CD Projekt sues pirates

And they're going to get money from these pirates exactly how?
It seems very unlikely to assume that every single pirate will pay up or even assume that 50% will pay up.

 

Yeah, on one hand, we have the United States Department of Justice, which has referred to it as stealing during prosecutions of copyright violators, and on the other hand, we've got some forum members who disagree. It's up to each person who they think is a better authority on what US law means. 2.0 and others are perfectly welcome to their opinion of what the law should be, but I think the DOJ is a better source of explaining what US law actually is.

 

You'd be surprised how little high up officials know about what they're enforcing.

 

The problem is, the DOJ doesn't define it, it's a gray area. Until they can prosecute or at least have rules to prosecute pirating, there are no rulings against it. The RIAA will gladly say it's the work of the devil and you will burn in hell if you even buy a used music CD. But that doesn't make it right.

 

Even the DoJ doesn't really think it's stealing - no one has been successfully prosecuted and sent to prison under theft statutes, because theft requires depriving someone else of property already in their possession. At worst, piracy is depriving someone of money they may or may not have seen from you some time in the future. Sensationalist hyperbole at its finest.

 

Suing people who can't afford legal counsel is not the solution. I have no idea what CD Projekt was thinking.

It's been shown piracy = increase in awareness and sales for many products. If it wasn't for piracy, Adobe Creative products would not be so dominant right now. Because it is pirated so frequently, EVERYONE knows how to use it and demand it at work.

BBC has also admitted that piracy is the reason why Doctor WHO became a sensational hit. Piracy lead to it's popularity spreading like a virus and it became the BBC's most watched show in the world (legally).

I highly doubt Witcher 2 would have had the sales it had if it weren't for piracy. That's what I believe, I don't have the hard data to back it up. But I personally believe, CD Projekt should be thanking piracy for the sales. Witcher 2 and CD Projekt was not marketed very well it's popularity is primarily due to word of mouth. Pirates play the game, it's sensational. Many of the pirates buy the game themselves. But they tell their friends. A few of their friends will choose to pirate the game, but many will also opt to buy it. I have little doubt, piracy was a large factor in the popularity and sales of the Witcher 2.

Does that make piracy right? No. I'm not going to go that far. But neither do I think suing pirates the right decision.

As others have stated, all CD Projekt is doing is suing for sales that likely never would have been made. They are not suing because they lost money. It's just fantasy is what they are doing.

 

"It's not stealing if it's easy to copy."

That's the most ridiculous arguement I have ever heard for piracy. It's stealing reguardless of how easy, or infinate it is. I'm all for CD-Projekt. I hope the theives pay up or face the consequence(s).

Reguardless of what pirates think about bits of data, plenty of skilled someones still worked hard to put them there, properly, in correct order. Reguardless of how "easy it is to create a copy," that is still NOT the property of the theif. Yes, laws need to be reworked, if only to make them harsher, so people realize stealing is still a crime, no matter how "easy" it is to steal.

Just my opinion, of course. There will always be pirates, only a mere question of how many of them will be caught.

 

Stealing is not the best term, but it's not as incorrect as people here are making it out to be.

There are all sorts of things which we call 'stealing' which are not under the eyes of the law. Theft has a very specific legal definition. In the end, by pirating, you are granting yourself access to content which you do not have the right to access. Someone else owns the intellectual property right, and by taking a copy of it without permission, you have violated that persons property right, even if you don't commit legal theft.

Doesn't really matter what we choose to call it. We could replace the name for "rose" with "blagensnaffle", we would still understand what we are talking about.

 

I've seen people giving real world example of piracy (not necessarily anybody in this thread), so allow me to give a real world example of how digital purchase goes:

You buy a product in the store. It doesn't work for you. In fact, you may not be able to get the wrapping off so you can't use it. You take it back to the store, and they refuse to give you a refund.

This is analogous to you buying a game, and find out that it crashes your computer due to some random bugs, and you can't even play it. Even worse, you can't return it if you get it from a digital distribution source.

Like 2.0 has said, if the consumer has more rights in the digital distribution scene, then perhaps I'll support anti-piracy movements.

