Poll of the Day > rom site owner made $30,000 a yearnow owes Nintendo $2.1M

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/06/former-rom-site-owner-must-pay-2-1-million-to-nintendo/?comments=1

The now-unemployed owner of a shuttered ROM distribution site has been ordered to pay $2.1 million in damages to Nintendo after trying and failing to defend himself in the case.

In September 2019, Nintendo filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles resident Matthew Storman over his operation of RomUniverse.com, which offered prominent downloads of "Nintendo Switch Scene Roms" and other copyrighted game files. At the time, Nintendo said that the site had been "among the most visited and notorious online hubs for pirated Nintendo video games" for "over a decade."

---

They probably experienced $10000 in damages at best since the majority of people pirate stuff they would t have bought anyway.
---

Revelation34 posted...

They probably experienced $10000 in damages at best since the majority of people pirate stuff they would t have bought anyway.

Citation needed

---

Sarcasthma posted...

Citation needed

https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537
---

He could sell everything he owns, give the money to charity, get rid of insurance, and then die. And then he wouldnt have to pay, I guess... Especially if he has no family...
---

I don't understand why Nintendo doesn't just offer their own service. They've sort of done this with NES and SNES games, but that's it.

I can understand them being upset over Switch game piracy, but there are no ways to play Gamecube or Wii games without buying them used.

---

Good night sweet prince

---

faramir77 posted...

I don't understand why Nintendo doesn't just offer their own service. They've sort of done this with NES and SNES games, but that's it.

I can understand them being upset over Switch game piracy, but there are no ways to play Gamecube or Wii games without buying them used.

Nintendo likes to remake their Gamecube games for Switch so they can discontinue them for no reason later.
---

faramir77 posted...

I don't understand why Nintendo doesn't just offer their own service

I don't think people at Nintendo know what the intent is. To them it's something they've heard about but never experienced. At least that's what trying to purchase a game on 3DS has taught me.

---

rom site owner made $30,000 a yearnow owes Nintendo $2.1M

How much somebody makes has no bearing on what they might have cost somebody else. More importantly, he was earning his living FOR OVER A DECADE from piracy (and while it was $30-36k in 2019, that amount could have been much higher in previous years). Considering he made a living from piracy, it's kind of hard to feel too much sympathy.

Revelation34 posted...

They probably experienced $10000 in damages at best since the majority of people pirate stuff they would t have bought anyway.

Complete bullshit. While not every download results in a lost sale, the number you picked out of a hat is unbelievably low.

Revelation34 posted...

https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537

...which overlooks the fact that most people who would never pay have adopted that stance BECAUSE of rampant piracy.

LinkPizza posted...

He could sell everything he owns, give the money to charity, get rid of insurance, and then die. And then he wouldnt have to pay, I guess... Especially if he has no family...

...or he'll probably just declare bankruptcy.

---

Zeus posted...

Complete bulls***. While not every download results in a lost sale, the number you picked out of a hat is unbelievably low.

The more liekly scenario is Nintendo lowballed their own claim since if they asked for more they'd probably have to pay out higher royalties (where applicable, usually licensed games)

---

Dude tried to make money off of the games, represented himself in court, and contradicted his own sworn statements.

---

I hate Nintendo as much as a logical person hates Trump, but even I can see this was what was coming. I mean you take licensed software and provide it as a third party without the support of the main source, what do you expect will happen?

---

I'm sorry, am I supposed to feel bad for the guy or something? Even if he hadn't profited at all he was still breaking the law everyday and enabling many others to break the law for a long time. You can say it's disproportionate retribution but the guy should have been well aware something like this could happen to him if he kept doing what he was doing.

Zeus posted...

...which overlooks the fact that most people who would never pay have adopted that stance BECAUSE of rampant piracy.

People are not going to suddenly buy a product if piracy is made impossible.
---

Revelation34 posted...

People are not going to suddenly buy a product if piracy is made impossible.

