Publishers to fine 25,000 game pirates News

I think there was a forum thread here where someone got a letter by that law firm. There was also a link to a news article stating that the firm has very questionable ways of determining who actually pirated games and that they simply send those letters even if they can't be certain that the person actually did something illegal.

Edit: Found the thread and the news article.

Wow. Genuine questions: How is it legal for a company to 'fine' people? Also, what if you refuse to pay and refuse to turn up in court? How are they detecting who is downloading?

UK is going the way of the US...

The Times article, which I read on the commute to work this morning, seemed to imply that some of the people issued these letters were guilty of merely downloading the software. Only later in the article does it mention uploading the software, via a filesharing tool.

Now I am, by no stretch of the imagination, a lawyer, but I am certain that it is not illegal to actually download data from a public network such as the Internet. If someone posts a full game on a website for everyone to download, then it is the person responsible for hosting the download that is in breach of the law and not the people who actually download the software.

I am not in favour of games piracy, but I would hate to see people prosecuted for simply downloading bytes from the Internet. Once that starts to happen, it will be the thin end of the wedge toward controlling what you can and cannot do on the Internet, or any other public network, which is not a good thing.

Good on them. Software pirates, like any other criminals, should not get away with their crimes. If it can be proved they did it, make them pay damages.

If you use the software without purchasing a license, you're breaching the license agreement and therefore are guilty of a crime...

Good thing, basically.

It's rather common in Germany now. Publishers observe torrent networks, the ISPs are forced to give out the address data to the public prosecution. The risk to get caught is still minimal, but it's steadily growing. If you get caught the first time, it's mostly mild. Low (attorney) fees etc. - a shot across the bows, so to speak - if you sign the cease and desist letter. Just don't get caught again.

Not yet had a client who said he didn't do it - but of course it's not a fail-safe system.

Now I am, by no stretch of the imagination, a lawyer, but I am certain that it is not illegal to actually download data from a public network such as the Internet.

Um, of course it is! If it's obviously copyrighted material, you're not allowed to download it, whether you also upload it or not.

Techland are a brilliant independent developer, they're not some huge corporate entity like EA, stuff like this actually affects them, I read somewhere about the the amount of times Call of Juarez was downloaded the first week it came out on PC and it was a ridiculous amount, fair play to them and the other devs for doing this.

Who watches the watchmen? Is everyone happy having their personal data monitored and distributed ILLEGALLY without your consent?

Piracy I do not condone, breach of privacy and civil liberties are far more scary.

@Johhnywashngo: It could be argued that the internet is already completely controlled, we have nothing but an illusion of freedom and anonymity, after all it would be hard to imagine a more ideal vehicle for manipulation, control and surviellance than the information superhighway. George Orwell was right all along ;)

On topic, it seems like a very ambitious scheme, and one that is likely to backfire in a spectacular fashion, but you canot blame publishers for taking a stance against the theft of their IP. It's probably only a matter of time before the whole file sharing thing gets shut down for good at the provider side of things.

I think this is great.

I'm not going to get on my high horse and moan about pirates; lots of my friends do it. But I don't and I'm tired of funding their games collections. If it's easy, people will do it, it's human nature. Glad to see some real programs that scare people into buying games - everyone gets nostalgic about the Dreamcast and the ruination of sega and I keep hearing that piracy on Dreamcast played a big part in Sega's demise, as well as really hurting PC gaming.

Cheers for posting the other thread tolle Emil; reading it back I think the guy who said he'd brought the game sounded a little too worried, my guess is he may not have copied that game but perhaps copied other stuff. I'm guessing they'll check everything you download and get you for something - even perhaps for music if they hand over your details to another company.

I know games are expensive, and 16k is a comedy fine to receive for that person playing pinball but if it stamps out piracy then so be it. Much prefer the idea of the £300 fines sent to a lot of people as this prevents one poor sod getting financially ruined as an example, and also makes people more likely to comply as you can fine a lot of people making getting caught out a real possibility. But anything that halts piracy has to be a good thing - software houses on the PC are going under because of it, and everyone that plays games is paying more.

I'm not naive enough to think that savings will be instantly passed on to consumers, but if nothing else it will allow developers bigger margins of profit allowing more dev teams in the market place which will in turn drive up production standards, creating better games. I also think there will be inevitable reductions in the second hand market if there are more games about, and any savvy buyer who goes on E-bay (to avoid being robbed by Game) will get the benefits of this.

