Why I won't support CD Projekt ever again

[Jagos]

Like many people, I enjoy companies that think outside the box. Gog made me a customer by saying they won't support DRM (http://www.destructoid.com/good-old-games-on-pipa-sopa-drm-and-other-acronyms-216348.phtml). This was a great thing from them, showing that maybe I was supporting a good business decision on their part.

Then the other shoe fell. While CD Projekt is saying they won't harm their customers, they are doing something much worse. A copyright shakedown. (http://torrentfreak.com/drm-free-witcher-2-cashes-in-on-bittorrent-pirates-111207/)

“Yes we will track illegal file-sharing hoping people will find the game good enough to actually change their mind and be willing to pay for it,” CD Projekt’s Agnieszka Szostak told us earlier.

Although this initially sounded quite reasonable, away from the spotlight the company followed in the footsteps of so-called copyright trolls, by signing up for a so-called “pay-up-or-else” scheme. CD Projekt hired a law firm and torrent monitoring company to track those who illegally downloaded and shared the game, and has been sending them hefty cash settlement proposals.

The price CD Projekt is asking through their lawyers is slightly higher than what gamers have to pay in stores, to say the least. Over the past several months thousands of alleged BitTorrent users in Germany were asked to cough up 911,80 euros ($1230) to pay off their apparent debt to the company.

So CD Projekt is suing innocent bystanders and potential customers because they want an instant payout. Quite frankly, they're acting as if pirates cost them more than making a real game and keeping it updated. It's also downright hypocritical given that they've said they support filesharing. This does not support filesharing. It also does nothing but piss people off as they hear the story.

I will not be putting money into Gog.com no matter how good the games are. Once I finish the games I've been playing, I'll probably look into starting my PSP collection and just use that for videos or something. Otherwise, Gog has really hurt their message with me.

[Osterbaum]

Can someone explain the logic behind having to pay 900€ for pirating a game that when bought new costs 50€ again?

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Other than making an example a shitload of money they'll probably mostly use for paying their shitty lawfirm I don't see any.

[Azisien]

Part of it is probably paying for the tracking and law firms. Plus some extra profit because PC pirates are the scum of the Earth. Except in the countries where game prices are ludicrous. Then they are more like common household pests.

[Ramary]

Plus some extra profit because PC pirates are the scum of the Earth.

That is a bit of a harsh generalization is it not?

[Osterbaum]

I'm guessing it's sarcastic.

Part of it is probably paying for the tracking and law firms.
Sure I realize that. The question was more of a rethorical one, because even if we said that piracy is the same as stealing the product, then what you really owe is those 50€ and not near a 1000€.

[Aerozord]

because the company cannot catch all the people that steal from them, so they try to get as much as possible from those that they do catch. Most likely making the argument that the only reason these X number could pirate it, is because said person put it up for torrenting to begin with. If so then you are being punished for facilitating a crime rather then enacting it.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Which is always fun if you can prove that your are a filthy leecher who always sets his upload traffic to 1 kbps and you could only upload a completely worthless fraction of what you're stealing. Of course no one ever cares.

[Osterbaum]

Fair. Of course we all knew that already. This is basically another example of how money, and those with money, rule the world.

[Kim]

So CD Projekt is suing innocent bystanders and potential customers because they want an instant payout.

Everyone is a "potential customer," making that particular catch-phrase absolutely meaningless.

What evidence do you have that "innocent bystanders" have been impacted by this, or is that merely your assumption?

Quite frankly, they're acting as if pirates cost them more than making a real game and keeping it updated.

No, they're acting as if pirates downloaded a game without paying it, helping others to download it without paying in the process, and that they've been screwed out of some money. They need money to continue making games, and if they want to maintain their anti-DRM stance they need to find a way to go against those who pirate their games.

It's also downright hypocritical given that they've said they support filesharing. This does not support filesharing.

I'm pretty sure when they said, "We support filesharing," they did not mean, "We support piracy." Unless you have any evidence that filesharing The Completely Free & Totally Legal to Fileshare Adventures of Professor Winsington will make you a target for CD Projekt thinking you stole a completely different and not free game called Witcher 2, I don't find this hypocritical in the slightest.

