Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 MARCH 2010

Copyright infringement unauthorised Wii games downloads

Addisons
Explore more from Addisons

A warning was issued to copyright pirates earlier this month when a claim made by the video game company Nintendo Co Ltd (Nintendo) against an Australian individual for illegally copying and uploading to the Internet its new Super Mario Bros Wii game was settled.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
Ashleigh Fehrenbach
Ashleigh Fehrenbach
Karen Hayne
Karen Hayne

GAME OVER AS AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT PIRATE WALKS THE PLANK

A warning was issued to copyright pirates earlier this month when a claim made by the video game company Nintendo Co Ltd (Nintendo) against an Australian individual for illegally copying and uploading to the Internet its new Super Mario Bros Wii game was settled. As a result, the pirate, 24 year old James Burt of Brisbane, will pay AUD$1.5 million to Nintendo by way of damages to compensate Nintendo for the loss of sales revenue caused by his actions. In addition, the Federal Court has ordered Mr Burt to pay AUD$100,000 towards Nintendo's legal costs.

In November 2009, Nintendo commenced Federal Court proceedings against Mr Burt. Mr Burt had received an early copy of Nintendo's New Super Mario Bros Wii (apparently after having it sold to him early by mistake) and made it available for illegal download on 6 November 2009, one week before the game's official Australian release.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Protecting The AI Systems Competitors Can Actually Copy

Businesses building AI products on third-party models face a critical intellectual property challenge: determining what parts of their AI systems can actually be protected when competitors have access to the same underlying models. This analysis explores where protectable value sits in AI workflows, from data retrieval and validation processes to system integration and deployment architecture, and why patent strategy must focus on the commercially defensible elements rather than just the AI model itself.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers
Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers