CD Projekt - Going Medieval On Pirates

[pox67]

Wow, this is completely the wrong way to go about this CD Projekt.

Even RIAA and MPAA are turning away from these draconian IP address fines. There are a couple of giant holes in the way this works
1. an IP address isn't a person
2. the Law firm can't fine you, they can threaten to take you to court unless you pay them some money but it isn't a fine and has no legal basis until tried in court
3. the "fines" are normally way out of proportion to the crime, the law firm needs a cut and the snooping company needs a cut
4. the snooping company is often in breach of the law when trying to find out the owners of the ip addresses

A lot of the cases brought by RIAA and MPAA were thrown out when they went to court as there is often too little evidence to convict someone on the basis of an IP address.

This will be a step backwards in the fight on piracy rather than a step forward.

I understand and support CD Projekt trying to stop piracy but this isn't it.

 

[Zloth]

Uploaders, downloaders, doesn't matter. If the entire case is "we got the game off torrents and the packets came from your computer at sucy & such time" then I'm going to be worried. Now, I think that *would* likely be enough evidence to get a warrent, call the cops, bang on your door, and have a look at this computer that supposedly sent the game. They shouldn't even need to seize it - just boot from a CD then have a look around. If they find Torrents and the game, then it's time to put on the shiney bracelets and seize the computer.

Pox67, I wouldn't bet on those 'fines' being out of proportion at all. Just because it is easy to commit a crime 100 times a night doesn't mean you aren't going to get charged for each individual offense.

 

[figment]

Generally I'm with CDP on this in spirit. I truly do not believe this will actually curb any pirating at least for this game. My issues lie with the middleman law firms. When law firms get involved the only people guaranteed to make any money are the lawyers. I can only believe this endeavor is going to be net loss for this project and sure the lawyers will make sure there is no net revenue.

Anyway, where CDP potentially gains from this is on GOG. If they show willingness to go after filesharing for this product, it might help with getting other publishers on board to sell without DRM on GOG.

 

[Lutriawolfe]

First off, how do they know who's downloading it. Through the person's IP address, of course. With all the various ways of spoofing IP addresses, anonymizing proxies, or going into someone's unsecured WiFi (or even hacking a secured one, since WEP's a joke and even WPA TKIP may be compromised), you might get some little old lady getting a letter and wondering what the hell a "The Witcher 2" is, and why she has to pay some big fine with her social security because of it.

And of course there may be hackers who might purposely go out of their way to get innocent people flagged just because its their idea of a joke.

 

[guenthar]

Zloth: They can't actually do what you suggest since this is considered under civil law and not criminal law. It is also not so easy since they can only get an IP address which then they would need to go to a court with to get the isp to give the information of the person that was using the IP address at the time. That isn't all since most people use a wireless router and even if they protect it the protection can easily be broken so you can't prove that someone in that home even committed the copyright infringement.

PS. If they use a third party to try to track down the copyright infringers then it is likely that they won't get any viable evidence in the first place since many of those people that do that don't even try to get the evidence needed to even say that IP address even downloaded the work.

 

[Twotricks]

After some thinking , i decided to go trough with my preorder of Witcher 2 over GOG. Regardless of this incident. Only because I am such fan of Witcher and I dont want to see it fail.

I only hope CD project will understand that only thing protecting them from pirates is their reputation. And this is very much hurting it.

 

[Dhruin]

Some of you guys really disgust me. If someone includes DRM, they are "punishing the honest customer". If they go after the pirates, they are "crooks" and "unfair"? It sure seems like you have deluded yourselves to a point where you think pirates are actually the ones that need protection (you know being individuals and cool) and companies should just let them be in peace (because all companies are evil, you know). How many legal copies do you have on your harddrives, I wonder? And what next? Squat a house?

Fantastic post - well said.

Some truly hilarious/pathetic arguments in this thread, although it's a shame it's the same tired old stuff. I love the one about "accidentally" downloading it, personally.

 

[DArtagnan]

It's simple.

Downloading a game isn't the issue.

Not paying for a game you enjoy is the issue.

Once you can be sure that you're preventing the latter without doing any harm, I think that's the time when these measures become fully acceptable.

If you expect people to pay for something without knowing what it's worth to them, I think you're expecting too much.