Nuggets that say pirates only buy games they can't afford making no difference to profits are full of shite , if pirates couldn't copy they would just have small gaming collections and have to save money elsewhere to pay for them. Again, this selection would drive competition in the marketplace raising standards.

Really happy with this, sorry for people who are strapped for cash but I had a piddly gaming collection when I was a kid, you can do likewise.

£300 per game is a lot of profit. Why bother trying to sell the games normally?

I wouldn't be surprised if publishers would post torrents themselves to get people to download so they can fine them. As already mentioned a 300 pounds fine is far more attractive than the 30 pounds the people would otherwise pay.

"Um, of course it is! If it's obviously copyrighted material, you're not allowed to download it, whether you also upload it or not. "

Copyright laws don't exactly work that way. It's the distribution you're guilty of, not consumption (what downloading basically amounts to). I have no doubts about companies trying to reverse this philosophy and basically prosecute anyone but so far only the sharers/ uploaders are being prosecuted, rather than leechers/ downloaders.

Also

"If you use the software without purchasing a license, you're breaching the license agreement and therefore are guilty of a crime... "

Not strictly true. You are perhaps guilty of the breach of an agreement (shrinkwrapped EULA's being legally dubious notwithstanding) but that is pretty far from being defined as crime. Distribution might be a felony, perhaps even a crime in some countries, but that's again a different story.

lol. Sucks to be to young/lazy to get a job!

"Also, what if you refuse to pay and refuse to turn up in court?"
Then you get hit with an even bigger fine as the software company wins the case by default, and you then have to pay additional court and lawyer fees.
Instead of paying £300 the fine could end up being over £2000.

"Piracy I do not condone, breach of privacy and civil liberties are far more scary."
Sadly its a case of "we bought this on ourselfs".
There was no way piracy could be allowed to remain unchecked and unpunished forever, and one of the purposes of Bittorrent and similar filesharing systems is that they keep the users and distributors as anonymous or as hard to track as possible. So as the pirates became more evasive, the means to catch them have to become more and more agressive.

I'd like to say its an unfair case of 'everyone suffering for the crimes of a few', but with music, movie and game piracy being as widespread as it is, Id say its more like 'everyone suffering for the crimes of.... everyone'.

People try so hard to find excuses for the unexcusable, that I think this companies should instead stop doing PC games once and for all. Let the pirates do their software, sod it.

And yes, I'm on a high horse or something.

People try so hard to find excuses for the unexcusable, that I think this companies should instead stop doing PC games once and for all. Let the pirates do their software, sod it.

In that case the pirates would be making Nintendo DS games too.

£300 per game is a lot of profit. Why bother trying to sell the games normally?

Oh, please. You're not suggesting now they're doing it to fund their games, do you?

It's probably the attorney fees, anyhow. Which are rather low. Especially for chronically overpayed UK lawyers. :p

operation flashpoint downloaded 600,000 times? How long ago was this about 5years? No way that many people would download it now it costs less than £5 new prolly £1-3 on ebay new. 3D pinball? Absolute rubbish game would have only sold less than 50K units in its lifespan makes sense for the publisher to put it on a file sharing network then fine people for downloading it. When it should only cost £1.99 realistically new as a digital download. Fining people for downloading only? Not uploading? I think this goes against Uk law as well. I'm sure you have to be a distributer not a reciever of copyrighted materials to be fined.

People try so hard to find excuses for the unexcusable, that I think this companies should instead stop doing PC games once and for all. Let the pirates do their software, sod it.

And yes, I'm on a high horse or something.

I guess making movies and music should be stopped then, too.

/facepalms

I predict this comments thread to hit 5 pages.

I'm sure you have to be a distributer not a reciever of copyrighted materials to be fined.

I think they'd argue that with Bittorrent you automatically distribute while downloading.

Oh, please. You're not suggesting now they're doing it to fund their games, do you?

Er, no, I wasn't actually.

Oh the fun these guys must be having sending these letters out. As an ex trainee of theirs I have much sympathy! This is going to be a nightmare to enforce if they carry on, I can't see how they can bring proceedings against everyone it's just not going to make economic sense. I also think this will really scare some people who don't have the cash and can't get legal advice, it's a bit of a bullying tactic and I'm not sure it's exactly the best way to go about things.

one thing thats good about pirates is the benefit it has for the rest of us.

Before Music was so easily downloadable cd prices were getting to about 16 quid and some more. Now you can go to tesco and pay 7 quid for a brand new cd.