It also does nothing but piss people off as they hear the story.

I'm not particularly pissed off, so you're making the assumption that everyone will feel the same way you do.

[Azisien]

That is a bit of a harsh generalization is it not?

Sometimes, you gotta be harsh to get the message across. Plus jokes.

I'm guessing it's sarcastic.

Hyperbolic. But I actually do have a marked disrespect for the pirate that illegally downloads video games, plays them, and then doesn't buy them if he/she ends up liking them and keeping them.

Because not every developer releases a demo with their game, and I support being allowed to sample something before dropping hard-earned money, I morally permit torrenting a game to see if it runs/see if its your style. This does fall in line with what Aerozord was saying, too, but his is more of an "open the floodgates" method that allows all species of digital pirate in, including the shitheads.

[Ramary]

The problem with the "pirate before you buy" method, especially with CD Projekt going all Punisher on us, is that there is no way to really tell WHY someone pirated the game. One of the people who got slamed with that fine may of downloaded it, played it for like 10 minutes, decided they did not like or it just plain did not run, and deleted it right then and there. I may be wrong because there is never enough info behind stories like this, but I would feel bullshited. Before I built this PC I am on right now, outright buying a new game without using a pirated copy to test how it ran would be an outright gamble for me, that is why I pirated (and to get games no longer being sold/sold at an insane price).

[Azisien]

Well, I suppose one just has to be aware of what company one keeps. Maybe you didn't sell any crystal meth, but you keep hanging out in the house with the crystal meth dealers.

[Ramary]

But they pay the whole rent! It is a cushy deal.

[Kim]

I will agree that they're asking for far too much money of those they're going after, but Jagos' main complaints seem to be that they're going after anyone at all, which is where I took issue. If you make a big-budget game for the PC, you pretty much have to choose between DRM or going after pirates. Both are largely ineffectual, IMO, but it *does* take away from money they could be making. They decided they didn't want to hurt the experience for those who bought it, and so they didn't use any DRM. I respect that.

However, that doesn't mean they can just pretend people aren't totally stealing their game like the bastards that people generally are. That's why they're doing this. I might not agree with how much they're going after people for, but I can't really fault them for trying to get money they should have received anyways.

[Ramary]

Nah, you're right, they should go after some people, but they have to find the people who are say massive seeders for the game, that way you know for sure they are keeping it, AND helping others get it.

[Kim]

The thing is, we don't know *who* they're going after, so they could be doing just that.

[Ramary]

Like I said, we never get enough info for these things.

[Kim]

I will say I'm inclined to think they're more likely to go after these sort of people, simply because I'd think people who share with a *lot* of people probably leave more evidence behind in the process than people who don't, but that's just baseless speculation on my part.

[Amake]

In my view, if you want to play by your own rules, you've got to be prepared to face the consequences if the Man catches you. And the consequences are whatever the Man decides; you don't get a say. If all they want is money, and not more than you can pay, be glad.

One Piece has taught me much about the morality of piracy.

[Osterbaum]

[...]but I can't really fault them for trying to get money they should have received anyways.
'Money they should've received' certainly doesn't ammount to over 900€. It's also somewhat of a problem that not everyone who pirates a game would necesarily buy it; they'd never buy it, but since it's free they get it to try it out. If they would never have bought it in the first place it isn't really any theoretical money out of the company's wallet.

[Aerozord]

In my view, if you want to play by your own rules, you've got to be prepared to face the consequences if the Man catches you. And the consequences are whatever the Man decides; you don't get a say. If all they want is money, and not more than you can pay, be glad.

One Piece has taught me much about the morality of piracy.

yea I mean you can justify it all you want, but if you do something illegal for whatever reason you cant really complain that you got caught. No one is forcing you to pirate games, you can just, you know, not do it. And before someone tosses people from third world nations that cant get them otherwise, last I checked they weren't going after them.

Plenty of free games you could be playing

[Osterbaum]

Law =/= Right.

