Nintendo DSi Comments by Tom Bramwell

"Now your article in PC Zone in 2004 might have boiled down to, "Don't worry folks, everything's still the same as it was before despite all these new amendments to the Copyright Act 1988""

Evidently you haven't bothered to read it. Which is fine, but it's terribly ignorant to then make assertions about it.

Wow, all you whiners are retarded, jesus fucking christ on a stick.

I haven't said any such thing. In fact I just repeated, in bold, that they do.

You wrote: "To conclude, the subject under discussion was a person using the R4 to play copies of his legitimately-owned games for convenience. What you've done is come up with an example of something rather different, requiring several totally hypothetical assumptions and a whole bunch of other people, none of whom were mentioned by anyone but you (other P2P users, a website owner, someone using your original at the same time you're using the copy)."

I replied: "The 1988 Copyright Act has been updated by the 2003 EU Copyright directive which means makes points 2, 3, and 4 that I listed above are reasons which can be used for alleging that the defendant has broken copyright. "

You replied: "Yes, I know."

You agreed with me.

Evidently you haven't bothered to read it. Which is fine, but it's terribly ignorant to then make assertions about it.

I don't have a copy of it. That's why I qualified it with 'might have read', but I supposed this was the crux of the article as the main point you were stating here when mentioning the article was that the plaintiff had to demonstrate "quantifiable financial loss" as they had to before the 2003 amendment. If you feel this summary is inaccurate then you may re-post the article here if you want to. However the argument about having to demonstrate "quantifiable financial loss" is incorrect as shown in my posts, in posts from other people, and in a cited article in The Duke Law School's journal.

"However the argument about having to demonstrate "quantifiable financial loss" is incorrect"

No it isn't. Copyright is a civil issue. For the publisher to bring a court case, they have to be able to show financial loss. If they can't, it doesn't matter a toss if you broke the law to get your backup, because absolutely nobody will care.

OK then, if I go and report you to FACT will you come back and report on whether or not they successfully took you to court? I'll provide them with your website address and everything like that, you don't have to do anything.

Also, just to point out, this vehement defence of piracy, and "use of the R4 for backups", is exactly the kind of talk that people who engage in piracy tend to spout as a defence for their piratey ways. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it turned out you don't actually own ANY games, and instead just get them illegally. After all, how illegal can it be to download a Japanese game that, at the time, wasn't officially released in the West? And why stop there?

The answer, "love", is that while you may look for loopholes in the law with which you can continue to pirate games, we all look down on you as the scum you are. Because theft is theft. And stealing someone else's property, such as, I don't know... over 125 Playstation 1 games, mostly never released in Europe, converted and compressed for use on the PSP by users with custom firmware installed, for argument's sake... makes you worse than the little shits who disgrace GameFAQs' fora.

No it isn't. Copyright is a civil issue. For the publisher to bring a court case, they have to be able to show financial loss. If they can't, it doesn't matter a toss if you broke the law to get your backup, because absolutely nobody will care.

Um, no. Civil law allows compensation to be awarded in a dispute between two people or organisations. Under the amended Copyright Act, the copyright holder bringing the case against the defendant must show "quantifiable financial loss" or that their rights as a copyright holder have been "prejudicially affected" (i.e. one or more of those four points). If the defendant is found guilty of infringing the copyright holder's rights according to the amended Copyright Act then compensation is then arrived at based on the court's judgement.

Here's another

A person who does anything (i.e. not just manufacture, dealing or commercial possession) circumventing these measures (console protection) knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that that objective is being pursued, is to be treated as an infringer of copyright (CDPA 1988 s296ZA(1), (3)) (source: Electronic Journal of Comparative Law pdf - section 4.1)

This is bordering on the ridiculous. You repeatedly ignore valid points made against your argument (even first half of the post at 14:19 where I showed how you agreed with me) and carry on with slightly different variations on the same theme. Every source you can find from Whackypedia to law school journals states that your argument is incorrect yet we're still going round in circles here. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

So, you may now have the last word and we can all pretend this waste of time never happened.

"Spunkbubble".

@Dan234

"If you feel this summary is inaccurate then you may re-post the article here if you want to."

That'd be copyright PCZ though, right?

8)

No. And it's available on my website, obv.

>beneath a man of your intellect.

guffaw!

And what does this man of great intellect do for a living?

>"Spunkbubble".

ah see.. now youve come back at him with a valid argument - he's resorted in childish playground behaviour...

What a guy.. (sarcasm) I wish i were his friend and i paid him money to read his bullshit webshite (/sarcasm)

"Microsoft loses money for selling it to you at that price"

isn't that unlawful? I thought EU competition law forbid companies from selling products at an undervalue for the purposes of reducing competition

Quite fancy one of these but not for that price. Well not right now anyway as i'm saving this year.

I'll wait for a year or two and hope it gets cheaper.

What core gamers think is a little irrelevant here I feel. It's the casual/non gamer that has made the DS so successful and the success of games like brain training and the like.

I myself, having already had an original DS and a Lite won't be buying a DSi. I hardly buy or play DS games anymore to upgrade to a DSi to play games I'm already not playing. :s

I think for this to be successful, Nintendo's new non gaming target market will have to see the value and difference's between it and the Lite, and I'm not sure they will.

I really do not like the fact it'll be region locked. I've always felt region locking is an unfair way of forcing customers to buy a product at a high price. I don't think I should be forced to wait ages and buy in the UK, when I can get it earlier and cheaper from Japan or the US.

I think that the reason 3rd parties struggle to make money sometimes on DS titles is because the DS is drowning in games. There just isn't enough shelf space anymore, and good titles are hard to find amongst all the imagine or pony sims.

Crikey, the DSi browser sure is fiddly! Would far rather browse on a PSP if it had to be handheld TBH.

Baz are you one of thos c#nts that do 70 mph in the outside line on the motorway and don't move over thinking ' i'm doing the speed limit'. I f#ckn hate those lame drivers. Let people with fast cars drive past move back into the middle lane. Outside lane is for overtaking.

What a very biased little article that was.

About the DSi: Who. Cares.
Seriously, if people are so (rightly, I would say, given the new "features") pissed at Nintendo for blatantly trying to grab their money, why don't they just give the thing a pass?
Consumers have a very easy way to get their point across to companies by not buying: considering the thing is hardly necessary and there's plenty of better alternatives, why not to just vote with our wallets?

Because some developers will want to use the increased power and who says some normal games wont be dsi only because of it.

Its also worth remembering that the 18-24 year old white male who pirates the most games is also the group that purchases the most entertainment. Some people are dedicated pirates who don't want to pay and others buy as much as they can and pirate every so often.

Piracy is piracy!

I owned up to downloading DS games on my 8gb mini SD for the simple purpose of not bothering to purchase the games. I also wont bother to quibble that its for 'backup' or other shitty excuses.

Piracy is a theft and stealing money from hard working devs, a good proportion of them are in Europe and UK. This is why I decided to get DSi and get second hand DS classics and from now on for the select good games I will buy properly as I do for all other platforms.

Only concern is the localisation as I can see the appeal of downloading games that are not going to be released in UK for MONTHS! Wake up Nintendo and sort this out please.

Though it's worth remembering the devs don't get money for second hand games GamesConnoisseur. Not that I'm saying buy new, but it doesn't help devs at the moment.