Witcher 2 torrents could net you a fine

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 22 November, 2010

"There's a chance you'll get a letter" - dev.

Gamers who download upcoming PC exclusive The Witcher 2 illegally could receive a letter demanding they pay a fine or face legal action.

If gamers refuse to pay the fine, which will be more than the cost of the game, they could end up in court, developer CD Projekt told Eurogamer.

"Of course we're not happy when people are pirating our games, so we are signing with legal firms and torrent sneaking companies," CD Projekt co-founder Marcin Iwiński said.

"In quite a few big countries, when people are downloading it illegally they can expect a letter from a legal firm saying, 'Hey, you downloaded it illegally and right now you have to pay a fine.'

"We are totally fair, but if you decide you will not buy it legally there is a chance you'll get a letter.

"We are talking about it right now."

The music and film industries have been aggressive in their pursuit of illegal downloaders in recent years, but the videogame industry has so far acted with caution.

While CD Projekt hopes The Witcher 2 will sell 1.3 million copies within a year of its May 2011 release, it considers the game ripe for pirating - as a single-player only RPG it lacks an online component.

Normally, law firms specialising in cracking down on illegal downloaders approach torrent sites and ask for the names of Internet Service Providers used by people who download cracked games.

They then write to the ISPs threatening legal action if they refuse to spill the account details of users.

From that, real names are drilled down, and letters are sent out.

The process has come under scrutiny in recent months for a perceived lack of efficiency and questions around security.

Responsibility lies with the person paying the ISP bill, but the person who downloaded the game illegally could have been someone else. Thousands of people reckon they've been wrongly accused of illegally downloading and sharing copyright protected material via the internet, according to Which?.

Indeed UK consumers "cannot be held legally responsible for any illicit online file sharing activity which occurs without their knowledge, or consent, on their unsecured wireless networks". At least that's the opinion of Roger Wyand QC, a barrister specialising in intellectual property law and joint head of Hogarth Chambers.

But for Iwiński and CD Projekt it's a worthy pursuit. "There are more and more firms interested in it, because piracy is huge," he added.

"I'm sure you've heard about stories in the US when recording companies were chasing people. We don't want to be so harsh, but there is a chance that this might happen to some people if they download illegally. There will be an initiative."

According to Jas Purewal, a games lawyer at Olswang and writer of Gamer/Law, CD Projekt's effort with The Witcher 2 marks the beginning of a crackdown that's set to become more intense.

"Piracy is a serious legal and financial issue for the games industry, which is responding with a range of measures from DRM to legal action against illegal downloaders," he said.

"Historically, this kind of anti-piracy action has been more associated with the film or music industries, but in the future we may well see more of this from the games industry, particularly with the streamlined 'three strikes' process being introduced in the UK by the Digital Economy Act.

"That said, it is important that games companies use robust evidence gathering and legal processes to avoid encountering some of the bad PR which has resulted from litigation against innocent consumers elsewhere."

He added: "From a gamer's perspective, the whole point of these measures is that they should have a nil effect on legitimate games purchases but a strong negative effect on illegal downloads."

Interestingly, The Witcher 2 will be released digital rights management free – but only through the CD Projekt-owned digital download shop GOG.com.

That means owners will be able to install it as many times as they like on any number of computers – and it will not requite an internet connection to run.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (124) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • KayJay #1 2 years ago

    Fair enough.

  • darleysam #2 2 years ago

    And yet, people will bitch about this being draconian and heavy-handed.

    People who receive letters because they pirated the thing.

  • sneetch #3 2 years ago

    So they're planning anti-piracy measures that actually target pirates? Very innovative! Yep, absolutely no problem with that.

  • kalinichenko #4 2 years ago

    really?How abt direct links?lol

    Will be buying this tho,CD Projekt deserves my money

  • Hunam #5 2 years ago

    Depends if the firms do what they did last time, which is just send letters to any IP they ever see and hope they'll scare them into paying a fine, even if it's an little old lady who only goes on the net to play bingo.

  • mkreku #6 2 years ago

    I prefer this approach. If you buy it, you just install it whenever and wherever you want. If you download if (and is a bit unlucky), you'll have to pay a fine. For once, the hassle is on the pirates and not on the legal consumer!

  • glottis0 #7 2 years ago

    Agreed with other comments - despite the worries about how easily the ISPs will surrender my information, this is probably a good thing for me as a gamer with a secure network who intends to actually buy Witcher 2.

  • raloB #8 2 years ago

    They won't even get to court let alone win. Way to advertise yourself for attack from those ddos nutters, though.

  • dsmx #9 2 years ago

    If you allow anyone to easily buy your game from anywhere at a reasonable price in the format they want and they still chose to download a pirated version then they weren't going to buy the game anyway, they are not customers, they aren't lost revenue, they are just people who didn't think your product was worth what you were asking for it at that time.

    Shrug your shoulders and move onto your next project it is not worth pursuing a group of people who wouldn't of paid for your game anyway and while you can pursue them the odds of you actually catching anyone are laughable and proving they did it is even more remote.

  • davisorle #10 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Rorsch #11 2 years ago

    Gonna catch 'em all!

  • menage #12 2 years ago

    There's so many other sources that won't be a problem for the majority of pirates imo.

    I get the idea behind it, I just don't think it will increase sales or ban piracy.

  • Scirvir #13 2 years ago

    I don't blame them for wanting to do this, but the legal firms that handle it are often absoloute vermin who target innocent people as much as the guilty. I hope they've done their research when it comes to who their partnering up with.

  • Spekingur #14 2 years ago

    But isn't the whole deal of your ISP releasing your information to a third party illegal in most countries due to privacy laws?

  • nooneyouknow #15 2 years ago

    There was a big thing about this in the paper (The Sun admittedly..) and interviews with people that are being wrongly accused - the only one i remember being a vicar who was being sued for downloading Two Worlds. I think the main complaint was against the third party companies that were obtaining the end user details.
    Still, feel it is more a step in the right direction though.

  • kangarootoo #16 2 years ago

    If this is an alternative to trying to build protection into the software (affecting legit users, and likely not affecting pirates), I'm all for it.


    @raloB

    It doesn't need to go to court. There is currently quite a strong sense disconnect between the actions of a pirate and the software producer. People feel anonymous when they download stuff. Being tracked down, regardless of the eventual outcome, would be enough to make most casual pirates shit themselves and think twice. Many people seem to be under the impression that people downloading torrents can't be tracked easily, but its relatively trivial for a company prepared to make the effort, and discovering this the hard way would be quite a shock for most and more than enough to make them think twice.

    I'm not convinced it can be done on a scale that is likely to make a difference, but its worth a shot. The problem is that you can't bluff this sort of thing. Saying this won't be enough. Letters have to turn up on doorsteps in their thousands, if not tens of thousands, for such a move to really have an effect.

  • kwarive #17 2 years ago

    I'm quaking in my boots.

    Not.

  • loopy #18 2 years ago

    I'll probably buy this when it comes out anyway, but I hope they realise that torrents aren't the only way to obtain software illegally... newsgroups anyone?

  • cianchristopher #19 2 years ago

    "Interestingly, The Witcher 2 will be released digital rights management free – but only through the CD Projekt-owned digital download shop GOG.com."

    Eh? This game went up for pre-order on Steam last week, are you saying that there will DRM on top of the regular Steam DRM? Or do you mean that the standard Steam DRM counts.

  • Dexter2015 #20 2 years ago

    Good luck with that! anti-piracy can easily be stopped by making good games and release them every where at the same time! Check the sales carts and check the Wii games on it! The Wii is the more easy to hack of them all and still there Nintendo games sale like mad!! Why??! Like people care about the games and love to pay for it! Hours of fun and more bang for your buck! Beats this 60 dollar game that you may can complete in like 20 hours!

