5 ms·

They have $280,000 frozen, and were permitted a living expenses stipend by the court. At $40 per sale, that's 7,000 potential violations of civil law that they

They have $280,000 frozen, and were permitted a living expenses stipend by the court. At $40 per sale, that's 7,000 potential violations of civil law that they could be convicted of. If they'd only sold a hundred copies, they could try to contest that only $4,000 should be frozen, since that's the maximum profit possible. That they failed to convince the court to freeze less than the full $280,000 implies either that the court already has evidence affirming at least $280,000 in potentially-illegal revenue, or that they failed to provide the court documentary evidence of total sales less than $280,000. If your objection is that they should not have their assets frozen because the individual sale amount is low, that isn't really how "repeatedly profited from willfully violating a written agreement" works in most court systems. They freeze the money in case you're guilty and try to run with it. If you're found innocent, you'll regain access. If your objection is that freezing their assets is inhumane, that's incorrect: they are granted a reasonable stipend from the frozen assets to ensure that they are neither hungry nor homeless for the duration of the case.

Nasrudith 8y ago
The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. It stinks of a capricious attempt to deny the right to legal council to those who offend those at the top. Even Enron masterminds were allowed to use their assets which certainly came from their misdeeds which crippled the state and likely killed people via their outages. This mockery of justice is what makes it inhumane.
- jstarfish 8y ago
  > The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. This is my objection. It's obscene that the full resources of the state are brought down on defendants expected to subsist only on "modest living expenses." It's one thing when your opponent has the backing of their own narco-state, but these are presumably a bunch of 20-somethings with a net worth of less than $1M. You can't challenge someone to a duel and then handicap them by taking away their gun and making them wear a bag over their head. That's not a fight, that's an execution.
  - Brockenstein 8y ago
    The only problem is you're now arguing that someone who has enriched themselves illegally, stolen assets, or defrauded people can use that money to defend themselves and potentially drain it down to nothing, at which point they claim they can't be expected to pay restitution if they lose. Yeah, no way that won't be abused... There isn't a perfect system. And your argument that they need every cent of that money to mount a defense might be more than a little overblown.
    - Retric 8y ago
      The criminal justice system is not based on the assumption that people are guilty before trial. Otherwise trials would be pointless. Further, they could easily spend several times that much money defending themselves. Sure, if they had billions then that's a meaningful argument but not for <300k.
    - jstarfish 8y ago
      I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even conducted. We don't yet know that what they did was illegal. We don't even know if the right people are being prosecuted in the first place. That's the entire point of the trial. We may not have a perfect system but presumptions that defendants are "obviously guilty" or "don't actually need all that money" defeats the purpose of having a system at all. Like arbitration, there's literally no point-- we're supposed to have progressed beyond kangaroo courts with arbitrary rules weighted in favor of the prosecution.
  - ataturk 8y ago
    Welcome to corporo-fascism, friend.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I’m not much of a libertarian nor a cryptocurrency enthusiast, but stuff like this is plainly wrong and it would be satisfying to see someone in similar circumstances dump their assets into bitcoin or similar before the government could freeze or seize anything. I’m sure this isn’t a novel idea and happens occasionally (regularly?).
  - Brockenstein 8y ago
    Two things. You're making some assumptions that are problematic. 1. That this is wrong under Australian law, or somehow irregular. You not liking it, or having a knee jerk reaction is not the same as an actual moral judgement. 2. That courts generally have no recourse this sort of behavior. Lots of people have tried this sort of gambit, ditching assets and whatnot to avoid paying judgement. And everyone seems to think it's an original idea or that the courts can't nail your nuts to a wall for doing it. Furthermore: 3. It is beyond trivial for them to determine that you took the money out of a bank. And then demand to know where it's at. And then demand that you recover it. And then also punish you criminally for that criminal conduct. 4. Every lawyer everywhere beats their heads against their desk every time one of their brain trust clients do something so egregiously stupid as what you're imagining.