No, but people are going to choose not to buy a product if piracy is possible. It's far from being the perfect equivalency industry executives like to pretend it is (that is, not every pirated copy is a lost sale), but there are still damages.

Now, when you're looking at pirated copies of games that are no longer available for sale? Then it becomes a lot harder to claim that anything is lost. Unless there are immediate plans to rerelease the games (which, in the case of Nintendo's older stuff, doesn't seem to be the case), it's literally impossible for players to buy the game from the publisher, meaning used copies and piracy (which generate the same amount of revenue for the publisher) are the only options. There should really be provisions for that, especially where it's so easy now for publishers to make their content available for sale.

---

Revelation34 posted...

https://gizmodo.com/the-eu-suppressed-a-300-page-study-that-found-piracy-do-1818629537

But whered you get that $10,000 in damages number from?

---

Nintendo would sooner behead Mario live on camera than provide a meaningful digital alternative to ROMs, or any kind of worthwhile online service for that matter.

---

Revelation34 posted...

They probably experienced $10000 in damages at best since the majority of people pirate stuff they would t have bought anyway.

That isn't how damages are calculated.

It's irrelevant if they would have paid for it if they couldn't pirate it.

It's relevant that they were able to consume the media Nintendo made without paying for it.

BlackScythe0 posted...

That isn't how damages are calculated.

It's irrelevant if they would have paid for it if they couldn't pirate it.

It's relevant that they were able to consume the media Nintendo made without paying for it.

It is literally only a lost sale if a person pirates something they would have bought.
---

I remember when you had to buy memes at hot topic

---

Revelation34 posted...

It is literally only a lost sale if a person pirates something they would have bought.

That isn't what damages are.

Action53 posted...

I remember when you had to buy memes at hot topic

I 'member all the goths who didn't want to commit

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

That isn't what damages are.

The law is kind of asinine. They're being awarded for potential loses, not actual loses. Imagine if insurance worked that way. My place wasn't broken into but it could be, pay me for the value of everything that wasn't stolen.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The law is kind of asinine. They're being awarded for potential loses, not actual loses. Imagine if insurance worked that way. My place wasn't broken into but it could be, pay me for the value of everything that wasn't stolen.

That simply isn't the same thing. You're trying to compare something you own being used in an illegal manner to literally nothing happening.

The media isn't supposed to be consumed without paying for it. You're acting like people have some kind of right to pirate. Damages aren't decided on whether or not a pirate will pay for it, but the fact it was consumed without paying for it.

This dude was an idiot and knew the kind of absurd prices they were giving people over napster and shit not sure why he expected he would avoid it?

I love these companies that think bankruptcy means SFA.

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're trying to compare something you own being used in an illegal manner to literally nothing happening.

I'm trying to compare literally nothing happening to literally nothing happening.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm trying to compare literally nothing happening to literally nothing happening.

????

BlackScythe0 posted...

????

Let's say instead of taking everything I own someone makes an exact duplicate of everything I own. I still have have everything I had before. Should I be compensated for this?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Let's say instead of taking everything I own someone makes an exact duplicate of everything I own. I still have have everything I had before. Should I be compensated for this?

If your livelihood depends on selling exact duplicates of your possessions? Yes.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Let's say instead of taking everything I own someone makes an exact duplicate of everything I own. I still have have everything I had before. Should I be compensated for this?

Depends on what sorts of things we are talking about and what rights you have to them.

adjl posted...

If your livelihood depends on selling exact duplicates of your possessions? Yes.

Wasn't that the ROM site owners livelihood? I don't know how he was making $30,000 a yearnow from it but it sounds like you're saying he should be compensated for the shuttering of his site.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Depends on what sorts of things we are talking about and what rights you have to them.

I own comic books. I have the right to sell them. Some of them are rather pricey on ebay.
Am I entitled to compensation for the duplicator not buying my copy?
Am I entitled to compensation for decrease in value now that my copy is slightly less rare?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wasn't that the ROM site owners livelihood?