Same too with pc games. I recently picked up mass effect for 18 quid and its only been out a short while. On a 360/ps3 games are far more expensive. If pc games become harder to pirate then the price of the games will go up.

Its the same with the PSP look how cheap games are for that machine. If it wasnt for the fact of pirates the prices would be alot higher for the rest of us when buying games.

This is more like it. Get those cheapskate scum-bags' to stop downloading and start buying! I still think £300 is too little, scare the crap out of them and have a 60K Minimum and 300K Maximum. That will stop these stupid idiotic pirates in their tracks.

Good. Go after people by IP address is fine actually, as long as the ISPs are accurate with the information they provide. I imagine they just fired up p2p clients of their own and kept track of who downloaded chunks from them. I hardly think this is an invasion of privacy of any kind, it's very targeted, not like they're demanding full traffic logs for everyone indiscriminately (hello UK govt).

I do wish the music industry would take note, they're pushing the idea of a media tax on broadband that we'd all have to pay, even if we don't download music, or even if we already paid for downloads. That's much worse.

I think the judgement was a default one as the woman simply didn't turn up in court. Oddly enough, the way to combat this is simply to turn up and deny all charges. The burden of proof is on the software companies and not the person they are sueing. As downloading and uploading data to the internet is not in itself a crime. The software houses then have to prove that the files were in fact the games they claim them to be. To do this, they would need to illigally download the games from the person involved. Verify the files match their own and then prove it was actually that person doing the uploading. Merely naming a torrent say Dirt for instance, doesn't mean that this is actually the game in the file.

In short, if the person actually turns up in court the software houses loose the case. They would therefore be relying on people simply not showing up and hoping the whole thing goes away i.e. the three monkeys defence. Hear no evil. See no evil. speak no evil. By not showing up, the judge has no choice but to award in favour of the plaintiff.

If you are in this situation simply show up and deny everything. It's really that simply.

"I still think £300 is too little, scare the crap out of them and have a 60K Minimum and 300K Maximum. That will stop these stupid idiotic pirates in their tracks."

There is a reason they keep the fine low.
The cost of hiring a lawyer (one that specialises in copyright law anyway) starts at around £700*. Fining someone £300 means its not worthwhile for the downloader to hire one and try to fight the case in court. Try to slap them with a 60K fine and getting that lawyer suddenly seems very worthwhile, leading to more cases going to court. Costly for the software companies, and possible wins for the pirates (if they happen to have a really shit-hot lawyer) could cause even more problems.

*One of my workmates is being fined £600 by Take 2 for downloading Two Worlds (yea I know, Two Worlds! poor guy). He phoned a copyright lawyer and £700-ish was their starting fee for just sending out a letter!

@Toy_brain

I will not mention the company I'm currently working for but, we tried to sue someone for piracy as a test case. They won simply by turning up and saying prove it was me! Our fancy lawyers couldn't do anything at all. At the end of the day, without seizing his computer and having it examined, we couldn't prove jack. We couldn't even prove his computer was the one that received the file in the first place!

The guy was quite scared but, His cheap ass lawyer simply kept saying "Can you rpvide any concrete proof that my client is or was ever in possesion of the data in question". We showed an ISP download log and he said "This only proves that SOMEONE downloaded the data and not who that person was"

The Judge said he had no choice but to throw the case out as without hard evidence there was no actual case for the guy to answer!

He phoned a copyright lawyer and £700-ish was their starting fee for just sending out a letter!


Might sound a lot, but isn't, really. It might be "just a letter", but it's usually a ton of work to prepare it. There's no getting rich with representing pirates, I can assure you that. :)

Oh, please. You're not suggesting now they're doing it to fund their games, do you?

Er, no, I wasn't actually.


Apologies, then, for my snappy tone. It's just that I heard this paranoid theory before (not from you).

"I guess making movies and music should be stopped then, too. "
No, just the PC games. Do you know any other way for a developer to feed his family rather than selling his/her code ? I don't. Musicians have gigs and... shit?

/anyway, I kinda get carried away, I suffer some psychological abuse from my pirate friends for paying for all my games, nevermind/

Format your hard drivezzzz!!!!

Sadly I think the end result is going to be that we as an industry start going after the P2P sites and eventually making them legal, fee based download areas. Not sure how yet but, steam is a step in the right direction. It is far too easy for someone to share a game these days. We need to make it easy for people to find and download them cheaply. Not having a store or packaging should have cut prices significantly for online downloads already. Until the software houses start passing these savings on to the consumer I'm not going to scream at Mr Average Joe downloader.