 

That's been my stance all along, always has been. I don't advocate piracy, but when consumers have no recourse, they take matters into their own hands. Is it really morally right? No. But it's also theft on the part of the publishers to take someone's money and not refund it if the product is defective. At least that's the way I see it. Sure it's more of "an eye for an eye" mentality... Sure you can not buy anything or play anything, but when it's your hobby and it's not 100% games that are crap or have complete lack of total support, you don't just give it up.

 

So what people are saying, is that if I made a magical duplication machine and then made a duplicate of your car, then I'd have stolen your car?

I'll agree that it has similarities to theft, but it's not the same. I could equally say that Justin Bieber is similar to various other famous stars in that he's irritating and whiney, but that doesn't make him the same person, and yes I realise that was a terrible comparison.

 

physical property doesn't make a good comparison for intellectual property. the vast majority of the work that went into making the car was material. your magical duplication machine bypasses that cost. the vast majority of the work that goes into intellectual property is not material.

Anyway, the point isn't to convince people that copyright infringement of intellectual property should be called stealing. The point is that by committing copyright infringement of someone else's intellectual property, you violate their property rights, just like when you steal someone's physical property, you violate their physical property rights.

Since the definition of stealing doesn't fit well with intangible property, copyright infringement is its natural cousin in the domain of intellectual property.

 

On topic: I am not sure why CD Projekt suddenly stopped the sues to pirates. I believe they're within their rights to do so.

Off-topic:
I am in the wagon that we the consumers should have more rights when buying games (like being entitled to refund) but I also recognize than this would require some complex and maybe radical changes to the current structure to guarantee the avoidance of duplicates.

With that being said I do not condone piracy and its change of terms to justify the act itself. Which, by the way, lead me to remember that theft (also mentioned as stealing) is not the act of depriving someone from its property (the fallacy 2.0 and many others regularly use) but rather the act of taking the property of someone else without its permission (like correctly pointed out by masterchef341).

Also: I recently bought LA Noire from Steam and I haven't had any issues with the game. What are these DRM issues some people have been mentioning?

 

They claim it was due to public backlash. I just think they realized the futility of it and the expense involved and said forget it.

Call it stealing, theft, illegal use of intellectual property, whatever, it's really irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that publishers have the stranglehold on consumers. NO return policy, NO customer protection whatsoever. They use the excuse of piracy, duplication, reproduction (use whatever term you want, it's irrelevant really) as reasons for offering no returns. Well, offer ways for users to trial your software. Limited time demos. Actual demos. Don't give me crap about a time schedule either. They can work it into their process.

All I hear is QQ from the publishers reasons why stuff isn't done instead of ways to make it work. STOP pushing releases out the door unfinished. START giving us quality samples. OFFER a reasonable return policy.

What do they expect us to think? If you have no return policy or customer protection, to me that shows zero confidence in the quality of their product. Would you buy a laptop at top dollar with no warranty or reasonable return policy? A car? TV? Anything?

They could do so much more with all that money dumped into DRM that is doing nothing but annoying paying customers.

 

So piracy is retaliation for having crappy customer support and products? Eh I don't buy it...people want free crap because we live in a society of entitlements and when its so simple to simply log on to demonoid, piratebay, etc and download it for free...why not? Personally, I don't pirate - not because I feel it's wrong but because I can afford it. As for demos....I never played demos until Xbox Live, PS network, etc came around so I'm kind of used to getting a game that I haven't played

Edit - I'm not implying ALL pirates are cheap skates but I am implying most are.

 

It's not retaliation, it's a logical choice. All I'm saying is that customers buy a game, that's it, they're done, whether it's good, bad, works, doesn't work, you can't return it. With digital distribution you can't even resell games now, heck you can rarely resell physical copies of games because all you're really doing is buying the box with a product key that you register to an online account and get an outdated version of the game on DVD.

I do agree that there is a lot of sense of entitlement these days, but I also see the "younger" generation (i.e. 16-25) not afraid to spend some serious coin on gadgets or products that they enjoy.