He didn't own anything on his site.

BlackScythe0 posted...

He didn't own anything on his site.

That's not a requirement that adji put forth.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I own comic books. I have the right to sell them. Some of them are rather pricey on ebay.
Am I entitled to compensation for the duplicator not buying my copy?
Am I entitled to compensation for decrease in value now that my copy is slightly less rare?

You're only going to make disingenuous arguments aren't you? You keep trying to compare a chair to a digital copy of a story. You have yet to address the only point I've attempted to make, that media is being consumed without paying for it and those who consumed it had no right to it.

BlackScythe0 posted...

You have yet to address the only point I've attempted to make, that media is being consumed without paying for it and those who consumed it had no right to it.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see anything wrong with that.

That is insane.

BlackScythe0 posted...

That is insane.

Think of it this way. A group of people get together to watch a movie. Only one of them owns the blu-ray. Regarding everyone in the group that is not that person the media is being consumed without paying for it. What is wrong about this?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Think of it this way. A group of people get together to watch a movie. Only one of them owns the blu-ray. Regarding everyone in the group that is not that person the media is being consumed without paying for it. What is wrong about this?

Oh cool another disingenuous argument.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Oh cool another disingenuous argument.

Unlike what you're doing it's an actual argument. But since you can't think of a way to counter it you treat it as if it isn't valid.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Unlike what you're doing it's an actual argument. But since you can't think of a way to counter it you treat it as if it isn't valid.

No it's not an argument. It's another attempt to bring up something completely different. Sitting at home with a few friends is not the equivalent of distributing things on the internet. Go to a movie theater, ask them if they just buy a tape and let their friends watch it. Maybe try asking hbo how their movie streaming works, I'm sure they didn't just buy a disk to "show their friends".

BlackScythe0 posted...

It's another attempt to bring up something completely different.

You set the criteria. You indicated it was wrong for media to be consumed without paying for it. I presented another scenario which fits that criteria. Either it is wrong in both scenarios or your criteria is faulty and doesn't help to understand why you object to it.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Sitting at home with a few friends is not the equivalent of distributing things on the internet.

I think you've gotten confused. You specified the consumption of media as being wrong earlier. Not the distribution of media. The site owner is to the Blu-ray owner as site visitors are to the friends. The former distributes, the latter consumes.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Go to a movie theater, ask them if they just buy a tape and let their friends watch it. Maybe try asking hbo how their movie streaming works

I think people have to pay at a theater.
I think people have to pay for HBO.
You are again focusing on the distributors of media when you started out arguing about the consumption of media. Does this indicate that you are being disingenuous?

---

it's not being consumed, it's still there

Just file bankruptcy, get the judgment discharged, and rebuild your credit. It'll take like 10 years but it's not the end of the world.

---

hypnox posted...

I hate Nintendo as much as a logical person hates Trump,

Oh lawdy.

Revelation34 posted...

People are not going to suddenly buy a product if piracy is made impossible.

The likelihood of people buying products dramatically increases in the absence of all piracy. The mere existence of piracy creates a culture where people are far less inclined to pay for goods (with many people becoming opposed to ever paying for a book, movie, or game), even if piracy doesn't exist for that particular good.

If you have the option of paying for a product or getting it for free, it should be pretty unsurprising when so many people choose to get it for free.

adjl posted...

Now, when you're looking at pirated copies of games that are no longer available for sale? Then it becomes a lot harder to claim that anything is lost. Unless there are immediate plans to rerelease the games (which, in the case of Nintendo's older stuff, doesn't seem to be the case), it's literally impossible for players to buy the game from the publisher, meaning used copies and piracy (which generate the same amount of revenue for the publisher) are the only options. There should really be provisions for that, especially where it's so easy now for publishers to make their content available for sale.

On general principle, whether or not something is lost doesn't entitle somebody to pirate and, more importantly, it doesn't entitle them to profit (either directly or indirectly) off piracy. Even if you could reasonably that they lost nothing (which is debatable), anything he earned should go to them and then damages on top of that.