Music had to do it and games will too. The sooner the management get their heads around the idea the better.

The strategy here seems to be quite clever. Firstly, a bunch of people will get letters and a certain percentage of them will pay the fine (either out of guilt or fear of further action), thus covering the costs of the original action. Only a very few cases would actually go to court, I'd imagine, as there would be a huge difficulty proving that the user actually downloaded the file (an IP address surely wouldn't be sufficient). Plus, taking thousands of people to court would be very expensive and presumably place a large strain on the legal system - less of an issue in the US than the UK I'd imaging.

But the largest effect would be that people are dissuaded from downloading PC games in the future and might buy instead. So I think it will have definite anti-piracy effect and for very little cost on behalf of the publishers.

If the company was really concerned about stopping piracy it would ensure all the people d/loading the game were prosecuted through the courts. Threatening them and asking for £300 to forget the matter is totally wrong.

i'm looking forward to when someone adopts the IRA defence, its not a crime its political motivated or that there exercising their beliefs as a communist

I agree with Penhalion,

Steam is a step in the right way. It costs a bit but I like it for being able to have my account and games across several computers with no hassle (other than moving save games). Digital solutions like Metaboli (buying full games - not the rental style) are a pain as I don't have full control over the software I've bought (limiting number of installs you can do). I know the reason for this but they need to think outside the box a bit and make it easy and affordable.

I've not seen any digital download service offer value for money yet in games.

Whatever you think of them, Apple showed with iTunes, if you make it easy and not too expensive then people will buy into it. I don't buy music off of iTunes because I have an iPod, I buy it because its fast, not too expensive and (usually) a good quality version. Although some of my music is locked to them now I don't overly mind as Apple made it easier for me to obtain music legally (I imagine, downloading illegally being something I have never done of course).

*edit - films in iTunes are not value for money it must be said. New ones too expensive for ok copies and just don't seem to play right. Sticking with DVDs & Blu Rays for the moment

The apps store is spot on once they start organizing it better.

I want to know how they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a single individual is responsible for the sharing of said file. What if your wireless network has been hacked? I know a number of people that hadn't even setup basic wireless security leaving their networks open to anyone what about them or is it a case of it's your connection tough, as that can't be right?

I want to know how they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that a single individual is responsible for the sharing of said file.

They can't, not without seizing and examining your PC. And no idea how they'd go about that for a copyright violation, I'd imagine it would be a long, complex and expensive process.

Which is why if you get one of these letters you should go to court and deny it all. They won't be able to prove anything.

"I think this is great. "
your a sycophant or a liar.

"I'm not going to get on my high horse and moan about pirates;"
yes you are

" lots of my friends do it."
are the also a rainbow coalition of diversity.

"But I don't and I'm tired of funding their games collections. "
you don't

"If it's easy, people will do it, it's human nature."
no its capitalism

"Glad to see some real programs that scare people into buying games"
real program? barely legal that anyone with any IQ above 50 will ignore particularly given their flimsy evidence and european track record, but i like how you think trampling on everyone privacy is justified if scares some people, nice orwellian view you have their.

" everyone gets nostalgic about the Dreamcast and the ruination of sega"
no they don't

"and I keep hearing that piracy on Dreamcast played a big part in Sega's demise",
no it wasn't it was the fact it was shit and didn't sell any machines.

"as well as really hurting PC gaming."
it only hurts poor quality overpriced games.

"I think the guy who said he'd brought the game sounded a little too worried, my guess is he may not have copied that game but perhaps copied other stuff. "
in the UK you have the right to make back ups of digital media.

"I'm guessing they'll check everything you download and get you for something - even perhaps for music if they hand over your details to another company."
what a wonderful idea gauleiter!

"I know games are expensive, and 16k is a comedy fine to receive for that person playing pinball but if it stamps out piracy then so be it."
Justice is about balance for the crime not setting example also that fine will be knocked down at appeal and probably set at a repayment schedule of 50p a week, thats 50p that could of been going to charity or invested/spent thus helping the economy in these difficult times hope your happy.

"Much prefer the idea of the £300 fines sent to a lot of people"
you must be popular with your "friends"

"and also makes people more likely to comply"
no it won't

" as you can fine a lot of people making getting caught out a real possibility. "
its called fishing and they arent fines there out of court settlements, only courts have the power to issue fines.

"But anything that halts piracy has to be a good thing"
why?