  • photoboy #21 2 years ago

    Davenport Lyons, the solicitors that last did this are being investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority because they were found to have 'knowingly targeted the innocent'. I think only bad publicity can come from this, if just one innocent gamer is accused it's going to leave CD Projekt looking like c***s and the rest of the accused will all suddenly be potential victims of bad evidence.

    Still, maybe these scare tactics will finally answer the question of whether piracy actually affects sales or if the pirates really never intended to buy the game in the first place. If the number of seeded torrents for the game is very low it will be very interesting to see if the Witcher 2 actually sells more legit copies than the first.

  • raloB #22 2 years ago

    Racketeers are more moral than Pirates? BS!

  • sneetch #23 2 years ago

    @dsmx
    If you allow anyone to easily buy your game from anywhere at a reasonable price in the format they want and they still chose to download a pirated version then they weren't going to buy the game anyway, they are not customers, they aren't lost revenue, they are just people who didn't think your product was worth what you were asking for it at that time.

    Shrug your shoulders and move onto your next project it is not worth pursuing a group of people who wouldn't of paid for your game anyway and while you can pursue them the odds of you actually catching anyone are laughable and proving they did it is even more remote.

    I always think this whole "they wouldn't have paid for it anyway" thing is a bit of a smokescreen: does it really matter if they would otherwise have paid for it or not? Surely what matters is that you are legally obliged to pay for it in order to play it, if you don't pay for it then you have no right to play it.

    If it was me I couldn't give a crap if all of the people pirating my game wouldn't buy it anyway, I just wouldn't want them playing my game for free.

    Edit: and although in most cases I think that you're right about the fact that "they wouldn't have paid for it anyway"; I think most piracy is probably done by largely jaded archivists who pirate as a matter of course rather than as a result of a desire for a specific product there are doubtlessly also people who would buy if they couldn't pirate it.
    Edited by sneetch at 22/11/10 @ 15:12

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    @sneetch

    Absolutely.

    If only 1% of pirates would have bought the game anyway, and forcing them to do so means the other 99% of pirates need to f*ck off too, I don't struggle massive with the morality of that.

  • butler` #25 2 years ago

    Many people seem to be under the impression that people downloading torrents can't be tracked easily, but its relatively trivial for a company prepared to make the effort

    It's even easier for anyone even remotely determined to avoid detection.

    Disclaimer: I'll GoG W2, and have two legal copies of the 1st one.

  • arcam #26 2 years ago

    This is already the case with many games, plus movies, music and other software. Tens of thousands of letters have already been sent in the UK.

    But before we start praising these tactics too much, be aware the two biggest law firms sending out these letters (ACS Law, Davenport Lyons) have both been referred to disciplinary tribunals for bullying tactics and unethical behaviour. These modern day ambulance chasers are not the saviour of gaming, or anything else.

  • sneetch #27 2 years ago

    @nooneyouknow
    There was a big thing about this in the paper (The Sun admittedly..) and interviews with people that are being wrongly accused - the only one i remember being a vicar who was being sued for downloading Two Worlds. I think the main complaint was against the third party companies that were obtaining the end user details.
    Still, feel it is more a step in the right direction though.

    Just playing devils advocate here but how do we know they're wrongly accused? Because they say they are? For example, how do we know the vicar wasn't downloading Two Worlds? Is it just because he's a vicar? It's easy to claim "I'm innocent, how could I? I'm a man of God!" but I've seen priests litter and nuns speed, they're all just people in the end and they may not see or understand what's wrong with what they're doing.

  • MrChuckles #28 2 years ago

    Well, i'm not going to pirate it myself, didn't really get into the Witcher 1 (Which i bought), but all the smart pirates use .nzb files these days, they haven't worked out a way to catch those yet, and it's so much faster than torrenting! (I do this mainly for US tv series)

  • chaywa #29 2 years ago

    They'll probably leak the game to the torrent websites themselves and then track the information of those who download it from there.
    Great idea, one which finally starts to get to the root of the problem

  • curtlikesmeat #30 2 years ago

    I don't have a problem with this so long as they get the right people. Previous attempts at bullying for this sort of thing do make me raise my eyebrow though (The Rock style); where they've just sent nasty letters to 100,000 people, with no intention of going to court based on the fact that at least 25% will panic / crumble and pay a fine, regardless of whether it should be applicable or not.

  • masterson #31 2 years ago

    So all of you taking the moral high ground never download movies, TV shows or music either right?
    I find it odd how many folks do not seem to apply the same moral code when it comes to other types of media...
    Of course piracy has a negative effect - but large media companies still manage to make staggering profits - should we legislate to protect profit over privacy?

  • curtlikesmeat #32 2 years ago

    I don't have a problem with this so long as they get the right people. Previous attempts at bullying for this sort of thing do make me raise my eyebrow though (The Rock style); where they've just sent nasty letters to 100,000 people, with no intention of going to court based on the fact that at least 25% will panic / crumble and pay a fine, regardless of whether it should be applicable or not.

  • Luk333 #33 2 years ago

    What a poor, backward decision. They'll just lose goodwill from the "pirates" who might have bought the game, annoy some innocent people and get tangled up in messy trials.

  • Rizo #34 2 years ago

    I got a letter for downloading witcher 1, when in fact I actually owned a legal copy! This is just BS! and akin the extorsion, It frightens innocent people into paying hundreds of pounds as there worried they will loose there homes if they don't.

    I actually ended up with an out of court setlement with atari for the destressed they caused me after a eurogamer forum member got involved and payed for a group of expensive solicitors \0/

  • JamieR #35 2 years ago

    They should go after torrent sites and make them take down such things that would be more smart in my opinion if you buy a fake watch then your the victim and the seller is the criminal.

  • kangarootoo #36 2 years ago

    @butler`

    "It's even easier for anyone even remotely determined to avoid detection."

    No doubt. But the vast majority of pirates aren't, even a little bit. Most pirates boot up, find a torrent file, and get to downloading. Anyone who makes even the slightest effort to avoid detection is in the minority.

  • LFace #37 2 years ago

    Oi Chuckles ... first rule of NZBClub is you dont talk about NZBClub

  • kangarootoo #38 2 years ago

    @AinsleyHarriott

    "Na fuck off. Making threats = no sale."

    Making threats to who exactly? Maybe I'm missing somethinghere , but the only people being threatened are the people NOT buying the game. Its kind of a key part of the picture.

    Let me check something. You do know what software piracy is, right?

  • kangarootoo #39 2 years ago

    @Luk333

    "They'll just lose goodwill from the "pirates" who might have bought the game"

    What, all 11 of them?

  • nooneyouknow #40 2 years ago

    @sneetch
    No, no, absolutely agree - maybe they all did do it, I mention the vicar as his was the only part of the article i could remember (although he did come across as innocent in the article but then don't they all!!) but there were a good few people spoken to who had received these letters as well as confirmation from other law firms and isps confirming that the techniques used to trace these people were not accurate enough and warning people that just because you receive one of these letters does not mean that you cannot defend yourself which is fair enough (i have had a similar experience with a dodgy debt collector).

  • Eldritch #41 2 years ago

    All pirates are cunts and petty criminals, so there's no harm in getting them by the balls. Anybody who deliberately steals people's work should be ashamed of themselves and be punished.

  • nooneyouknow #42 2 years ago

    @JamieR
    They should go after torrent sites and make them take down such things that would be more smart in my opinion if you buy a fake watch then your the victim and the seller is the criminal.