From a pragmatic standpoint, no matter what the damages are set it he'd be unlikely to be able to pay them because he subsisted on his ill-gotten profits.

And, honestly, most of the things being pirated are likely to be popular titles that have been re-released. Few people go for the really obscure shit. And in the case of something like SSBM, Nintendo is making a deliberate choice not to re-release to aid sales of the more recent titles.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Nintendo would sooner behead Mario live on camera than provide a meaningful digital alternative to ROMs, or any kind of worthwhile online service for that matter.

Putting things on PC/mobile cannibalizes their console market.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The law is kind of asinine. They're being awarded for potential loses, not actual loses. Imagine if insurance worked that way. My place wasn't broken into but it could be, pay me for the value of everything that wasn't stolen.

Maybe if you had punitive insurance...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Wasn't that the ROM site owners livelihood? I don't know how he was making $30,000 a yearnow from it but it sounds like you're saying he should be compensated for the shuttering of his site.

He needs to compensate Nintendo for making money from their property.


---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I own comic books. I have the right to sell them. Some of them are rather pricey on ebay.
Am I entitled to compensation for the duplicator not buying my copy?
Am I entitled to compensation for decrease in value now that my copy is slightly less rare?

You own the physical copy, you don't own the intellectual property. You're free to sell your physical copy, you're not entitled to copy that copy and sell that copy. This isn't that hard.

If you were to actually own the copyright for that comic, you would be paying far more than than the cover price or aftermarket. But if you did somehow own the copyright, then you could sell copies and sue people who sell copies without your permission.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not a requirement that adji put forth.

So to bring back your insurance argument, you're basically suggesting if somebody broke into an apartment where you were storing something for a friend, you should be personally compensated for that lost property instead of the friend? Because why?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Think of it this way. A group of people get together to watch a movie. Only one of them owns the blu-ray. Regarding everyone in the group that is not that person the media is being consumed without paying for it. What is wrong about this?

Think of it this way. A guy charged a group of people to watch a movie on a BR he owned. He'd be breaking the fucking law because that explicitly goes against the copyright.

Likewise if he copied the disc, he'd be breaking the law because that violates copyright law.

And if he gave away or sold the copies of that movie, he'd be breaking the law even harder.

When you buy a BR, you buy a non-exclusive physical copy containing the copyrighted material. You do not buy the copyright to that material. The copyright is still owned by somebody, and they're the only ones who can legally choose to sell the film or authorize the sale of the film.

And by the way, these laws are the only reason we have most movies, games, etc, today. The industry couldn't exist without copyrights (at least not in the past; today technically you could move to a crowdfunded model, and the entry barriers are so low that hobbyists can create films, games, etc. In fact, even the book industry wouldn't have existed without copyrights in the past, but now it technically can)

---

$30,000 a year?

Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't making money on ROMS the thing you're ABSOLUTELY NOT SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES if you're trying to keep your ROM operation as legal as possible?

Nintendo has gotten involved for far less, so honestly, what the fuck was this person thinking trying to make money by selling pirated Nintendo products illegally? Are they just that stupid?

---

GEKGanon posted...

$30,000 a year?

Um... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't making money on ROMS the thing you're ABSOLUTELY NOT SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES if you're trying to keep your ROM operation as legal as possible?

Nintendo has gotten involved for far less, so honestly, what the fuck was this person thinking trying to make money by selling pirated Nintendo products illegally? Are they just that stupid?

I assume he made that money by running ads on the site, I highly doubt he was charging people to download game.

Monopoman posted...

I assume he made that money by running ads on the site, I highly doubt he was charging people to download game.

Storman has admitted that, in 2019, the site made up the bulk of his $30,000 to $36,000 a year in income. This included direct revenue from the sale of "premium unlimited accounts" for $30 per year that provided users with faster downloads and no limits.

---