"software houses on the PC are going under because of it"
no there not

"and everyone that plays games is paying more."
simply not true its basic economics called equilbruim of demand, most people lack either the means or inclination to buy, the only real downside for a developer is if the game is bad it will get bad word of mouth and you can't buy off pirates like gamespot employees.

"I'm not naive enough"
yes you are

"to think that savings will be instantly passed on to consumers"
there arent any savings and even if there were you never see the benefits

"but if nothing else it will allow developers bigger margins of profit allowing more dev teams in the market place which will in turn drive up production standards, creating better games."
of course it will and will live in a magical chocolate kingdom EA already there now?

" I also think there will be inevitable reductions in the second hand market if there are more games about,"
why? surely they increased.

"and any savvy buyer who goes on E-bay (to avoid being robbed by Game) will get the benefits of this. "
and thus lose their consumer protections

"Nuggets that say pirates only buy games they can't afford making no difference to profits are full of shite , if pirates couldn't copy they would just have small gaming collections and have to save money elsewhere to pay for them. Again, this selection would drive competition in the marketplace raising standards. "
you're an sycophant and a moron, learn some basic economic then look at the success of galactic civilisation 2, people who will buy will buy and those who won't won't

"Really happy with this, sorry for people who are strapped for cash but I had a piddly gaming collection when I was a kid, you can do likewise. "
are how compassionate, perhaps if companies didn't turnout so much crap people wouldn't try before they buy, it must be nice to be so middle class

PEOPLE OF THE WORLD UNITE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS

I have to say this scares the hell out of me. I can honestly say I've never downloaded a single game (illegaly or otherwise) and I agrree that something should be done about piracy as it clearly is affecting the industry (as apposed to music & possibly film where the results are more dubious). But it worrys me how these companys are going about it. I'd say a fine of £300 is a pretty good deterrent but how are they sure they're getting the right person? are they basing this on people's IP address? If so then the possibility for error is enormous. What about people with unsequred wireless networks? It seems to me that if something is to be done about piracy it should be a government run iniciative, not various companies running round obtaining dubious information (in breach of privacy laws by the sound of things) and dolling out justice as they see fit. Not to mention the fact that as we speak the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) is attempting to force ISPs to ban thousands of people from the internet (again with dubious info that is obtained under mildly dodgey circumstances) in an effort to stop music piracy.
All this seems to be happening with no-one making a fuss about the way these companies are getting their information or how they are acting. They're being given a free reign and it honestly worries me. This country is going to the dog.

Let's be completely honest here - "middle men" are the scourge of the games industry (and many others) not really the pirates. This can clearly be seen by all time record sales in the industry - we hardly live in dark days of reduced sales.

If the actual people who made the games received the actual money spent on them - I am sure the world would be a better place.

How many of the sales have come from kids brought up on a relentless diet of pirate games, breading feverish consumers who are now buying the games leading to the record sales? Hard to say, but certainly a large proportion of them.

Clearly we are at the start of a transitional period with most multi-million pound companies moaning an wailing about how they have lost X millions of pounds if only people had bought the game instead.

But in actual fact - if something is free then of course it will be more popular - so if it wasn't available for free chances are most of the pirate owners wouldn't have bothered getting it in the first place. In fact - most people seem to simply want to have a look at it and see if it is for them - decide that it's crap shovel-ware and delete - obviously this isn't always the case.

The middle men can see that the future is going to be radically different - they are distributors - and while most people scoff at the idea of distribution through teleportation - in a way it is already possible - every game producer now has a way of effectively teleporting their product right into peoples homes, without them ever leaving their office and without the customer having to leave the comfort of their own home.

So how do we get the money spent on games going to the people who make it - without making some fat talentless distributors even fatter and richer in the process?

Well my suggestion would be to start an electronic distribution model - very similar to steam and with steam users tuning input - to set up a "not for profit" electronic distributor and apply for Charitable Trust Status - as it would benefit society as a whole or a sufficiently large section of the community so that it may be considered public.

Prices would be vastly reduced yet the producers would be getting the same revenue and more customers and therefore more money etc.

Producers would also benefit from the fact that there would be no second hand games - each new purchaser would be giving money to them - instead of another fat middleman. Consumers probably wouldn't loose out either as the price paid would be less than the money they would loose if they bought new and traded in or sold on E-bay. So a win-win.

Will it happen? Not on your Nelly - and no doubt the consumer and games producers will be continually ripped off by the middle men.

What is really dangerous (IMO) opinion is peoples acceptance of these crazy prices for something they purchase on-line.

