Filesharer gets £16k slap

As noted by a couple of eagle-eyed IPKat readers, the UK Patents Court has ruled against a computer user for making a copy of a computer game available online via a filesharing network. Topware Interactive was awarded £6,000 in damages and £10,000 in costs after winning their case against Londoner Isabella Barwinska for infringing copyright in the game Dream Pinball 3D.

Right: pinball, IPKat-style; (image from Mirinda the orange cat).

More information about the case can be found from the BBC, the Register and Out-Law, among other places, although the judgment itself is not apparently yet available online.

The IPKat has some difficulty imagining how the figure for damages might have been arrived at, but he cannot see how the decision could have come out any different if Ms Barwinksa did indeed act as has been reported. Merpel wonders why she didn't just pay the £300 settlement instead, and wonders what kind of legal advice she was getting at the time.
Filesharer gets £16k slap Filesharer gets £16k slap Reviewed by David Pearce on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. More here

    “She was found guilty by London’s Patents County Court on July 22nd and ordered to pay £6086.56 in damages and £10,000 in costs to the developer. This makes her the first Brit ever to be penalised by the legal system for copyright infringement by illegally sharing games online.”

    This is obviously an important decision – does anyone know when/whether the decision will be published/why it hasn’t been already?


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.