But that's on the industry, more than on the developers. We need a new way of doing things, but it's not going to happen as long as greed is rewarded.

 

[Twotricks]

It's simple.

Downloading a game isn't the issue.

Not paying for a game you enjoy is the issue.

Once you can be sure that you're preventing the latter without doing any harm, I think that's the time when these measures become fully acceptable.

If you expect people to pay for something without knowing what it's worth to them, I think you're expecting too much.

But that's on the industry, more than on the developers. We need a new way of doing things, but it's not going to happen as long as greed is rewarded.

I really agree with this.

There should be a better way of combating piracy.

But DRM and legal treats are not the way.


I think the best way is to give half of the game for free. When you pass first half, you need to authenticate it - and download second half from developers.

This way pirates will have nothing to do. You simply take them out of equation.

Since they are only concerned with "releases" , and people that compulsivly download the games, dont play more than first half anyway.

After that. If they like it. They will most likely buy it.



But we aint going to see that happen. Because most game companies are trying to sell us "cat in the sack" , take the money and run. They are afraid of player seeing how shallow the game actually is.

 

[holeraw]

Good idea CDP. I'm certain such a move is faaaaar more likely to reduce piracy and cure cancer than to drive people away from their game.

 

[DArtagnan]

Most AAA games are "made" on hype and marketing, rather than the actual experience. You need to build a name for yourself, and then you're basically set.

Then again, most AAA games need a certain level of quality to make this hype happen, so they're rarely downright bad.

They just need to stay above "the bar" - and make the game shiny and explosive. A simplification, obviously - but it's not far from the truth. You need an established blueprint - and someone like Bioware are masters of it.

Personally, I'd gladly pay for art - but I hate paying for commercialism, and I don't want to support it.

The problem, to me, is that I have no way of knowing how much is art and how much is commercialism - and I'm looking for a balance, as I'm trying to be realistic.

I'm glad I paid for Dragon Age - because there was enough art in that. I'm not happy I paid for Mass Effect 2, because it was too commerical. I paid for ME2, because I liked Mass Effect enough to support a sequel and I took the chance willingly, as I knew Bio could go the wrong way - and of course they did.

Still, I was entertained and that's worth something.

The problem is that money and sales don't work to measure value or worth. You can sell a crappy/mediocre game to millions of people through other means than making a really great game - because the masses don't scrutinise what they get. You can have a very hard time of selling a really great game to just a few people, because you can't afford the marketing and you don't try to mass appeal in any way.

When I pay for Dragon Age, I don't expect to see what I'm seeing with Dragon Age 2 - because I supported something else, or so I felt.

So the system doesn't work for us who care about art - and it never will. I'm not going to jump because the industry wants me to accept greed, but what choice do I have.

I think it's sad, but inevitable - and CDP are just acting within the system - so I can't blame them, but I also can't say I think it's a good idea.

 

[akarthis]

I am of the opinion that anyone should protect their creation/product.
The thing is i hate "big" words. And this sound "big" words. Do what you have to do and stop making threats. For me it's just a way to scare people.

 

[TheGameSquid]

I am of the opinion that anyone should protect their creation/product.
The thing is i hate "big" words. And this sound "big" words. Do what you have to do and stop making threats. For me it's just a way to scare people.

Yeah, I don't mind them taking a more serious attitude towards pirates (as long as the DRM stays away!), but I also thought that the entire message came off as too "threatening".

Because that's what this basically is, right? A threat to scare away potential pirates. The only problem is, we, the people who probably aren't going to pirate the game, are talking about it. The potential pirates probably haven't heard from this message at all.

 

[Maylander]

I personally don't care one way or the other. However, I generally consider this whole piracy thing blown completely out of proportions. It's basically just shoplifting. Every local super market has significant losses due to shoplifting, but I have yet to hear anyone talking about a crusade against shoplifters. Pirates should just be renamed "internet shoplifters" as far as I'm concerned, because right now the term is getting out of hand - you'd think they were responsible for all the evil in the world.

As for the penalty of internet shoplifting? The same as all other shoplifting, depending on the country you live in: A small fine and a warning never to do it again, or getting your hand cut off.

 

[DArtagnan]

I can rephrase:

If these initiatives are taken purely to protect the work of developers, I can appreciate and even support many things of this nature.