How much must it really have cost to make the map pack for CoD 4? It should probably have been listed at something like 14 pence a copy, and would still have made a profit - if it wasn't for the middlemen.

A much better model would be where you literally get cash back or points.

Map pack starts out at £6.99 until first 100,000 sold, then becomes £4.99 with first 100,000 getting their 2 quid back (giving massive feel good factor and preventing buyer remorse from the lower price and would prevent people waiting out for a better deal).

Then at 500,000 it becomes £2.99 giving £2 back to the first 500,000.

At which point map pack 2 is available at £6.99 and scoops up some more cash as people now have an effective £4 float who bought the first one and they know chances are they'll be getting some money back.

Sales of map pack one reach 1 million and the price goes down to £1.99 giving the first 1 million £1 back, resulting in 2 million pound in sales plus all the interest on the money held at each stage; IMO - if it cost more than £400K to make those maps they are doing something seriously wrong.

And if you do it as points held on the system i.e. like Nintendo and MS (as opposed to cash transactions) then swapping the numbers about (instead of banking transactions) is pain free for the vendor.

Plus you would have the added pulling power of mates persuading their mates to buy the adds-on, in knowledge that the price will come down.

There we go - piracy solved - and an acceptable model for DLC all in one post ;-)

so if it wasn't available for free chances are most of the pirate owners wouldn't have bothered getting it in the first place.

Reflexive did a study with one of their own games and found that just 1 in 1000 people bought the game if they couldn't pirate it.

Where's Rizo?
I agree that it's a good idea in principle, but given what's happened to Rizo this could go tits up very fast.

Thankfully I've never downloaded so much asa dodgy MP3 let alone a game, so meh! :p

First up to JohnnyWashnGo and Meho: Copyright is, I know this is going to be a shock, all about the right to copy something. By downloading it, you're copying it. If you're in the UK, last time I checked you couldn't even make a backup copy of your own games legally (I hope to hell they've fixed that absurdity by now, even the US got that right). They generally go for the uploaders to maximise effort vs reward, but "I only downloaded" is not a defence.

Secondly; while I approve of the general idea of what they're trying to do, this is basically amounting to scattering letters out to people who are likely to have downloaded stuff and hoping enough of them don't challenge it. That said, it's not like I have a better solution.

Thirdly, to the pirates in the audience, you're not some freedom fighter against THE MAN, stop pretending you are. You're someone who wants free stuff. Ya want to make a stand against copyright, try making something creative and then releasing it for free...

Ya want to make a stand against copyright, try making something creative and then releasing it for free...

You do know that millions of people do this every day? It's what makes the internet go round.

The guy was quite scared but, His cheap ass lawyer simply kept saying "Can you rpvide any concrete proof that my client is or was ever in possesion of the data in question". We showed an ISP download log and he said "This only proves that SOMEONE downloaded the data and not who that person was"

@penhalion. Or anybody else that does this for a living and knows the answer.
The above seems like an open and shut case? How did the law firm lose? I always thought that once the ISP logs show that somebody at a specific address downloaded a file, it is up to that party to prove that they didn't. Even if they have an unsecured wireless network, because as the billpayer, you are responsible for what gets downloaded in your name?

I'm obviously wrong, but can someone explain why I am wrong?

Reflexive did a study with one of their own games and found that just 1 in 1000 people bought the game if they couldn't pirate it.

Sounds about right. Obviously by nature we're curious beasts. If we can only afford to turn over one rock to see what's underneath then that's what we'll do, but if we can have a look under the other 999 of them for free - chances are we'll do that as well.

There needs to be a better way to get the money we spend to the people who produce.

It just really REALLY grates on me when I watch some fat talentless distributor harp on about how much piracy is costing their industry - where they quote the 1,000 figure rather than the 1 figure - you can't loose what you never had.

For their sales figures to be right they would have to be selling it for free - at which point their revenue figures would be massively out etc.

Why can I buy exactly the same item, in a different country, and then have it flown over halfway around the world right to my door for less than I can buy it down the local high street? FAT MIDDLEMEN DISTRIBUTORS

I think we should implement a donation model for film, music and games:

You can download the stuff for free but can give donations if you want. That way only your ethics and conscience should be the deciding factors. So companies that just dish out rubbish shovelware would be forced to make an effort if they expect to receive donations.

Oh, that should also apply to going to the movies too: i pay £7 to watch a film, and if they're gonna throw over 30mins of advertising at me then make it free!!