[Azisien]

This is why I try to tease out the Shithead Pirate from the probably small group that would never, ever try Witcher 2 but pirate it to try it and then not buy it. Though, the latter person does have that Shithead Lite smell to them. But my other qualifier probably filter them out. Like, did they keep it and play it for a long time and enjoy it? Well if they did, the other they "never would have bought it" is now invalid, and they totally "would have." Unless they are cheap thieving pond scum. In which case, haha, enjoy the $1000 charge.

There are only so many variables to tweak. Perhaps the breakfast cereal of the pirates will affect whether or not they get Witcher 2, but we'll never know. I actually don't begrudge the charge of...like buying the game 16 times or whatever. A distributor probably deserves a larger charge than that, for instance. There's probably a good 15 shitheads who pirated the game like shitheads, too, soaked up by the one guy who got caught.

The charge also seems much less ridiculous than music piracy cases. Ordinary folk getting charged tens of thousands, or hundreds, or maybe even millions [don't recall a million+ case, but I would believe it]? THAT is probably getting into the totally ridiculous. A thousand bucks almost seems, justifiable.

I feel like at this point I should mention that I have made all my posts based on my personal morality, and I'm not regarding laws. However, if piracy is straight up illegal in your country and you get caught for it in your country. Morality or not, you kind of have to buck up to consequences unless you want to make your life the plot of a shitty international fugitive movie because you downloaded Witcher 2.

[Aerozord]

Law =/= Right.

no but piracy=illegal. If you do something illegal you should be fully aware that you will be punished if caught

[Osterbaum]

It's pretty ridiculous to claim all of your supposed lost money from one person who pirated your game.

e: Even if the person is a douchebag, he's still only stolen 50€ worth of product as far as this one instance goes anyways. Does he really deserve to pay 900€?

If I went to the shop right now and stole (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A4pistys) a physical copy of The Witcher 2 that is worth 50€ and was subsequently caught, my case would go to court where (based on Finnish law) I would be sentenced to return the product (or pay it's worth if return was not possible) and in addition pay around 15 day-fines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine) (this is the median for these sort of crimes, so it could be more or less based on the products worth and the nature of the crime) which would ammount to an additional 150€ based on my income. Seems quite a bit more fair.

e2: edited for clarity, corrections and added links

[Azisien]

It's like a reverse lottery!

Normally everybody pays a small amount, and one person gets a huge prize! But this time since you're either a huge dickwad, or you willingly make digital company with huge dickwads, you get the reverse lottery! Nobody pays anything, and one person gets a huge fine!

[Kim]

'Money they should've received' certainly doesn't ammount to over 900€.

I addressed this.

It's also somewhat of a problem that not everyone who pirates a game would necesarily buy it; they'd never buy it, but since it's free they get it to try it out. If they would never have bought it in the first place it isn't really any theoretical money out of the company's wallet.

A not-small portion of pirates almost certainly would buy it if they weren't able to pirate it. Piracy has cost this company money. That's their motivator. I know that it's impossible to tell how much it cost them, but if you're losing money due to the actions of others, that you don't know whether it's twenty bucks or a hundred isn't going to keep you from trying to do something about it.

[Osterbaum]

I addressed this.
Yes, you did. I wanted to make that statement to make my opinion clearer.

A not-small portion of pirates almost certainly would buy it if they weren't able to pirate it.
Propably. I refer you to my previous post: ie. for me this is more about how big of an punishment do the individuals actually deserve from this sort of crime. I certainly don't think 900€ for a game or say thousands for several games is ok as is propably obvious by now from all of my posts.

[Kim]

Propably. I refer you to my previous post: ie. for me this is more about how big of an punishment do the individuals actually deserve from this sort of crime. I certainly don't think 900€ for a game or say thousands for several games is ok as is propably obvious by now from all of my posts.

I don't disagree.

Jagos seems upset that they're doing anything in the first place, and I'm really only here to argue why being upset about that is silly.

[Azisien]

To further avoid splitting hairs, why don't you just tell us what you think is a fair amount to charge convicted pirates? The retail price of the game at the time they pirated it?