    Even if you could shut them down then another one opens up just as quickly.
    Problem is, this isn't like buying a fake watch - what you're getting is the genuine article so it's more like buying a stolen watch... possession of stolen goods = crime.

  • JamieR #43 2 years ago

    @nooneyouknow Good point.

  • GamesConnoisseur #44 2 years ago

    Likewise applausing CD Projekt and will get my money plus their GoG initative is really great!

    Other thing GoG games doesnt have any DRM and implictly trust you to not abuse the ability to reinstalls the games as how many times you want. Fanastic and certainly hope they will continue this DRM free direction, but concerned that there will be people who abuses this and force them to rethink the idea.

  • bad09 #45 2 years ago

    Well it sure beats keeping down the paying consumers and breeding new pirates with pointless DRM. As long as it hits the right people I see no losers here....well except pirates of course.

    Maybe Ubi scum can follow this path so I can buy AC2 and Brotherhood!

  • Spekingur #46 2 years ago

    You know, shouting and pointing out the "evildoers" and calling normal folk "criminals" just makes me wonder what dirty little secrets those doing the shouting have to hide, acting all so saintly and innocent like.
    It's almost like these anti-piracy scare tactics have actually gotten to you!

  • Eldritch #47 2 years ago

    "Of course piracy has a negative effect - but large media companies still manage to make staggering profits - should we legislate to protect profit over privacy? "

    So it's okay to steal from someone who's making a profit with their work? Did you steal your bike, car or shoes as well and do you buy things from non-profit organizations only?

    /coat

  • Zaiz #48 2 years ago

    Dexter is officially the most excited person on EG right now.

  • bad09 #49 2 years ago

    @ Eldritch

    You do know studies have proven many downloaders are the biggest spenders inthe media industries. Just something to mull over up there on that high horse. ;)

    / backs away from another piracy "debate"
    Edited by bad09 at 22/11/10 @ 16:12

  • MrAtheist #50 2 years ago

    Making threats to who exactly? Maybe I'm missing somethinghere , but the only people being threatened are the people NOT buying the game. Its kind of a key part of the picture.

    Yes in an ideal world the pirates would be caught and punished, but the 'legal' firms that get involved in schemes like this, as many others have already pointed out, deserve the the ambulance chasing tag. Their business is based on frightening people into paying money they shouldnt.

    Google some of the names involved and read the horror stories. Id rather a million pirates go unpunished than some little old grannie getting conned into paying a fine because she mistakenly gets the impression the baliffs are going to trample through her house.

  • cheeky_pete #51 2 years ago

    I love the devs the options they have given us for buying DRM free from GoG or with Steamworks from Steam are a leap forward in how to make consumers happy. While I want them to make out brilliantly from this game and don't want to see them lose any money to piracy I can't help but think there's a different way to do this.

    Not that I think they shouldn't be able to protect their product but won't this result in losing about as much money as piracy would in total. I mean a legal company's service can't be cheap and there's far more ways than just torrenting to get these files if you are sooo determined to steal the game. I can't help but think its been a great 1 step forward and then right back again.

    Between the GoG and Steam digital version and the super dooper retail versions no one will have an excuse for not buying the game so the people you are trying to go the legal route with were never going to be your customers they had the option and chose to steal anyway. I see no real merit in threatening legal action on what will essentially be kids with no money or innocent victims as the actual pirates will just ignore it and go ahead anyway. And as someone else pointed out it attracts the unwanted attentions of the Operation Payback is a Bitch people and as much as that would seem like submitting to cyber terrorism it's not it's just trying to avoid it in the first place.

    No matter what anyone says it is heavy handed in that it works on the guilty till proven guilty principle. My neighbours have an open wireless connection I could easily download the game overnight from their IP and they would get accused of it and get the legal process not me. I could also go to a public place that offers wifi same result. This will stop no one and only cause problems for the devs who are having to shell out for this lawfirm who will likely be as sketchy as the rest of them in their evidence searching.

    Bottom line love the people who buy the game and ignore the pirates.

  • duffers #52 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Because why would you bother? The odds of being caught are incredibly slim and if you are unlucky enough to get a letter, the charge would never stick in court.

    As an aside, these games companies must be laughing it up when they see the sad sack officious cheerleaders and apologists for anti-piracy measures these stories inevitably draw out to agree with each other. Under the most bizarre reasons too, like identifying with a company or industry, without a hint of irony because it's "immoral" (whilst the working conditions these video games are made in are a shining beacon of morality) or the worst, because they're thick enough to believe an entertainment dystopia is round the corner. Hopefully their smugness balances out the loss of profits from downloading.

  • paulf #53 2 years ago

    @sneetch

    'Just playing devils advocate here but how do we know they're wrongly accused? '

    that's the point, innocent till proven guilty

  • kangarootoo #54 2 years ago

    @Spekingur

    Stop trying to cloud a perfectly clear issue with pointless strawmen.

  • kangarootoo #55 2 years ago

    @bad09

    "You do know studies have proven many downloaders are the biggest spenders inthe media industries"

    Source?

  • TheRealBadabing #56 2 years ago

    The burden of proof should always be with the accuser. This sort of thing allows media companies access to your personal information on a whim, with the sole purpose of harassing anyone on the flimsiest of evidence.

    They obviously haven't figured out a more reliable method of tracking down offenders. Does that mean that, in order to preserve their (rather large) profit margins, we should be happy to lose our right to privacy until they find a better way?

  • kangarootoo #57 2 years ago

    @MrAtheist

    Incompetant companies are simply bad workmen. The tools are no less valid, and they work just fine most of the time in the right hands.


    "I'd rather a million pirates go unpunished than some little old grannie getting conned into paying a fine because she mistakenly gets the impression the baliffs are going to trample through her house."

    Oh come on, where does that sort of logic end. How about instead of breaking out the propaganda, we properly regulate the companies involved in these practices, so people don't get conned.

    IF our only two options are to badly implement something, or to not bother at all, of course we are going to end up with "horror" stories, but its disingenuous to suggest those are our only options.

  • Stop-gap #58 2 years ago

    Yes, targeting piracy is big business. Big business run by pure and ethical individuals who only want to see content producers get their fair dues in the most scrupulous manner possible. For instance-
    *cough* http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/19/... *fucking cough*

    I'm for it in theory, but I'm not convinced that this will work out quite the way CD Project imagine it will.

  • bad09 #59 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Sorry kanga I can't remember links etc but there has indeed been studies into it through questionaires and surveys among pirates/torrenters by a university or something. Results gave a strong indication that people who torrent tend to actually be these industries biggest spenders.

    Of course that's not to suggest EVERYONE does this but I thought it would be a good little nugget of reality for the evil pirate witch hunt :)

  • arcam #60 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Here's two! One from 2006, and a different one from 2009.
    Edited by arcam at 22/11/10 @ 16:45

  • kangarootoo #61 2 years ago

    @duffers

    Morality isn't part of the picture for me, and I don't agree with all of the posters on here. As it stands though, we don't need to like a company to think that protecting their property from theft is a good idea. Publishers and devs can be as smug as they like - I'm not sure how that is relevant. If they lose profits because they are smug, then fair enough we can all have a chuckle at their smugness. But if they lose out because of theft, I'm not sure how anyone with a basic embracing of law would think that is ok.

    In the very simplest terms we are talking about whether or not someone should be able to take something they haven't paid for, and what measures a company might take to protect against that. I find it quite an interesting discussion, mainly because get so vehement on both sides, but also because people get too attached to the idea that this is about games when it really isn't. It is purely about whether taking something without paying is ok, just because you can get away with it.