Hate to say it, but it's almost been bred by the publishers themselves with the lack of customer protection. Why should people bother buying a game when a large majority of them are unfinished and unsupported, and have no recourse to get your money back?

 

This is right. If you look at the distribution of piracy and were able to analyze why the piracy was occurring, the overwhelming trend would be that the risk was less than the benefit.

 

While I do not disagree with your points, they are completely valid and I agree. I do disagree with the method on how it is being handled. Obviously pirating isn't working, we've been pirating software since irc and if anything things have gotten worse, I mean look at the US and SOPA. It's only a matter of time before something like this gets passed. We're digging ourselves a grave by pirating music, games, movies, etc.

On the topic of VG's - put yourself in the perspective of a manager for second, you are in charge of a game; you are given a budget, what will your priorities be? Consoles and PC gaming done simultaneously? Or will you favor the hardware that is A. Consistent B. Widely popular C. Will make you the most money. I have no doubt I would focus more on consoles, make my buck, and then if i have the budget - help the PC gamers.

We are a dying breed, I've read articles time and time again saying PC gaming is on the rise but It's not - It wont be as long as consoles are around. It's the cheapest method for a commercial software company to develop on and turn a profit.

 

But again, the door needs to swing both ways. It's a one way door, period, in favor of the media publishers. It's like anything. You keep taking away without giving back, people will rebel.

 

It does need to swing both ways but piracy will not be the method that will cripple the industry to the point of change. If we really want to make a big impact we have to hit them where it hurts the most, legally, their wallet. The problem is we want our cake and eat it to...we're not willing to sacrifice

 

Well that's because it's entertainment. Expendable income. It's not like it's feeding or our families or putting a roof over our head.

I don't think piracy is the way to do it, it's just in part a result of the lack of customer protection from all these years (ok, yes and a large part of entitlement). These companies are too stupid to realize it though. If sales dropped through the floor because of a boycott, they'd just assume games don't sell any more and stop making them.

Again, the door needs to swing both ways. If this is truly as big of an impact as they make it out to be, then they can just say hey, we're not making games any more because piracy is hurting our bottom line. But they don't do that. They make money hand over fist. They just want to eek out every last dollar without offering anything in return. Have they said by combating piracy if it goes down we'll offer better product? No. Did they say they'd try to offer better customer protection and support? No. Do they offer to stop using intrusive DRM measures? No. Just more of the same. More money for them, nothing for us.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong to pirate, and I'm sure there's a billion reasons people decide to pirate. Just stating it objectively from where we are today. Right or wrong, it's called compromise, but I see none of it from publishers.

 

I think what will happen is PC will lose support over time and the only logical way to game will be on consoles, streaming service, whatever the future method may be. No matter what, we lose and big corporations will win. At least the in US

 

PC is likely to gain support over time, the way I see things. Consoles are in trouble in the long run.

Streaming services like onlive may have some place in the future of gaming, as well as free games and microtransaction games.

 

I agree with pretty much everything HTWingNut has said so far. I will add though that piracy actually does hurt some companies; most notably, small indie developers. A huge publisher like Activision is going to spout its BS and numbers no matter what in a lame justification of draconian DRM measures, but whether it makes a financial impact, and if so how much, is not certain. For an indie developer, it can mean life or death for the company. If you've got the time, I recommend everyone in this thread to read the following post:

MinMax's Story, A 6 Part Sticky Story - Steam Users' Forums

I've been playing this game for the past two weeks, and it is incredible. The fact that two guys devoted their lives to this project and managed to create something so polished and fun is amazing. And sadly, they just about didn't make it. Is that the 'fault' of pirates? Not necessarily. But when you've got 2000 people willing to pay a measly $15 for such a stellar product, and 10000 who pirate it...And according to the developer, those 10k that pirated it didn't just 'try it out' and then buy it later. There was a demo and a beta out, and those pirated downloads didn't lead to an increase in sales.

So next time you pirate a small indie title, think about how much of an impact that actually has compared to a huge publisher.

 

This is a very good thread and for once the topic isn't flaming.

I agree with HTWingNut complaints (no consumer protection, lower quality/length products than not so many years ago, no resell value on digital downloads). Certainly these points are very strong, and on top of that we have two other 'recent' phenomena: DLC (most bits of the original game) and online passes (single use).