[Osterbaum]

I couldn't tell you exactly, but I certainly think that the amount that I calculated two of my posts ago is at least acceptable possibly even fair.

e: According to google translate, what I linked to called 'näpistys' translates to 'petty larceny'. So this should be treated the same way, in which case the conclusion reached is the same one I explained in the post before my previous one.

[Kim]

Retail price of the game plus percentage of the game uploaded times that price.

If it's a 2 gig game that sells for $60 and you uploaded 1 gig to other users in addition to downloading it yourself, pay $90.

Oh yeah and maybe a small fine in addition to that because hey we fine littering and shit so why not. Oster's seems reasonable.

[Osterbaum]

I could theoritically get behind that, if the whole system was carefully considered before implementing, making sure it would be suitable.

[Azisien]

I could theoritically get behind that, if the whole system was carefully considered before implementing, making sure it would be suitable.

"I have awesome Internet and I got the flu and when I woke up I had seeded 300GB!"

[Osterbaum]

Right, that's exactly the kind of stuff I meant with "carefully considered". There are a lot of things that could potentially go wrong unless the idea is 'tested' first.

[Azisien]

The charge would also vary wildly just because game price-to-size ratios vary a lot. However, I was really just curious about knowing as opposed to beating around the bush with punishment??? < $60 < punishment < $900 < maybe sometimes punishment???

[Kyanbu The Legend]

A $90 to $250 charge fee is a reasonable fine. $900 to several thousand is just insane and really just a scare tactic at that point.

[Aerozord]

normally when you are fined for a crime, it is not the cost of the product. If it was there would be no reason to not steal it because worst case you just pay what you would have anyways.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

normally when you are fined for a crime, it is not the cost of the product. If it was there would be no reason to not steal it because worst case you just pay what you would have anyways.

But again it's also not normally that much of a markup.
No equability.

[Marc v4.0]

I don't disagree.

Jagos seems upset that they're doing anything in the first place, and I'm really only here to argue why being upset about that is silly.

Yeah, Companies like to super-inflate the losses due to 'pirating' and stuff terrible DRM and DLC Schemes and other such tactics to 'recoup' on some of the 'losses' but to get upset that a company is taking legal action against those who are actually distributing copies of the game for free is silly. To say they have no right to seek legal compensation for a Loss they can actually prove is silly.

There is a huge difference between 'estimated losses based on bullshit and smoke' and 'this guy is actually distributing our product illegally and we have proof that stands up in a court of law'.

[Aerozord]

But again it's also not normally that much of a markup.
No equability.

quite true, though part of the problem is neither can prove how much was stolen (legally he'd be liable for every copy he helped produce as well as his own). So yea, they can make up whatever number they want.

Thing is you are legally charged with each transaction with illegal goods. Say you stole a car, then sold its parts, lets say in 9 different deals. Thats 10 different counts, not one

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

quite true, though part of the problem is neither can prove how much was stolen (legally he'd be liable for every copy he helped produce as well as his own). So yea, they can make up whatever number they want.

Thing is you are legally charged with each transaction with illegal goods. Say you stole a car, then sold its parts, lets say in 9 different deals. Thats 10 different counts, not one

Uploading a legal copy isn't technically illegal. You own the rights to use that software and in most cases the capacity to upload and redownload that software at your convenience.

Maybe I'm going by outdated info but what you're saying doesn't add up from my understanding because in the case of a car theft you can prove the guy sold the parts purposely. But with internet downloads you can't always prove he allowed the link to be shared intentionally.

[Jagos]

Everyone is a "potential customer," making that particular catch-phrase absolutely meaningless.

What evidence do you have that "innocent bystanders" have been impacted by this, or is that merely your assumption?