    I tend to err on the side of anti-piracy, but not always. I tend to just take whichever side lets me ask the most questions :)

  • Eldritch #62 2 years ago

    "Bottom line love the people who buy the game and ignore the pirates.

    No, because stealing is illegal and hurts both developers and legal buyers. Or is it fine to steal a car, because, after all, there are still people buying cars (presumably because they're too stupid to figure out how to steal one without being caught).

    Did anybody defending piracy here ever spend several years of their lives on creating something only to have it stolen from them?

    Just because games piracy is a crime that's (relatively) easy to get away with, it's not okay.

  • Eldritch #63 2 years ago

    "It is purely about whether taking something without paying is ok, just because you can get away with it. "

    Spot on.

  • bad09 #64 2 years ago

    Ah arcam comes to my rescue! :)

  • kangarootoo #65 2 years ago

    @bad09

    There have also been studies that show people lie when answering anonymous questionairres, presumeably out of some sense of internal guilt.

    There is also some implied causation in what you say, when I suspect association is more likely. In non-waffly speak I mean that you imply that people who pirate are big spenders BECAUSE they pirate, when in fact if they didn't pirate I guess they would be even bigger spenders.

    The other implication might be that if you spend a lot in a gicen industry, you have earned a few "freebies" along the way, but until we live in some kind of communist state where all companies' assets are in the same pot, I'm not sure it is quite fair to treat the industry as a single entity. If someone buys loads of games, but pinches one, the company that made the one game that was pinched is no better for the spending that took place elsewhere.

  • markyHD #66 2 years ago

    Personally I think it should work the other way around aswell, and if the product is unworthy, and I buy it, they should pay me a fine!

    I want reimbursing by whoever made the movie babylon AD for two hours @ minimum wage rate. That fucking director robbed my time!

  • Spekingur #67 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: But, but, these strawmen need a brain from the wizard of Oz!

    Piracy. Srs bsns.

  • funkateer #68 2 years ago

    Targeting pirates specifically, interesting.

    However, the last time I checked downloading unlicensed content is not actually illegal (at least not in my country); only *distributing* unlicensed copyrighted content is illegal.
    That said, I'm guessing a torrent doesn't really work when nobody's sharing and everybody's just leeching :-)

  • penhalion #69 2 years ago

    Has anyone pointed out that this letter crap doesn't work and actually only serves to make ordinary people hate the companies involved. This is because it is impossible to trace the pirates back to a legitimate ip address and so innocent people keep getting sent letters demanding they pay up for products that they didn't pirate, download or even know anything about.

    There have been a few high profile cases like that over here in england that mean that law firms are reluctant to pursue such cases knowing full well that the torrent site may have actually just returned a random ip address when sniffed and that the address may end up belonging to anyone.

    I can see CD projeck really shooting themselves in the foot with this one. I'll be looking for the "gone out of business" sign some time next year if they go ahead with this.

  • bad09 #70 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Yeah I see what you mean but these questionaires do hold up the beliefs of many that piracy is not entirely the "evil" we are told it is, and does suggest by going after torrenters you (possibly) go after big spenders in your industry.

    If you look at the games industry for instance it's no secret quite a few download as companies don't provide demos, whether you believe them or not there are people out there potentially making a buying desicion on pirating a game. I've done it myself with Crysis (whose demo was not optimised for Dual cores so did not reflect the finished game for many) ended in me buying Crysis, Warhead and looking forward to 2, even the other day I read on here of a guy downloading Stacraft 2 as it has no demo apparently and then buying the game.

    Edited by bad09 at 22/11/10 @ 17:09

  • Stop-gap #71 2 years ago

    I don't believe this still needs pointing out, but copying something is not the same as stealing it. You have made an extra copy without permission/paying for it, not taken it from someone's possession so they don't have it any more.

    The "you wouldn't steal a car would you?" routine and other bare faced distortions of fact remind me very well why the "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" variety of complacent consent is to be sneered at.

  • kangarootoo #72 2 years ago

    @penhalion

    "This is because it is impossible to trace the pirates back to a legitimate ip address"

    It really isn't.

    As has been pointed out by butler`, it is of course possible for people to cover themselves. So what I think you mean is " it is impossible to trace ALL the pirates back to a legitimate ip address", which is true no doubt.


    "knowing full well that the torrent site may have actually just returned a random ip address when sniffed"

    What does that mean? Real question.

  • arcam #73 2 years ago

    I don't think either of those studies imply causation, but the obvious link between someone pirating lots also buying lots is that they are a fan of the medium and its content.

    Despite the black and white view presented in every piracy comments thread, the uncomfortable fact is that those people who pirate games and those leading the legal digital distribution revolution are the same people. Just like the same people sharing Lady Gaga singles on Limewire are the same people that buy the album when it drops.

    Obviously there are large numbers of people pirating that will never buy, and a lot of people buying that have never pirated, but the awkward truth, borne out in all the studies that have tried to look at it, is that the crossover between those two groups is massive.

    It's not legal consumers and illegal consumers - there are just consumers, and all publishers can do is try to coax them over to the right way of doing things.

  • kangarootoo #74 2 years ago

    @Stop-gap

    Yes, it is stealing.

    It isn't theft - "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another", but it is stealing - "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment".

    So, now we have got the usual pointless dictionary consultations out of the way, we can return to the real issue at hand.

  • TheGuvernor #75 2 years ago


    Perhaps if they lowered the price of games/software they'd have less issues with piracy?
    Stuff's expensive & they neeed gamers to buy plenty of games to keep the industry rolling.
    Reduce the cost reduce the temptation.


  • kangarootoo #76 2 years ago

    @TheGuvernor

    I'm not personally convinced that reducing price is a big factor, and I'm almost certain there have been studies showing the same (which I can't link to - bad kangarootoo). Free is always cheaper, and half the time it is more convenient as well. We see plenty of people complaining that a game on iPhone is "way too expensive" because it costs £2.99. Value is always relative, and I'm not sure if reducing prices would work as simply as you suggest.

    All of which ignores the fact that reducing prices might simply result in less profit for the publisher. More sales isn't the only number that is important. I am also inclined to think that if the solution to one of the industry's biggest challenges was to simply "make stuff cheaper", some smart bean would have cottoned on to the fact by now. That they haven't, probably just means it wouldn't work.

  • kmaelen #77 2 years ago

    meh, I will buy it when it comes, but if it's out days before the release I'll download it and start playing, good luck to them getting my ISP to give up any name, they wont and a "legal threat" isn't gonna fly here. But The Witcher is just too good of a game to not buy. Pre-order now :p

  • duffers #78 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Only the first paragraph was addressed to you, sorry. And the smugness only referred to the shrills on the internet, not the devs.

    You're right, we don't need to agree with the idea to understand why. But I do find it puzzling that those to whom it makes no neverminds to are similarly het up by it. You say morality doesn't come into it but then you say it's about embracing the law. What if you choose not to embrace the law, or with some degree of awkwardness? Then is it a moral question for you?

    The question of should someone take something without payment is irrelevent. You just can. I don't think that will ever change in any sphere, online or in the real world. Whilst people demand pirates justify themselves, they are waiting for their torrents to finish on uTorrent. People like Eldritch have their decision completely informed by what the law is. I wonder if they cherrypick which ones they agree with or if they believe in it wholesale. Do they agree with drugs which can be taxed like alcohol and cigarettes being sold over the counter but ones you can't being illegal? Or that vastly wealthy non-EU immigrants have freedom to travel anywhere in the world whilst working class non-EU immigrants certainly don't. Are they not capable of making decisions without looking if the law says it's alright first?

    I find the theft of time by the workplace and the small fraction of money earned in comparison to how much the game or product makes to be far more criminal. And this is something that is a fact the world over, in every industry.