    - russdpale 8y ago
      All of this is true, but its also true that the government would still not be able to freeze your assets... And if you are willing go take the criminal charges for that conduct, then those assets will still be on the blockchain when you get out.
      - Brockenstein 8y ago
        So you're under the belief that you have hundreds of thousands of dollars obtained in some scheme and there's a court order to pay it back. And you're under the belief that if you hide those assets and tell the court to eff off, that you may go to prison for a separate crime than for what the judgement was originally for and after you serve your time that nullifies the original judgement and/or makes you untouchable legally? It sure does seem like several folks have grandiose surefire ideas of how to beat the system. And believe they're stubborn enough that they can out wait everyone, that the courts, government, plaintiffs will all just give up and give in. Good luck with that. It sounds like a child's fantasy to me.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  Well Australia and U.S. law are not the same... so what Enron execs were allowed to do in U.S. courts 10-15 years ago really doesn't have any bearing.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  > he objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. see: Kim Dotcom
foxhill 8y ago
> They freeze the money in case you're guilty and try to run with it. If you're found innocent, you'll regain access. this is the exact opposite of basis on which most legal systems are based on - innocence until proven guilty. > If your objection is that freezing their assets is inhumane, that's incorrect. no, that's their opinion. one i agree with. you can disagree with both of us, but that too is also just your opinion. > ... granted a reasonable stipend that is also your opinion, and also varies heavily based on what you mean by "reasonable" > ... for the duration of the case. and what if it takes two years? be reasonable here. rockstar have made an immense amount of money from the GTA franchise. rockstar probably incur more financial damage from floating point rounding error. the actions taken by the australian court system (one known for its.. reasonable decisions RE gaming) are catastrophically disproportionate.
Kurtz79 8y ago
"7,000 potential violations of civil law" Serious (and probably naive) question, what law are they breaking? My understanding of TOSs is that the company can unilaterally deny a user the stipulated service if they believe they are breaking the terms, but not taking you to court over it. "Undermines enjoying for users playing fairly in online modes" doesn't strike me as a punishable offense. If the cheats involved unlawful access to the server it would be hacking, I guess, but if they work on a local PC and users used them willingly, I don't see how they can be held liable. Copyright infringement?
- onli 8y ago
  Destruction of Property?
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  "What law are they breaking?" is the important question to ask here, and I don't have a good answer. I'm not familiar with Australian law, and none of the articles about this seem to have done their due diligence in that respect. I assume that's why they all led with "homes raided" and "funds frozen", since otherwise there'd be no story yet. For example: "Team of 5 sued in court over creating and selling a video game cheating tool to thousands of players" Is this interesting? Absolutely. Does it have the same emotional 'clickbait' hook as this? "Team of 5 have funds frozen before they get a chance to respond to allegations" Or the actual headline here? "GTA 'cheats' home raided" Not even slightly. Don't let a newspaper headline frame the issue for you. The issue here is simple: "Is it legal, under Australian law, to sell software that violates the terms of service of an online service only when executed by the buyer?"
mattnewton 8y ago
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?! This seems extremely heavy handed. These people are allegedly selling software that lets someone break the TOS for a video game; let’s keep this in perspective. On the basis of that complaint, they froze their assets and allowed Take 2 Interactive to search their homes. The level of involvement from the corporation that makes video games reads like a trashy cyberpunk-dystopia novel.