My problem is that I think these initiatives are generally taken to maximise profit without questioning if how you do it is right or not. Just like they did in the music industry. Greedy people smelled money, and went on a crusade against "pirates" as if they were all doing the same things in the same ways. No one really cared about the art reaching the right audience - which is ultimately what I think art should be about.

Generally, people think of piracy as a black/white issue - where it couldn't be further from the truth. Almost nothing in the world is black/white - unless you deliberately ignore things to make them simpler.

 

[KasperFauerby]

If you expect people to pay for something without knowing what it's worth to them, I think you're expecting too much.

But you do this all the time - just (maybe) not with computer games!

If you buy a box of chocolate (that you haven't tasted before) then you don't *know* if you're going to like it. When you go to the movies you don't *know* if the film is going to be good or not. If you go to a concert the band might suck on that particular day and when you book your summer holidays you don't know if it's going to rain or if your neighbours are going to have 5 noisy kids with them. You don't know, and you'll probably just take a chance.

Normally you wouldn't download a movie from a torrent to "demo" it before paying to see it in the movies.. and you probably wouldn't steal a box of chocolate before paying for it for the first time.

Now, with the Internet and video games it's suddenly possible to "download and try before I buy".. and that's why people do it. Because they can.

What really annoys me is when they start to make up all sorts of excuses to justify it:

"The official demo is not long enough for me to really form an opinion of the game".

"I played the game for 50 hours... but I still didn't *really* like it. So I won't buyt it".

"I'll *surely* buy the game as soon as it drops in price.. because I feel that $XX is $YY too much for this game. And I have the right to play it NOW!".

All the excuses have been listed a million times before and it's useless trying to attack OR defend them. Me, I'm totally on CDPs side on this one... sue the bastards! I don't care, because I'm going to pay for this game if I decide to play it (and based on TW1 I'm pretty sure I will )

 

[DArtagnan]

But you do this all the time - just (maybe) not with computer games!

I don't think that everything I do is right, and there are many times I do something because I have no other choice.

I pay for chocolate without tasting it, because I really have no other choice. But, since the price is low - I can accept a few bad experiences, and make informed decisions. That's because good chocolate remains good - but sequels to games don't necessarily follow that principle.

If you buy a box of chocolate (that you haven't tasted before) then you don't *know* if you're going to like it.

What if there was a way to determine if I would like it, before paying for it? Don't you think I would wait in that case?

When you go to the movies you don't *know* if the film is going to be good or not. If you go to a concert the band might suck on that particular day and when you book your summer holidays you don't know if it's going to rain or if your neighbours are going to have 5 noisy kids with them. You don't know, and you'll probably just take a chance.

Exactly, and that's why the entire system is wrong.

Normally you wouldn't download a movie from a torrent to "demo" it before paying to see it in the movies.. and you probably wouldn't steal a box of chocolate before paying for it for the first time.

I don't steal chocolate, because I would get arrested or discovered. I don't go to the movies very often, because I generally think movies are commerical pieces of shit.

Even if I did pay to go to the movies, I wouldn't be supporting them in any informed manner. I'd be putting money into the hands of the very people who're responsible for so much worthless drivel.

Now, with the Internet and video games it's suddenly possible to "download and try before I buy".. and that's why people do it. Because they can.

Obviously, so what's your point?

You're not questioning the system - because you think it's perfect?

What really annoys me is when they start to make up all sorts of excuses to justify it

"The official demo is not long enough for me to really form an opinion of the game".

If you know for a fact that when someone tells you this, it's a lie - then I agree. If you assume it's a lie, because you BELIEVE that's what everyone does - then I don't agree.

What if the person in question liked the game, and went out and bought it?

All the excuses have been listed a million times before and it's useless trying to attack OR defend them. Me, I'm totally on CDPs side on this one… sue the bastards! I don't care, because I'm going to pay for this game if I decide to play it (and based on TW1 I'm pretty sure I will )

People wouldn't need to make excuses, if there was a legitimate way to test the game.

That's what you don't want, apparently - and so we don't agree about the system.

 

[blatantninja]

Where did that quote attributed to my name come from? No one wrote it - I certainly didn't.