    Eldritch asked has anyone spent years creating something for it to be 'stolen' which tells me he certainly hasn't. Because people don't create things only to sell them and surely to have it enjoyed by as many people is more important than how much you make.
    Edited by duffers at 22/11/10 @ 18:04

  • dwalker109 #79 2 years ago

    This isn't about whether piracy is evil or stealing is wrong, and that's a topic which should be discussed elsewhere. It's about the fundamental problems with schemes like this - they are nothing new, and they are run in a very haphazard, scattershot way - fling a load of shit at the wall and see what sticks.

    It will catch genuine pirates. It will also have false positives. Those false positives will be sent letters demanding cash for freedom from "potential prosecution". Many of these innocent people will just pay up, if historical precedent is to be believed. Much like a protection racket, truth be told, which is covered in depth by the various articles focusing on the tactics of these companies.

    This looks like a panacea on the surface - it appears to target only the wrongdoers. The reality is far less cut and dry.

  • dutzan #80 2 years ago

    First of all it's not the downloading that's illegal, it's the redistributing of the copywrighted material. And neither a games company or a law firm is entitled to issue fines. Anything they do must go through the legal system and that includes settlements between them and the pirates that they'll pay whatever amount.

  • subedii #81 2 years ago

    @Kangarootoo: Piracy isn't Theft, it's Copyright Infringement.

    The two are not the same and should never, ever be treated as such. Not only is it pointlessly trying to make the subject offence more emotive, but conflating one with the other fundamentally removes some key rights and restrictions that apply when dealing with Intellectual Property.


    That out of the way, I don't really have an issue with this. They've removed the DRM from their game, so I'm not going to be needing any daft No-CD cracks or anything. That's all that really matters to me. They're playing fair with the product and not giving any unnecessary restrictions to it.

    Whether going heavy legal will be effective? I doubt it, but they're playing fair with the product release itself.
    Edited by subedii at 22/11/10 @ 17:57

  • kangarootoo #82 2 years ago

    @duffers

    "But I do find it puzzling that those to whom it makes no neverminds to are similarly het up by it"

    Some people just like gettiung angry :)


    "You say morality doesn't come into it but then you say it's about embracing the law. What if you choose not to embrace the law, or with some degree of awkwardness? Then is it a moral question for you?"

    Those are personal decisions. I'm not really approaching this thread from a personal standpoint - I'm more about asking questions for the sake of the discussion (devil's advocate if you like). If someone says something I think is flawed, I tend to hop on it. It just so happens that in most discussions about piracy, the logic of the arguments of the pro-pirates is usually the most flawed (or full of non-points, like the semantics of the word "stealing";).

    My personal take on the application of law is that is what works for a functioning society - whether I personally choose to ignore certain laws for personal reasons is of course more complex, and completely moral based.


    "Because people don't create things only to sell them and to be enjoyed by as many as possible is more important than how much you've sold."

    With respect, that is usually just what people say when their art is not their living (or it is, but they are no good at it, and so they cover their failure by saying wide spread acceptance is not important to them).

    People who make games for a living absolutely care about their financial security, and you won't find a (sane) dev in the land that will let their mortgage payments slide so that "as many people as possible can enjoy my creation".

  • NunianVonFuch #83 2 years ago

    As long as they put out a demo of the game I couldn't care less.

  • kangarootoo #84 2 years ago

    @Subedii

    "Piracy isn't Theft, it's Copyright Infringement."

    Did you f*cking miss the bit where I said piracy WASN'T theft? Allow me to quote for you.

    "It isn't theft - "the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another", but it is stealing - "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment"."

    First three words of the first sentence. Learn to read and stop wasting my time.

    So its not theft, but it is stealing, AND its copyright infringement, as the two aren't mutually exclusive, NOT that any of this semantic nonsense is worth a bean anyway.

    Why in every discussion about piracy, are there always a few people who get stuck into the meaning of words. What is your point? its just intellectual pollution... and clearly it annoys me.

  • duffers #85 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    There has been plenty of full time devs who have quit their jobs to create indie games. But that's missing the point. Devs who actually work on the game and aren't CEOs, company owners or financial directors on the side aren't the ones who will be affected by piracy. They'll be getting their money. Even if they weren't, the fault wouldn't lie at piracy's door. It's people like Marcin Iwiński (who does sweet FA developing) who will be, and their profits. And I'm not very apologetic to say I don't give a toss about him or that.

    PS. Art should never be a commodity ;)
    Edited by duffers at 22/11/10 @ 18:08

  • subedii #86 2 years ago

    @Kangarootoo:

    "but it is stealing"

    You'll forgive me if I don't see the difference between "theft" and "stealing" as you're attempting to apply them. And like I said, they don't apply, copyright infringement does.

    The reason I bring it up is because people insist on conflating the two when it isn't the case. Copyright Infringement applies to Intellectual Property, which is what a game is. And the reason the delineation is necessary is because IP was fundamentally designed to be limited in scope, owing to the fact that it was largely invented not out of any sense of "morality", but simply as an expediency that we felt would aid societal progression in general.

    Conflating the two removes that delineation. Once that happens, it's no longer realistically possible to have a discussion on whether, say for example, IP laws themselves are in need of reform. Because doing so automatically puts you in the camp of people who "steal".

    Feel free to get "clearly" annoyed. What annoys me is when rights and restrictions that have clearly been laid out for OUR benefit get thrown out for the sake of using more "emotive" terminology.
    Edited by subedii at 22/11/10 @ 18:13

  • MrAtheist #87 2 years ago

    @kanga
    Oh come on, where does that sort of logic end. How about instead of breaking out the propaganda, we properly regulate the companies involved in these practices, so people don't get conned.

    Did you really mean to type that, given out easily the argument can be turned straight back around and apply to the pubs/devs instead of the lawyers? :)

    We dont live in an ideal world. It would be great if people didnt pirate, it would be great if companies didnt prey on the vulnerable members of society, it would be great if we had world peace and rivers made of chocalte and...

    There are many ways for companies to try and deal with piracy and there will be many more in the future - I thought we were talking about the here & now and the decision of Cd Projekt to use the unbelieveably flawed method described in the news item. But hey never mind, a few grannies are acceptable collateral damage in kangaaland! :)

  • Spekingur #88 2 years ago

    Where I live 4% of every sold (or stocked) storage device - such as HDDs and DVDs, any thing you can write on basically - goes to organizations that protect the intellectual property of a composer, designer, etc.

    Everyone pays. Doesn't matter if the DVD is going to be used for bootleg movies or a movie that you made and are going to sell yourself. Or if the HDD is part of a data gathering server used to store numbers from telecom statistics or to store torrented items.

    Basically, we have been pre-labelled as criminals even before any crime was commited. The same organizations have been guilty of hacking in to private websites mining for data and then going to court against the person. Which is very illegal here. But there is no way to prove it and their word seems to hold more weight than the word of the person that is being prosecuted. Nor has this made in to any news. These organizations thrive on scare tactics and have made older people put an equal mark between a software pirate and drug-using drug-dealer that sells people into slavery. No, I'm not joking.

    Software pirate is most often just a normal person that knows how to use a computer.
    [Edit] These organizations have already been able to send one guy to prison over this. He hosted a torrent link website. He got sent to the same prison as drugdealers, rapists and murderers. Not the same level of crime.
    Edited by Spekingur at 22/11/10 @ 18:37

  • odinsthunder #89 2 years ago

    I think the government should step in and scare the 90% casual pirates with hard fines, internet bans and weekend jail sentences.

    Although personally I'd just like to see the thieving scum shot!

