people are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA/Codemasters and they say they have no idea where these allegations are coming from, I usually assume that they have an insecure wireless network, or their kids were behind it. However, if there was a legitimate reason for downloading the file, or if the user discovers that their network is insecure, I hope Codemasters is willing to listen to reason instead of dragging it through court.
Personally, while I don't think Codemaster's actions are wrong, I also don't think they're a good idea. There's really no way to measure money gained or lost by piracy, but if they're not making money off of piracy, I doubt they're much below the break-even point.
In at least Italy and France, their actions have been declared invasion of privacy and inadmissible in court.
In the UK, if no damages are caused, you would have a hell of a hard time getting any money out of a civil litigation, and it is not a criminal offence to do it non-commercially. Since the company cannot prove any damages, the amount they are claiming is based purely on scare tactics.
Proving the allegations to even the balance of probabilities (as required by civil law) would require access to the computer. Before any real evidence, that would be a gross invasion of privacy.
As far as damages go, while I personally suspect they may not be losing much-if-any money from piracy, and may in fact be making money off of the word of mouth from said pirates, that sentiment is far from the status quo. To most people it's common sense that copyright infringement = theft = financial damages.
IANAL, but I'm not so certain what they did is an invasion of privacy. First, they got a list of IP addresses and times from a public torrent tracker. The customers put their information in a public place, so that's certainly not an invasion of privacy.
Now, Codemasters has hard evidence that a file was being shared through PlusNet's servers, and got permission to demand customer information from PlusNet. You can make an argument that this part is an invasion of privacy, because the file wasn't definitely being illegally shared, but it was probably being illegally shared (let's be honest, there's not that many people with scratched discs of new games). Other countries may not have the RIPA, but in other countries they could have taken their evidence to the police, and the evidence would probably have been good enough that the police could have attained a search warrant for the PlusNet's records.
At this point they sent a letter to the customers requesting that they admit to their piracy, promise to stop, and pay £537. I'm fairly certain there's nothing illegal about that. I could send you the exact same letter and it would be legal, even though I have no evidence. Of course, there's no law saying you're obliged to do as I ask, and I doubt there's any law that says the ISP's customers are obliged to do so.
If the customers refuse, then Codemasters has the choice of taking the evidence they have to the police, who would have to get a search warrant to search the customer's computer, or they could file a civil suit, in which case they need to convince the judge that their evidence is substantial enough. Now, once they get to this point, I have issues with both courses of action, but I feel that's a problem with the system, not with Codemasters.
In both cases, the tax money spent on the cases is more than what Codemasters is actually asking for, and even Codemaster's lawyers would probably cost more, so it's a lose-lose situation for everybody. In the case of going to the police, it's wasting time that the police could be spending on something more important, and in the case of a civil suit, we have the classic example of a corporation having enough money that they can simply bury the defense in legal fees.
One last thing: when you say "it is not a criminal offence to do it non-commercially", are you talking about copyright infringement?
Originally posted by Skorpion
As far as damages go, while I personally suspect they may not be losing much-if-any money from piracy, and may in fact be making money off of the word of mouth from said pirates, that sentiment is far from the status quo. To most people it's common sense that copyright infringement = theft = financial damages.
IANAL, but I'm not so certain what they did is an invasion of privacy. First, they got a list of IP addresses and times from a public torrent tracker. The customers put their information in a public place, so that's certainly not an invasion of privacy.
You seem to be at odds with French and Italian courts, then.
Now, Codemasters has hard evidence that a file was being shared through PlusNet's servers, and got permission to demand customer information from PlusNet. You can make an argument that this part is an invasion of privacy, because the file wasn't definitely being illegally shared, but it was probably being illegally shared (let's be honest, there's not that many people with scratched discs of new games). Other countries may not have the RIPA, but in other countries they could have taken their evidence to the police, and the evidence would probably have been good enough that the police could have attained a search warrant for the PlusNet's records.
Sharing files is perfectly legal. Without EVIDENCE of illegality, you can't do anything. They had no evidence.
The data collected was also completely inadmissable in court; data collected by people contracted by the firm and completely unverifiable would be laughed out of any court room.
No, the evidence wouldn't have been enough for a search warrant, or at least shouldn't.
At this point they sent a letter to the customers requesting that they admit to their piracy, promise to stop, and pay £537. I'm fairly certain there's nothing illegal about that. I could send you the exact same letter and it would be legal, even though I have no evidence. Of course, there's no law saying you're obliged to do as I ask, and I doubt there's any law that says the ISP's customers are obliged to do so.
Demanding money with menaces and fraud (attempted to obtain money by deception) are serious offences.
"In relation to your claim that your computer was hacked into, we regret that the security of your computer is not our concern. It is your responsibility to ensure that your computer is protected at all times."
This is completely false. It is unreasonable to expect people to have 100% security - not even the CIA can achieve that. Attempting to claim money while lying is, I am fairly sure, a serious case of fraud.
If the customers refuse, then Codemasters has the choice of taking the evidence they have to the police, who would have to get a search warrant to search the customer's computer, or they could file a civil suit, in which case they need to convince the judge that their evidence is substantial enough. Now, once they get to this point, I have issues with both courses of action, but I feel that's a problem with the system, not with Codemasters.
The police wouldn't investigate without evidence of a criminal act. This falls squarely under CIVIL law.
In both cases, the tax money spent on the cases is more than what Codemasters is actually asking for, and even Codemaster's lawyers would probably cost more, so it's a lose-lose situation for everybody. In the case of going to the police, it's wasting time that the police could be spending on something more important, and in the case of a civil suit, we have the classic example of a corporation having enough money that they can simply bury the defense in legal fees.
The victims of these letters have no viable recourse besides either paying up, or being left out of pocket if trying to defend them. That isn't justice, is it?
One last thing: when you say "it is not a criminal offence to do it non-commercially", are you talking about copyright infringement?
Yes. Non-commercial copyright infringement in the UK is purely a civil, rather than criminal, matter.
Interesting, I shall keep an eye on this one as it's a very bold (and dangerous) step to take, even though I agree with their reasoning.
Managing Director