In view of all these I feel we the consumers have a few choices, actually two: pirate or vote with the wallet. And while the former seems like 'the cool' way to go, I believe it is the later the most effective. In my personal case given the consumer protection, quality/length, and zero resell value of digitally downloaded games I buy games only at heavy discounts (say below the 20 bucks threshold). That way I am sending my message to the companies that while I am willing to play their games, I am not willing to shell out 60 bucks them.

Just my two cents.

 

Yes, that is another good point. I used to buy games a full retail or close to full retail, and now I buy when at the bottom of the barrel pricing. Maybe 1 title a year at full cost, games like BF3 that I was anxiously anticipating. Otherwise, forget it. Reduction in initial sales, but at lower cost later hopefully sends a message too.

 

I support your point of view HTWingNut.

I do believe that people pirate because the risk vs reward is so skewed in favor of doing it, but the consumer needs to have recourse of some kind. Unfortunately like SOPA the media industry has effectively bought government support.

Funny, Rupert Murdoch stated that Obama being cautious towards SOPA was a sign of him bowing to his "Silicon Valley Paymasters", yet it is the opposite: the media industry using clout to force ty laws onto the consumer, one after another.

 

I am not even sure what DRM is but whats about all that hype around DRM?
You can download and play ANY game from torrents and play it DRM or not.

 

Nobody answered my question a few pages back, but aren't you legally allowed to torrent/download software that you have legitimately paid for? I KNOW this was the case with physical media(ie CDs back in the day), but I'm not so sure how the law applies in the case of digital distribution. Until something like SOPA comes along to change the playing field, I believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is the go-to for this kind of thing.

Anyone have any idea on this?

 

I think u misunderstood me. What i meant is that people are praising CD Projekt for not using DRM. But imo they are not using it because they are white and fluffy but because DRM is USELESS and doesnt help anyway.

To be fair i did buy Witcher 2 but i had to use cracked version because 1) it "shipped" faster 2) as it turned out bought version failed to install as well for some reason. In the end i regret that i bought it because it failed to work with my gpu and gave like 20 fps on totally lowest settings despite what requirements said.

but whatever. Its the first offline game i played in few years so i dont care about buying those boxes xD

 

Technically no. You're supposed to get it from approved sources. But to be honest I don't know why it would matter. You still need a product key and typically need to register it to the publisher/developer in order for it to work anyhow.

 

What exceptions? You know any game that isnt cracked?

 

Yeah, with regards to physical media, I think the wording was in regards to creating backup copies of the discs. It's legal, as long as you bought the original. I think they should do the same with digital downloads, maybe the same way that Steam has approached it so far. You buy it, it doesn't work, you should be legally allowed to download a copy of it by any means. As long as you bought it, I don't see any issue. I can't count the number of games I have bought through competing platforms, but was able to download from Steam's servers.

 

When something is said useful, one should ask 'useful for what'? Like you said correctly, DRM is not useful at all for protecting a game 'forever and ever'; nevertheless, most companies seeks that DRM gets effective for a certain period of time (typically the first week of launch) when the game is at its highest point of sale.

Also, a DRM as Steam is successful: great big sales, community, auto-updates.

Just my two cents.

 

these guys have got to be struggling. I didnt know that they cancelled witcher for the 360.

I was going to buy witcher2 but thought it best to get the first, it doesn;t exist.

 

What doesn't exist? The Witcher 1?

 

Ah ok, 'cause I was going to say you didn't look very hard if it was for PC!

 

I purchased the witcher enhanced edition or something from steam. I much rather have steam manage my games. Honestly I couldnt get into the game. I think dragonsang would have been a better purchase for me. I wonder how that whole thing will work out for them. they should bill em all lol. just send this bill in the mail that says pay up or else.

 

Yeah I had a hard time getting into Witcher 1 as well, but bought Witcher 2 when it was pretty cheap from GoG.com, seems a bit better. Although I tend to avoid those types of games these days because you can get so sucked in for hours at a time, that I don't quite have time for.