Delicious/delimiterau
- Qantas tech exec shifts to Jetstar
- Zurich Australia leads regional thin client push
- Early investors drop Facebook
- Victoria kills HealthSMART IT project
- Woz not great - mUmBRELLA
- Santos' thin client starts big-data plans
- Nokia Lumia 800 revs up at Bridgestone
- Telstra privacy breach was 'one little oops'
- 'Battleground of the future' the focus of new agreement with US
- The rise of the vendor management office
Featured, News - Written by Renai LeMay on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:07 - 1 Comment
Mario piracy nets Queenslander $1.5m fine
Nintendo has successfully sued a Queensland resident for uploading to the internet a copy of its Wii game New Super Mario Bros a week before its Australian release in November last year.
The Queenslander — named by multiple media outlets as James Burt — has been ordered by the Federal Court to pay Nintendo $1.5 million, according to a statement by the Japanese games manufacturer of the Mario and Zelda titles.
“This legal proceeding was commenced to protect the creative rights and innovation of game developers, and to combat the growing international problem of Internet piracy,” said Nintendo in a statement. The $1.5 million fine consists of damages to compensate Nintendo for what it said was its loss of sales revenue caused by Burt’s actions.
Nintendo said it used “sophisticated technological forensics” to identify Burt. The company obtained a Federal Court search order on 23 November to inspect Burt’s residence. “This led to the seizure of property from those premises in order to gain further evidence against the individual,” Nintendo said.
In a wider sense, Nintendo said it would pursue anyone who breached its intellectual property rights “using all means available to it under the law”.
The company said game piracy was a “significant threat” to its business, as well as that of game developers producing games for its consoles. “Fewer sales of Nintendo’s hardware and software systems means fewer resources that Nintendo, its licensees, developers and publishers have to create and market new video game products which is ultimately to the detriment of video game enthusiasts,” the company said.
“When there is a decrease in game development, there is also a decrease in the number of jobs in the industry. The existence of piracy jeopardises the strength of the video game industry overall.”
Image credit: Nintendo
Related posts:
- Super Mario Galaxy 2 to hit Australia July 1
- Is Nintendo being too harsh?
- Nintendo may target other mod chip sellers
- GadgetGear lawyers claim no Nintendo piracy precedent
- Customs seizes Nintendo R4 imports
| Tweet | |
![]() |
1 Comment
Leave a Comment
Enterprise IT, News - May 22, 2012 16:18 - 0 Comments
Govt pushes ahead with cloud-sharing approach
More In Enterprise IT
- The ABC didn’t sack Bitcoin miner
- Victoria dumps HealthSMART e-health project
- HP completes giant new NSW datacentre
- Microsoft beats Salesforce to utility CRM deal
- NSW finalises colossal datacentre consolidation
News, Telecommunications - May 22, 2012 11:15 - 64 Comments
NBN here to stay under Coalition, says analyst
More In Telecommunications
- iiNet ramps up Internode digestion
- China concerned by Huawei NBN ban, says Bob Carr
- Parliament knocks back surveillance terms
- Evidence: Rural Australia is demanding the NBN
- Pristine Telstra network photos: We sourced our own
Gadgets, News - May 21, 2012 12:32 - 5 Comments
Galaxy S III listed for Telstra, Optus and Vodafone
More In Gadgets
- Will Telstra skip Nokia’s Lumia 900?
- New BlackBerry OS 7.1 hits Australia
- ASUS Transformer Pad tablet hits Australia
- HTC One XL on sale: Compatible with Telstra 4G
- Optus a “disgusting” company, says AFL chief
Reviews - May 7, 2012 18:16 - 2 Comments
Telstra Mobile Wi-Fi 4G: Review
More In Reviews
- Samsung Galaxy S III: Preview
- HTC Titan II 4G: Preview
- Nokia Lumia 710: Review
- Sony Xperia S: Review
- Samsung Omnia W: Review









sponsored post ING Direct recently implemented a private cloud solution to virtualise its entire banking platform, allowing it to provision a new copy of itself -- a so-called 'bank in a box' -- within minutes. 
I'm kind of happy about this outcome although I would like to know:
1. What these "sophisticated technological forensics" are; and
2. How they determined the amount, as long as the amount is equal to losses then fine (no pun intended).
However i thought I read somewhere that a settlement was reached, so wouldn't that mean Nintendo determined the amount not the courts? (so Nintendo imposed, Court enforced)