  • el_pollo_diablo #90 2 years ago

    @dwalker109

    You get +1 from me just for correctly using the word 'panacea'

  • Rack #91 2 years ago

    If you announce it upfront and don't have an evil DRM system (Go GoG!) then this is perfectly fair.

  • makeamazing #92 2 years ago

    I hate pirates, but i have a different take on the situation, how about suing the P2P sites that allow links of such products. I mean if there wasnt a delivery method we wouldnt necessarily have such a problem (yes people could upload it to their own servers, but there is way more risk they can be seen to be liable).

    I mean when i type in things that i am looking for support/patches i get lots of "keygen, serial key hack" stuff, how difficult can it be to remove these from search engines and links. I just dont think these companies are trying hard enough.

  • Vixremento #93 2 years ago

    For me personally...the fact that it's been released on PC is already a sale! I'm not going to be all "I'm so pure and clean though"...I bought the first Mass Effect about two years after it was released (PC version) and I hated it (sorry but I just couldn't get into it). Mass Effect 2 came out and everyone was going bonkers about it...so I acquired an illegal copy (from friends - shame on them!) and I enjoyed it so much that I went out and bought my very own copy (genuine!). Now I'm amped for the next installment and all because of the hooha that people were making about this wonderful game that I would never have forked out cash for without actually playing it first (especially since I felt I had been burnt by the first one).

    Anyway I'm glad this is coming to a PC near me...I do love it so much more than my media-mcjobbie of a console.

    PS: I refuse to buy AC Brotherhood on until it's released on PC...take that ya muppets!

  • bhlaab #94 2 years ago

    Yeah this sounds effective, but it can't possible be. Zebra rules: Out of 20,000+ people they will be able to fine how many...five?

    Honestly, I think that this news story is the real anti-piracy measure. Announcing that "Big Brother is Watching You" is wayyyy more effective than actually hunting people down I reckon.

  • bad09 #95 2 years ago

    "I refuse to buy AC Brotherhood on until it's released on PC...take that ya muppets!"

    Please do not condone supporting Ubi on PC, especially in a story about a company who is taking a more sensible approach to DRM...as in not having the useless crap in the first place!

    PC gamers should play PC Ubi games on a console 2nd hand, while laughing at the irony of their game without paying them on a console not on PC.

  • curtlikesmeat #96 2 years ago

    Word. I will buy the new Settlers game when hell freezes over. If only I could play it on the Xbox with that bastard fan whiring and it would heat the whole place too!

  • FutileResistor #97 2 years ago

    Davenport Lyons and ACS Law. Nice little racket they've got going.

    Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of letters sent out demanding £500 to £700.

    Not a single case yet brought to court but if 25% pay up to avoid 'further legal action' equals millions in the bank for sending some letters.

    I think it's quite telling that not a single case has been brought to court yet.

    Losing an actual court case would bring the entire scheme crashing down around their ears. Whereas just sending out letters demanding money with menaces is pretty profitable, thank you very much.

    I know we shouldn't expect better from lawyers but the only difference between this and a mafia run protection racket is that the nature of the threatened menace in one is physical.

    I hope whichever law firm CD Projekt are using are an actual law firm who are going to actually try to gather the evidence necessary to bring a successful case to trial rather than some wannabe gangsters.

    Just did some reading around and the head of ACS law has had his email hacked by 4chan. Expected gross revenue from this little racket in 2010-2011 is £10.2m with Andrew Crossley himself personally pocketing £3.2m. Daily Telegraph article
    Edited by FutileResistor at 22/11/10 @ 21:54

  • Ravenger #98 2 years ago

    @Eldritch

    I've worked on several games that took several years to develop, some of which were massively pirated, so I believe I'm qualified to make a point here.

    Pirates are not your customers. CD Projekt normally gets this, which is why I'm a big fan of theirs. I loved the Witcher so much I bought it twice, and may well buy it twice again - digitally and store bought copies to get all the extras.

    However I'm firmly against the sort of blackmail CD Projekt are proposing here. They will wrongly target innocent people because IP addresses are not proof of identity. They can be easily spoofed, and mistakes will be made.

    The best way to defeat piracy is to provide a better service than the pirates do. Steam does this, as does GOG, so I'm not sure why CD Projekt would wish to use a discredited method in a misguided attempt to scare and penalise pirates that will inevitably hurt their own customers.
    Edited by Ravenger at 22/11/10 @ 22:01

  • Headless_Monkey_Boy #99 2 years ago

    From personal experience i'm not to keen on this.

    I legaly bought the witcher, then later an update was brought out that fixed alot of bugs, and voices (enhanced update) which was over a gig and REEEALLLLY slow to download of the servers CD Projekt were using.

    so the i downloaded the update (not the game, the update) via utorrent and the ISP sent a threatening letter to my Mum (living there at the time) when i didn't do anything Illegal.

    I'm not saying i'm going to boycott Cd Project stuff and i'm going to buy the game when it comes out but its not a perfect system.
    Edited by Headless_Monkey_Boy at 22/11/10 @ 23:36

  • KnifeGuy37 #100 2 years ago

    Ive never bought or downloaded Witcher, never played it since its not my forte, however, any legal threat is bad for business. It just scares people away from buying your game, like me, not like I were to buy the game before, but now for sure I won't be buying anything put out by them. This will do squat, the real pirates will just download their games from other sources like usenet and irc and straight direct links. Bad bad move IMO, this link is already making its round on the internet, hopefully this back fires in their face.
    Edited by KnifeGuy37 at 22/11/10 @ 23:31

  • ShiroBen #101 2 years ago

    Sounds a little like throwing good money after bad to me. As usual, the only true winners are the lawyers.

  • Bird59 #102 2 years ago

    oh comeon, if someone downloads it, he would never buy it - downloaders will download. And for me personaly, Witcher 1 was a juwel and I will happily hand out my money for the sequel cos these guys just deserve it for creating such a great game and they should not spoil it by such stupid remarks on piracy ...

  • azix2 #103 2 years ago

    Guess why I am gonna pirate this game? thanks for the threat.

    If i was told about the witcher 2 I would pirate it anyway. Same way I did with the first game and went no further than 20 or so minutes. I am not buying a game just like that. sorry.

    They might be throwing money away for nothing
    Edited by azix2 at 23/11/10 @ 01:18

  • Makeem95 #104 2 years ago

    Kudos to them for releasing this on GoG totally DRM free and I think it's only fair they do what they can to make sure they don't regret that decision.

  • dutzan #105 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo:
    From wikipedia: Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief, and the act of theft is known as stealing, thieving, or sometimes filching.
    Maybe stealing means somthing else in your English.

  • Javier·de·Ass #106 2 years ago

    fucking hell cdprojekt. if you're going to waste the money I spend on your games on fucking lawyers I'm going to cancel my preorder.

  • Javier·de·Ass #107 2 years ago

    both my preorders.

  • Viz1 #108 2 years ago

    Even though I agree that piracy is wrong...
    It's also been proven in courts, firms that snoop on your downloads ISP ect, is illegal it's a breach of your human rights...
    Many a time this has been threw out of court because of them snooping withought your permission some ISPs for this reason refuse to hand over details... So good luck trying ....

  • kangarootoo #109 2 years ago

    @subedii

    "You'll forgive me if I don't see the difference between "theft" and "stealing" as you're attempting to apply them"

    You don't see the difference as I'm attempting to apply them? I quoted a dictionary ffs. They ARE different words, with different meanings, and one of them applies here and the other doesn't. That isn't me "attempting" anything, that is what the words bloody MEAN.

    "Because doing so automatically puts you in the camp of people who "steal"."

    Again, your issue seems to be with the meaning of established words in the english language. If you pirate software, you are in the camp of people that "steal" (as you put it) because you stole something.

