Activision turns into RIAA - starts suing file-sharers

[Destructor]

Via ShackNews:

Game publisher Activision, the house of Guitar Hero (X360, PS3, PS2, Wii, DS) and Call of Duty (X360, PS3, PC, Wii), is suing individuals for pirating Activision games, garnering large cash settlements and agreements to stay silent.

Edge reported today that Activision has sued New York man James R. Strickland in federal court for copyright infringement, specifically mentioning the Xbox version of Treyarch's Call of Duty 3.

In response, GamePolitics uncovered "that Activision has engaged in a pattern of such federal suits, in most cases garnering big settlements from individuals who are not represented by attorneys and who, as part of their settlements, agree not to discuss the case."

The report continues, "Activision's court filings do not specify the manner in which their copyrights were violated, or how they came to learn of the violations."

Yup. Definitely sounds like the RIAA. Lovely.

[Larraque]

As a software developer, all I have to say is...

Good.

[jersoc]

well, the reason the RIAA is bullshit is because of their tactics. they are sometimes going above their realm of law. is that what they are doing here?

[Purge]

Keeping quiet is part of the deal? Seems like blackmail/extortion to me.

You pirated COD3, a mediocre title that was worth 60bux. It's now worth 5.

15,000 or we, Activision, will destroy you.

[Lorini]

It's extremely common in civil settlements.

[Destructor]

And apparently there's something else going on:

An attorney who has represented Activision in six recent copyright lawsuits involving video games has told GamePolitics that the legal actions were not related to file sharing.

Karin Pagnanelli, a partner with Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, wrote in an e-mail:

While we don’t comment on litigation involving clients, we can advise you that we have never filed any litigation against a file-sharer on behalf of Activision.

GP: It would appear, then, that the six defendants we reported on in our earlier story were sued for something more complex than mere file sharing.

So...what exactly is going on?

[CeeKay]

seriously, if you're going to pirate something pick a better game than Call of Duty 3.....

[Turtle]

It could just be a real pirating operation trying to make and sell bootlegs, they just happened to use some file sharing and tried to get some attention and pressure by presenting themselves as innocent () file sharers.

It could even be the people who originally stole it, cracked it, and distributed it.  I think we all can agree that's a helluva lot worse than some little kid downloading it online.

So as bad as this looks for Activision, all the information is not available to us.

[Purge]

Which is why I am amazed that they'd want to hide it.

[Canuck]

Err what exactly do they have to remain quiet about? "Please don't tell anyone we sued your pants off."

[Jumangi]

Which is why I am amazed that they'd want to hide it.

Yea that part doesn't make sense. Even the RIAA would admit the lawsuits were meant to scare people from doing the sharing as there are simply to many people doing it to actually sue everybody. Going after a person here and there but keeping it quiet seems odd, unless they are targeting what they believe are people involved in "pirating rings" to scare or shut them down.

[Dimmona]

Next thing you'll tell me that they're going to start prosecuting folks who steal cars - what is this world coming too!

[sgoldj]

What I like is the way states criminalize moving performances from one place to another. Here is a section of the code from Alabama:

 "Manufacture, distribute, transport or wholesale any article with the knowledge that the sounds or performances are so transferred without consent of the owner."

Since it says nothing about copies, I can't figure out how it works.

[Jumangi]

Looks like it could be false.

An attorney who has represented Activision in six recent copyright lawsuits involving video games has told GamePolitics that the legal actions were not related to file sharing.

Karin Pagnanelli, a partner with Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, wrote in an e-mail:

    While we don’t comment on litigation involving clients, we can advise you that we have never filed any litigation against a file-sharer on behalf of Activision.
     

GP: It would appear, then, that the six defendants we reported on in our earlier story were sued for something more complex than mere file sharing.

[Lee]

Looks like it could be false.

An attorney who has represented Activision in six recent copyright lawsuits involving video games has told GamePolitics that the legal actions were not related to file sharing.

Karin Pagnanelli, a partner with Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, wrote in an e-mail:

    While we don’t comment on litigation involving clients, we can advise you that we have never filed any litigation against a file-sharer on behalf of Activision.
     

GP: It would appear, then, that the six defendants we reported on in our earlier story were sued for something more complex than mere file sharing.

Well at least you read the whole thread before replying.

[RLMullen]

The following is not intended to be snarky or trollish, but is the exact answer to the question...

So...what exactly is going on?

None of your damn business!!  Seriously, that is the simple answer to your question.  You are not a party to the civil action; you don't have a right to know.... period!

This is almost boilerplate in civil settlements... all civil settlements.  Many times there are actions that they don't want the public to know... like for instance, exactly what they did to gather the evidence against the defendant.

Nothing to see here... move along...

[Destructor]

The following is not intended to be snarky or trollish, but is the exact answer to the question...

So...what exactly is going on?

None of your damn business!!  Seriously, that is the simple answer to your question.  You are not a party to the civil action; you don't have a right to know.... period!

Very true. Problem is, not saying what exactly is going on allows speculation like this to run rampant.

After poking a bit more around, I think I have to agree with Turtle here - apparently the people they sued were people trying to sell the game on the black market (or in flea markets - just as evil).

[Razgon]

but...but...we HAVE to knoeew!!!! WE HAVE TO!! Its imperative, and I DEMAND to know whats going on everywhere that I find something I want to know about!!

[Graham]

What I like is the way states criminalize moving performances from one place to another. Here is a section of the code from Alabama:

 "Manufacture, distribute, transport or wholesale any article with the knowledge that the sounds or performances are so transferred without consent of the owner."

Since it says nothing about copies, I can't figure out how it works.

The original person with the files is distributing the files through file sharing.  Just because it's not a physical distribution, it doesn't mean it's distribution.  Heck, you hear about game companies looking to "online distribution" for game sales.  Steam is an online distribution mechanism.  Steam has the permission to send the files (after charging money for it) while someone who has the files and doesn't have permission to distribute the files is breaking the law.

Seems pretty simple to me.