Nasrudith 8y ago

The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. It stinks of a capricious attempt to deny the right to legal council to those who offend those at the top. Even Enron masterminds were allowed to use their assets which certainly came from their misdeeds which crippled the state and likely killed people via their outages. This mockery of justice is what makes it inhumane.

jstarfish 8y ago
> The objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. This is my objection. It's obscene that the full resources of the state are brought down on defendants expected to subsist only on "modest living expenses." It's one thing when your opponent has the backing of their own narco-state, but these are presumably a bunch of 20-somethings with a net worth of less than $1M. You can't challenge someone to a duel and then handicap them by taking away their gun and making them wear a bag over their head. That's not a fight, that's an execution.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  The only problem is you're now arguing that someone who has enriched themselves illegally, stolen assets, or defrauded people can use that money to defend themselves and potentially drain it down to nothing, at which point they claim they can't be expected to pay restitution if they lose. Yeah, no way that won't be abused... There isn't a perfect system. And your argument that they need every cent of that money to mount a defense might be more than a little overblown.
  - Retric 8y ago
    The criminal justice system is not based on the assumption that people are guilty before trial. Otherwise trials would be pointless. Further, they could easily spend several times that much money defending themselves. Sure, if they had billions then that's a meaningful argument but not for <300k.
  - jstarfish 8y ago
    I don't disagree with your sentiment, but the flaw with your argument is that you're presuming the proceeds were acquired illegally before a trial is even conducted. We don't yet know that what they did was illegal. We don't even know if the right people are being prosecuted in the first place. That's the entire point of the trial. We may not have a perfect system but presumptions that defendants are "obviously guilty" or "don't actually need all that money" defeats the purpose of having a system at all. Like arbitration, there's literally no point-- we're supposed to have progressed beyond kangaroo courts with arbitrary rules weighted in favor of the prosecution.
- ataturk 8y ago
  Welcome to corporo-fascism, friend.
weberc2 8y ago
I’m not much of a libertarian nor a cryptocurrency enthusiast, but stuff like this is plainly wrong and it would be satisfying to see someone in similar circumstances dump their assets into bitcoin or similar before the government could freeze or seize anything. I’m sure this isn’t a novel idea and happens occasionally (regularly?).
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  Two things. You're making some assumptions that are problematic. 1. That this is wrong under Australian law, or somehow irregular. You not liking it, or having a knee jerk reaction is not the same as an actual moral judgement. 2. That courts generally have no recourse this sort of behavior. Lots of people have tried this sort of gambit, ditching assets and whatnot to avoid paying judgement. And everyone seems to think it's an original idea or that the courts can't nail your nuts to a wall for doing it. Furthermore: 3. It is beyond trivial for them to determine that you took the money out of a bank. And then demand to know where it's at. And then demand that you recover it. And then also punish you criminally for that criminal conduct. 4. Every lawyer everywhere beats their heads against their desk every time one of their brain trust clients do something so egregiously stupid as what you're imagining.
  - russdpale 8y ago
    All of this is true, but its also true that the government would still not be able to freeze your assets... And if you are willing go take the criminal charges for that conduct, then those assets will still be on the blockchain when you get out.
    - Brockenstein 8y ago
      So you're under the belief that you have hundreds of thousands of dollars obtained in some scheme and there's a court order to pay it back. And you're under the belief that if you hide those assets and tell the court to eff off, that you may go to prison for a separate crime than for what the judgement was originally for and after you serve your time that nullifies the original judgement and/or makes you untouchable legally? It sure does seem like several folks have grandiose surefire ideas of how to beat the system. And believe they're stubborn enough that they can out wait everyone, that the courts, government, plaintiffs will all just give up and give in. Good luck with that. It sounds like a child's fantasy to me.
Brockenstein 8y ago
Well Australia and U.S. law are not the same... so what Enron execs were allowed to do in U.S. courts 10-15 years ago really doesn't have any bearing.
rangibaby 8y ago
> he objection is due process related including preventing them from using their funds to hire an attorney whilst teams of attorneys are brought to bear against them. see: Kim Dotcom

foxhill 8y ago

> They freeze the money in case you're guilty and try to run with it. If you're found innocent, you'll regain access. this is the exact opposite of basis on which most legal systems are based on - innocence until proven guilty. > If your objection is that freezing their assets is inhumane, that's incorrect. no, that's their opinion. one i agree with. you can disagree with both of us, but that too is also just your opinion. > ... granted a reasonable stipend that is also your opinion, and also varies heavily based on what you mean by "reasonable" > ... for the duration of the case. and what if it takes two years? be reasonable here. rockstar have made an immense amount of money from the GTA franchise. rockstar probably incur more financial damage from floating point rounding error. the actions taken by the australian court system (one known for its.. reasonable decisions RE gaming) are catastrophically disproportionate.

Kurtz79 8y ago

"7,000 potential violations of civil law" Serious (and probably naive) question, what law are they breaking? My understanding of TOSs is that the company can unilaterally deny a user the stipulated service if they believe they are breaking the terms, but not taking you to court over it. "Undermines enjoying for users playing fairly in online modes" doesn't strike me as a punishable offense. If the cheats involved unlawful access to the server it would be hacking, I guess, but if they work on a local PC and users used them willingly, I don't see how they can be held liable. Copyright infringement?

onli 8y ago
Destruction of Property?
floatingatoll 8y ago
"What law are they breaking?" is the important question to ask here, and I don't have a good answer. I'm not familiar with Australian law, and none of the articles about this seem to have done their due diligence in that respect. I assume that's why they all led with "homes raided" and "funds frozen", since otherwise there'd be no story yet. For example: "Team of 5 sued in court over creating and selling a video game cheating tool to thousands of players" Is this interesting? Absolutely. Does it have the same emotional 'clickbait' hook as this? "Team of 5 have funds frozen before they get a chance to respond to allegations" Or the actual headline here? "GTA 'cheats' home raided" Not even slightly. Don't let a newspaper headline frame the issue for you. The issue here is simple: "Is it legal, under Australian law, to sell software that violates the terms of service of an online service only when executed by the buyer?"

mattnewton 8y ago

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?! This seems extremely heavy handed. These people are allegedly selling software that lets someone break the TOS for a video game; let’s keep this in perspective. On the basis of that complaint, they froze their assets and allowed Take 2 Interactive to search their homes. The level of involvement from the corporation that makes video games reads like a trashy cyberpunk-dystopia novel.