    You seem to object to being labelled in such a way to such an extent that you want to change the meaning of established words. If that makes you feel better, knock yourself out. If your aim here is to change the meaning of words so that you feel better, all power to you. That isn't the discussion I am engaged in.

    And this is the reason I get annoyed. Because what was taking place was a discussion about anti-piracy measures, and what has happened is that perfectly interesting discussion has been hijacked by people who want to talk about whether piracy is "theft" or "stealing" or "angelic" etc, for reasons that can surely amount to nothing more than them getting a bit cheesed off when people call them a thief. Boo. Hoo.

  • kangarootoo #110 2 years ago

    @dutzan

    "Maybe stealing means somthing else in your English."

    Stealing means something else in my oxford english dictionary. Wikipedia can say what it likes.

  • Bird59 #111 2 years ago

    Noone expects Polish inquisition! :D

  • butler` #112 2 years ago

    @penhalion

    "This is because it is impossible to trace the pirates back to a legitimate ip address"

    without going into the technicalities of it, the copyright holder is chasing you to the torrent site, the torrent site gives up your ISP, not your IP, which is trivial, and then they try and muscle the rest from your ISP.

    the trick, of course, is masking the activities from your ISP, which is equally trivial with only a basic knowledge of ports.

    Also, beside everything else, I agree with @KnifeGuy37, more than anything this just isn't good PR.

  • subedii #113 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo:

    Nice, so instead of addressing my issue, you just accuse me of piracy and say I don't want to be called a thief. "Getting a bit cheesed off when people call them a thief" isn't the issue.

    This is going to be a bit long. The short version is that IP law isn't about morality like "Theft" or "Stealing" is, and hence it is mutable, and not a monolith that cannot be addressed in itself. Which is one of the important areas where discussions on Piracy ought to lead realistically. If you can get behind such a concept, then feel free to skip to the Bolded line. Like I said, this is going to be long.

    The issue, as I've repeatedly stated, is that we HAVE a legal definition for what is taking place, and it is copyright infringement. If we associate it with stealing, then having a discussion on IP law becomes fundamentally impossible. As you've so aptly demonstrated by getting so emotionally heated on the subject.

    I raise this because when discussing issues of piracy, the question of IP law reform, or even whether these business models are even viable anymore, is a wholly necessary one. But it cannot be discussed when it becomes an issue of blanket morality under theft, it simply becomes an untouchable subject.

    Where you're getting confused is mistaking my intent in saying that I'm trying to make something moral or immoral. But like I said in my previous posts, the construction of IP as a concept was never about morality, it was about expediency. The world got by fine for millenia without the concept of IP, it's only extremely recently that we've ever attempted to implement such things on a global scale. For that matter, if IP were an issue of morality, an issue of stealing, even things like Public Libraries should be fundamentally illegal. Things like the Doctrine of First Sale as well SHOULD be morally wrong and in fact, considered an act of stealing in itself when executed. They exist now purely because they were established structures, and their societal benefit is recognised as superseding the desire to maintain a consistent IP law.

    IP law in itself has always maintained a constantly fluid nature, far beyond any definition of theft or stealing, which society views as moral issues and are largely set in stone as to their definitions. IP law even has limitations based purely on length of time since creation, something that has never applied to stealing. Attributing to stealing also means things like the Sonny Bono extension act (which I'll freely state was an idiot thing to have been allowed to pass, and was passed specifically BECAUSE of moral wishy-washiness when it comes to the understanding why IP exists) should never have passed, not because it's not in the public interest, but because it is fundamentally re-defining the meaning of stealing. Heck, it even varies from country to country. If stealing also encompasses IP, Project Gutenberg should be the single BIGGEST act of theft currently being executed, purely based on the number of titles it encompasses.

    As an example, if someone owns a chair and I take it, it doesn't matter if it's even 100 years from now, it's still theft, I am still stealing. If I copy the complete collection of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and pay NOBODY for doing so, not even the Estate of ACD himself, what is it? If we're going at this from a moral perspective, at what point after initial creation does it change from being morally "right" to being morally "wrong"?

    Thomas Jefferson for example, was crucial to the establishment of current IP law in the US (and as a result, around the world) today. However, he held fundamentally different beliefs regarding Copyright than viewing it as an issue of morality (which you get even from reading the US constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 8. That's the sole line in the constitution dealing with IP). He made some interesting strides with regards to the English model, which tried to make it an issue of morality by having it as a permanent right and literally trying to treat it the same as physical property. Fundamentally because he understood that copyright is effectively a government mandated exclusivity (or as he put it, monopoly) on concepts. Something which he viewed as unnatural but was implemented as a means of societal benefit.

    If you don't believe me that he didn't establish IP as a moral issue, or treat it as being a part of other forms of property, here's a useful quote from Jefferson himself on the subject of IP:

    [link url=http://www.usewisdom.com/sayings/patentsj.html
    ]http://www.usewisdom.com/sayings/patents...[/link]


    And a short primer on the subject which I thought might be useful:

    <a href="http://cnx.org/content/m11795/latest/
    ">http://cnx.org/content/m11795/latest/
    </a>


    Bringing this all back:

    The reason I state these things isn't to side-track the argument (as you put it) it's to bring home the point that IP law is fundamentally mutable, and an issue not of morality, but simple convenience. Which is perhaps the biggest area where it differs from theft or stealing as you put it.

    ONCE that is established (and if you can't accept that, then I guess there's nothing really further be had from this discussion from that point onwards, and you may feel free to simply ignore this post or not respond. Or respond with more anger, whatever makes you happiest), the question has to be asked: Are we SUPPOSED to be maintaining IP laws as they currently exist, or has the model as it used to exist fundamentally broken down?

    The internet changed everything. Copyright was easily enforceable back when the means of creating and distributing works required large logistical operations well beyond the means of the average person. It could be regulated, controlled, and so we could attempt to maintain some kind of compensatory model over them.


    Today? The means of reproducing works are literally available to everyone, and fundamentally impossible to govern, no matter how much we may try. So it's at that point the current model of IP and its associated compensations breaks down.

    What this means is that stand-alone works that are easily copyable may simply be becoming less and less viable as the means of easy reproduction spread. Bringing this back to the Witcher and other works: If they cannot make money off of what they sell directly, then there are two options:

    a) Try to force reality, through force of law and legislation, to fit with the currently established IP and business models. Or

    b) Acknowledge those models are no longer viable.

    Nobody wants to acknowledge the possibility of option B because it seems to be acquiescing to pirates. But the fundamental issue is that if it's so easy to make copies of protected works that IP law becomes unenforceable at even a rudimentary level, then that means the mutable system that we created for our benefit doesn't work as it currently exists.

    To come back to the topic at hand: Basically, the time of large budget, stand-alone titles on the PC, and in future probably other platforms, may be over, purely because IP on them is unenforceable. And that's something we need to be able to acknowledge and have a discussion on if that's the case. In future the only viable business model may in fact be service based. You can scream at how evil the pirates are for bringing this scenario to come to pass, but they're a symptom of a larger issue: Which is that if works like this are, or become, untenable then it's IP law as it currently exists that has broken down. And it is in need of reform so that it can acknowledge the current realities of the day.

    To me, that's the far more interesting discussion when we talk of authors protecting their works. But nobody wants to have it because doing so puts you in the same camp as "those who steal".
    Edited by subedii at 23/11/10 @ 11:58

  • duffers #114 2 years ago

    Yawn. "Theft" or "stealing" are no more moral issues than breach of IP. In the eyes of companies, they see digital property being something tangibly lost so semantic asides are moot. And Jesus, things that were created for a reason or time that are no longer feasible. That's totally not a common occurrance affecting things other than IP, is it?
    Edited by duffers at 23/11/10 @ 12:14

  • subedii #115 2 years ago

    You know what? That's actually an interesting avenue of discussion in itself. But fundamentally, I'd disagree, theft is a moral issue, and I'm not one particularly inclined towards moral relativism. It is also far more established than IP.