I said it. It's right there on page 2. Dunno why he attributed it to you. I still stand by it, too.

Not sure how it got misattributed, but I corrected it.

No one's arguing the pirates should be left alone, but that this is a completely over the top move.

I'd have to disagreee. Over the top would be throwing them in jail or fining them thousands or more for a game that costs $50. A fine that is 2 or 3 times that is very reasonable.

But there are people that can not afford full 50$ price on the game. And those people will pirate it. Not because they want to do it. But because its the only way they can get to play it.

And what right do they have to play something they can't afford?

And there is nothing in the world that is going to stop that. Except their own consciousness. And making empty treats is not going to work very well either.

It doesn't appear to be an empty threat. I know someone who received one of those RIAA letters offering to settle for a few thousand dollars. It was not an empty threat.

FFS, they're talking about extorting people using a grey area of legality where they apparently can just demand money not to sue people who would likely win if they could afford adequate legal representation. This is an atrocious behavior. No company that does it deserves praise.

If you choose to press your case in court, you have that option. They are simply offering you a settlement before it goes that far. Now the language (particularly that the RIAA uses) may be a bit extreme, but the action itself is nothing out of the ordinary when lawsuits occur.

And another thing, piracy exists in all media and has existed ever since media existed. Companies still thrive amidst the sea of bootlegs and copies. You've been lied to the gaming "journalists" who are being paid by the companies to lie that they are being horribly negatively impacted by piracy, when the reality is that they're really not. Good games still sell and, sadly, highly promoted games still sell. Sales aren't going down.

Ahh yes, it's ALL a big conspiracy!

Let's get back to my hypocrisy statement from my original post for a second here. I am betting many of you people DON'T support the RIAA's tactics throughout the last decade against music fans, including the crazy extortion letters being sent to grandmothers and pre-teen children. Do you? Why do you support the same shenanigans from the gaming industry? Are you really that deluded?

I have no problem with them doing it now that they have finally gotten on the boat and allowed DRM free, single song purchases from places like Amazon and iTunes. There is simply no excuse now for pirating music. I used to use napster, limewire, etc. when I want to buy a single song or two off a CD, but my only option was either DRM'd iTunes or buying the CD for $17+. They've addressed that issue though and now there is no excuse.

For games it is a bit different. I'll never feel bad about using a no-CD crack or something like that to circument the DRM on a game I have bought, but I'm not going to go torrent them just because I don't have the money for a game that week. And when someone dfoes torrent a game, whether it be to demo it or not, then I have no sympathy for them.

Of course, I'm the type that still thinks we should cut off the hands of theives.

 

[Benedict]

Punishing some of the pirates makes a lot more sense than punishing none of the pirates and all of the paying customers, I think.

Seconded.

An interesting move from CD Projekt

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but here in the UK we have a new system whereby they can just request that people's internet access is cut off for non payment of piracy fines. Saves the legal costs and encourages households to pay sensible fines. Does anyone else have anything similar in their countries?

As for the whole DRM free thing on Gog, agreed they could just burn a dvd and hand it out. But if it cuts the set of potential pirates down from anyone who can visit a torrent site to only people who know someone who has actually paid for the game and is willing to hand it out to people who haven't then that's a start.

Overall nothing is going to be perfect and there will always be ways round. If this shifts things towards imperfectly punishing some pirates rather than inappropriately punishing paying customers thats a good thing. And from CD Projekt's point of view the people who are stealing aren't customers anyway, they're arseholes (my point of view too).

 

[blatantninja]

First, I don't like piracy, but I live in a 3rd world country (Argentina) and when original PS3 games are priced at USD 120 (not joking) with an expensive dollar, you see piracy with different eyes. Is something bad, but sometimes is the only way some people have to enjoy games. Piracy is illegal, but for me, USD 120 for a game that costs USD 39 in the States seems kind of illegal too.

That's more an issue of either government tarriffs or the company just being stupid. You certainly do have to price to your market. And really for me, I am less concerned about piracy in developing areas (and I wouldn't classify Argentina as 3rd world, far too nice for that! 2nd world at least), than in developed economies.

You make a good point on relative price, but I don't think that the game companies are that concerned about people like you. They are concerned about the people in developed economies that have no excuse not pay for the games outside of being cheap.