TopWare Interactive took the action against Isabella Barwinska
of London over the sharing of its game Dream Pinball 3D, which can
cost as little as £9 to buy. The Patents County Court in London
ruled that the 32-year-old mother should pay Topware damages of
£6,086.56 plus costs and disbursements of £10,000, according to a
statement from the firm's lawyers, Davenport Lyons.
Barwinska is just one of many people contacted about the sharing
of the game. Davenport Lyons said that it has plans to launch 100
cases in relation to Dream Pinball 3D alone. It said that it has
court orders for the release of thousands more alleged sharers'
identities from internet service providers (ISPs) in relation to
the alleged sharing of other games titles or films and music
files.
"Illegal file-sharing is a very serious issue resulting in
millions of pounds of losses to copyright owners," said David Gore
of Davenport Lyons. "As downloading speeds and internet penetration
increase, this continues to be a worldwide problem across the media
industry which increasingly relies on digital revenues."
TopWare had previously won four rulings against sharers of the
game, but none of those cases was contested, making this most
recent case the firm's first contested victory in the UK over
file-sharing.
The four other file-sharers were ordered to pay £750
each and costs of £2,000. The cases involved the BitTorrent system
of file-sharing, which automatically shares files once a user has
downloaded them in order to make the system an efficient
distribution mechanism.
Gore said that it was possible that the court rulings will
reduce the amount of illegal file-sharing that takes place.
"The damages and costs ordered by the court are significant and
should act as a deterrent. This shows that taking direct steps
against infringers is an important and effective weapon in the
battle against online piracy," he said.
Rights owners such as record companies and games publishers are
increasingly taking direct action against illegal file-sharers,
typically using software that identifies the internet address of
file-sharing activity. They then obtain details from ISPs about
what user was assigned that address at the time of the activity and
contact those people directly.
Litigation specialist John Mackenzie of Pinsent Masons, the law
firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that the ruling made it more likely
that others would take court action.
"This ruling will give rights owners comfort and confidence in
the courts system, and the real message is that because it's been
largely untested, rights owners are reluctant to be first into
court," he said. "But when they can see a precedent coming through
the courts they can use that precedent in tackling abuses of their
rights."
The six biggest UK ISPs recently agreed to contact customers
directly who were accused of unlawful file-sharing, reminding them
of the legal position and asking them to stop.
The UK and French Governments have backed systems whereby
internet users are cut off by their ISPs for persistent
file-sharing, but so far no such system has come into effect in the
UK.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