    But even assuming that it's not, fine, let's accept that. Since you're so insistent on it we'll class them all under the blanket umbrella of stealing. As long as it's under the pretext of moral relativism (regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it), that works too.

    So let's move this on then: Should IP law be changed, or should we stick with the model that we have now?
    Edited by subedii at 23/11/10 @ 12:09

  • duffers #116 2 years ago

    From the company's point of view, they have a product, service or what have you that is taken without payment. Whether you agree with it or not is beside the point.

    I'd rather the IP law was changed but as I said before, I think the law on it is an irrelevence. P2P doesn't require legislative approval and it'll continue in the face of potential crackdowns of a more severe nature than what is being proposed here.
    Edited by duffers at 23/11/10 @ 12:24

  • subedii #117 2 years ago

    The company's "point of view" is irrelevant. What's relevant to them is whether they can make a profit from it.

    And P2P doesn't need legislative approval, but if it's not acknowledged that things like P2P are a reality today that break the model, all we're going to see is more stupid legislation attempting to deal with it in the wrong way. Which nobody wants except the companies involved as they try to maintain untenable business models. Things like the DMCA can't stop it from happening, but they do have effects far beyond the scope of merely trying to tackle Copyright Infringement.

    In general, I think we are in agreement on that.
    Edited by subedii at 23/11/10 @ 12:29

  • duffers #118 2 years ago

    Obviously but it's their definition of lumping all forms of theft into together that we go by. Which I personally feel is a bit dismissive of the particular charm for each form of theft. A cheeky dine and dash is very different to some bilking at the petrol pumps.

    Yeah I'd agree with that. But there isn't much room for movement here. It has wider implications to let IP fall by the wayside which won't happen, what compromise can companies offer when you can already download anything you like, as quick as you like with 1:1 copy quality, and positive legislation is used in a bid to elevate niche one trick pony political parties across Europe. The best option I can see is to resist any further heavy handed changes to legislation.

  • subedii #119 2 years ago

    I think even companies are starting to recognise that this is a losing battle to fight, which is why they're shifting more and more to service based models as opposed to stand-alone products. If it's not shoe-horning online multiplayer and "persistent" progression systems into games, it's initiatives like "project $10" to try and make the customer otherwise dependent on the company beyond the initial purchase.

    It's also why they're all extremely excited about the possibility of things like OnLive taking off. It solves the problem for them in one fell swoop. It might be inevitable that the industry heads in that direction, whether we like it or not.
    Edited by subedii at 23/11/10 @ 12:54

  • azix2 #120 2 years ago

    @kaangarooto

    [link url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
    ]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/s...[/link]

    [link url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
    ]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...[/link]

    you are wrong.

  • Dashnak #121 2 years ago

    I've never pirated a game but I don't like the idea of what you do in your home online being looked at by a third party and shared with a private company without any kind of warrant etc and bypassing the govt.

  • MåNT®HåX #122 2 years ago

    Sure sure, someone download a link by mistake and got a leter from someone asking for a fine, good, smart, amazing lol not .

  • kinth #123 1 year ago

    ahhh another piracy debate.

    1. piracy is not the same as stealing a car or trainers etc. a car is built with parts each individual car costs that company money. each time a game is pirated it costs a company nothing, they can call it lost revenue all they like but if someone downloads your game they are either trying it and will buy it if they like it or had no intention of buying it in the first place.

    2.i bet you that more than half the people in here with a stick up there ass about pirating have pirated something before.

    3. as pointed out previously study's show that pirates are also the biggest spenders in the digital distrabution market which leads to..

    4. it is likely that the pirate didn't buy the game not because he/she did not want to pay for it but because he/she could not afford it.

    5. want pirates to buy your game, offer it at a fairer price, yes development costs are expensive but lets face it company's still make millions off games plus at a lower price more pople will buy it covering the deficit of the higher price. most people cant afford to spend £40 on every new game, but they may really want to play it. theres two approaches to that you can say tough luck and they will go pirate it, or you can put it at a lower price that people can afford yes some would still pirate it but most casual pirates would likely buy it. people can usually complete most games these days in a few hours, usually you can rent a game and complete it. rentals cost around £5 at most, so why am i expected to pay £40 for a game someone can pay £5 to complete. lets face it unless a game has brilliant multiplayer or is really really good most of us never play them again.

    if you dont want us to own the game for that price then give us an online rental service, its already in steam in a way. steam gives out free weekend passes for games sometimes so people can try them. all you would need to add is a pay scheme and then give out a pass for the game for say something like 3 days or whatever then when rental time is up the pass expires and the game can no longer be played.

    6. Some people pirate games to try them before they buy them. alot of games dont have demo's these days and alot of the times when there is a demo it usually isnt very representative of what a game is like, with games being so expensive its remarkable that companys expect us to blindly throw money at them and even more remarkable that the majority continue to do so.

    im sure many people have loved the demo and then not liked the game.

    7. why pay £40 for a game then have to pay out more when the inevitable DLC comes out, the worst thing is most of this dlc is developed before the game is even released. if we are expected to pay such high prices give us the full package, and get rid of shop exclusive deals. look at LA noire 5 different DLC's for 5 different shops, did they expect people to buy the game 5 times? its rediculous. have no problem with an expansion pack developed after the game that has no bearing on the original games story but most dlc is tiny.

    piracy is not black and white. it stems from alot of problems with in the gaming industry. some people wont buy anything covered in intrusive DRM and rightly so, if your going to get treated like a thief for buying the game you may aswell steal it and not get treated like a thief.
    the way the consumer is treated within the gaming industry is like no other, we pay extortianate prices for a couple of hours of entertainment, and half the time have to wait ages to play it by setting up DRM that rarely works right.

    want to reduce piracy ,fix the problems dont waste money on security and treating your actual customers like thieves. cracks for games appear a couple of hours after release a majority of the time, so all that security was a waste of time yet agian.
    there will always be pirates but you could reduce the amounts massively by fixing a few things easily.

    look at minecraft cheap and provides endless fun, the maker is now a millionaire from one game, you know why? because people didn't think twice about paying £5 to try a game. it comes with one tiny peice of DRM just you have to activate it online once. you get the entire package aswell, you don't get half the game then the other half when you buy the DLC.

    i'd buy any game for £20 but £40 is too much.

    now go on neg me you know you have been wanting to do it the whole time you spent reading this post.
    Edited by kinth at 17/05/11 @ 22:54

  • simgirl #124 9 months ago

    Just seen this article, and have to say, it's saving me a hell of a lot of grief. I'll put my hands up and admit that yeah, I was in the middle of torrenting this game but have since stopped and deleted the torrent. It's really not worth it!
    However, that was because I wanted to see if the game would actually run on my laptop or not. Using the systemlabs website, it says my graphics card is unrecognised, and yet it still surpasses the minimum specs for the game.
    50€ is a lot of money when that's currently two months worth of a person's entertainment budget, so I don't want to buy a game that doesn't work. (The laptop was a replacement for one purchased three years ago that broke).
    If I knew for certain that the game WOULD work, then I really wouldn't mind spending so much money on it. I mean, I bought the original game, and two of the books that have been translated into english.

    *shrugs* So yeah.. this game is on hold until I have enough disposable income that buying it and not having it work won't upset me.