Lik Sang releases an official response to the recent court ruling that awarded damages to Nintendo.
Online importer Lik Sang has officially responded to a recent court ruling that awarded Nintendo $641,000 in damages for the sale of a device that allows users to extract Game Boy game data and then copy it to a blank cartridge. Nintendo says that it has lost more than $650 million in sales over the past year due to piracy, which it claims is promoted by devices such as the one sold by Lik Sang.
"The summary judgment itself was based on Section 273 of the Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance about 'circumventing a copy protection,'" said Lik Sang representative Alex Kampl in response to the ruling. "No copy protection exists in the Game Boy or Game Boy Advance game cartridges. The judge didn't hear a specialist or at least an independent third-party expert opinion--he took it for granted from the explanations by Nintendo that there is copy protection. Furthermore, the judge found that 'by analogy with drugs, it [Section 273] is not aimed at the drug addict but at the drug trafficker.' I fail to understand his logic, as this would mean that the drug store selling the injection needles to drug addicts or maybe even the manufacturer of the container where the drug addict keeps the drug could be held liable."
News source: GameSpot
Online importer Lik Sang has officially responded to a recent court ruling that awarded Nintendo $641,000 in damages for the sale of a device that allows users to extract Game Boy game data and then copy it to a blank cartridge. Nintendo says that it has lost more than $650 million in sales over the past year due to piracy, which it claims is promoted by devices such as the one sold by Lik Sang.
"The summary judgment itself was based on Section 273 of the Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance about 'circumventing a copy protection,'" said Lik Sang representative Alex Kampl in response to the ruling. "No copy protection exists in the Game Boy or Game Boy Advance game cartridges. The judge didn't hear a specialist or at least an independent third-party expert opinion--he took it for granted from the explanations by Nintendo that there is copy protection. Furthermore, the judge found that 'by analogy with drugs, it [Section 273] is not aimed at the drug addict but at the drug trafficker.' I fail to understand his logic, as this would mean that the drug store selling the injection needles to drug addicts or maybe even the manufacturer of the container where the drug addict keeps the drug could be held liable."
News source: GameSpot
"The system was built to expand but not necessarily to be secure," said Herbert Schorr, executive director of the Information Sciences Institute. The fundamental information to make the whole thing work, for example, still lives on just 12 so-called root servers. "It can be brought down. You have to be technically proficient, but there are enough people who can do it," Schorr said.
Schorr said the most likely miscreant won't be a spike-haired hacker. More likely, it will be "blocks of office buildings in a foreign capital somewhere," he said.
oh can it already
yea god forbid one might actually have to pay for the games they want to play. and PS, they did win.
Last edited by 890 on 24 Jun 2003 - 12:54
I admit I also used it to copy the few games that I have to one cartridge so I didn't have to swap cartridges anymore.
Hell, I'll even admit that I made some temporary illegal copies to check out some games (no downloading of demos with these things).
But the main thing is that this thing is just a device like so many others in the world to store data on a carrier, be it tape, disc or cartridge. Like they said: they're not circumventing any protections so how can it be illegal what they're doing?
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.