As I read about piracy, those that pirate are usually underserved customers. In most studies that I've seen as well as Gabe Newell's constant reiterations (http://www.gamefront.com/gabe-newell-piracy-is-a-non-issue/), piracy is a non issue. The innocent bystanders means one thing. We have no convictions of wrong doing on the part of the IP addresses that are connected to a computer at a certain time. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, here (http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-trolls-auction-off-e90-million-in-file-sharing-settlements-111208/) are a number (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110825/03043315676/us-copyright-group-lawsuits-based-highly-questionable-evidence.shtml) of articles (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110928/02302616122/hurt-locker-file-sharing-lawsuit-lists-hockey-stadium-ip-address.shtml) where ip addresses (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110828/22523115718/us-copyright-group-hurt-locker-producers-sue-dead-man-others-unlikely-to-have-infringed.shtml) are not people (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/109242/) that pirate.



No, they're acting as if pirates downloaded a game without paying it, helping others to download it without paying in the process, and that they've been screwed out of some money. They need money to continue making games, and if they want to maintain their anti-DRM stance they need to find a way to go against those who pirate their games.

In every report about piracy, filesharing increased sales. Every one that was objectively done shows that those pirates are potential customers who sample a game, music, or a movie and change to a paying customer depending on sales (again Gabe Newell and Russia) or a number of variables that entice people to pay for the product. The moral argument of "they need money to produce games" doesn't answer the fact that they have only an ip address that may be wrong and gives them bad publicity by the copyright shakedown scheme they're doing.

Finally, it's amazing that you somehow feel that the developers are entitled to money from consumers/pirates who have just had to pay more than regular price based on an allegation...


I'm pretty sure when they said, "We support filesharing," they did not mean, "We support piracy." Unless you have any evidence that filesharing The Completely Free & Totally Legal to Fileshare Adventures of Professor Winsington will make you a target for CD Projekt thinking you stole a completely different and not free game called Witcher 2, I don't find this hypocritical in the slightest.

Their stance is hypocritical. "I'm not going to put DRM in my games but I will make you spend more than the asking price if you're caught using a torrent of the game." Do you know that their patch on Steam for Witcher 2 to update the game to versions 1.1 and 1.2 respectively is 9GB? Meanwhile the torrent is 15MB. Great math of incentives here. I get caught using a torrent I expect a shakedown so they can grab more money from me? Not liking my options.

Also, infringement is not theft. Infringement of a copyright does not deprive you of the ability to sell your copy of a CD or anything else. And judging from how copyright centric industries (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/piracy-problems-us-copyright-industries-show-terrific-health.ars) are doing better even with a poor economy, piracy is not a big deal.

[Aerozord]

In every report about piracy, filesharing increased sales.

this is impossible to prove or disprove. upon the release of a media illegal copies appear soon after (sometimes before). It is impossible to say the impact of piracy because it happens concurrently with legitimate release and thus there is no control to contrast sales numbers.

Both sides try to say otherwise of course, but fact is you have no way to tell if there even is a net difference caused by piracy at all let alone if its positive or negative.

[Magus]

Eh, you have to admit that the Witcher II was so amazing that if you didn't pay for it, you do sort of deserve this kind of treatment. I mean let's be honest here. It's not like pirating your average run-of-the-mill game. 'Cause it was that damn good.

Seriously, though, there needs to be some laws put on the books regarding how much damages these companies are entitled to because so far in the actual cases that have gone to court they have been awarded WAY too much money for the amount of damage that could have possibly been caused.

[Jagos]

this is impossible to prove or disprove. upon the release of a media illegal copies appear soon after (sometimes before). It is impossible to say the impact of piracy because it happens concurrently with legitimate release and thus there is no control to contrast sales numbers.

Both sides try to say otherwise of course, but fact is you have no way to tell if there even is a net difference caused by piracy at all let alone if its positive or negative.

It's been proven. Mark Cuban (http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111203/01224516963/book-world-is-changing-mark-cuban-creates-best-seller-out-some-blog-posts.shtml) became a best seller from free blog posts.

Neil Gaimon on piracy:

0Qkyt1wXNlI

Study after study about piracy (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/04092915191/industry-suppressed-report-showing-users-shuttered-pirate-site-probably-helped-movie-industry.shtml)

The simple economics of piracy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-karaganis/the-simple-economics-of-p_b_887110.html) - a shorter version of the 70 page 3 year study from the same author on his website (funded by Canada) Media piracy in Emerging Economies (http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-report/)

Finally, The number of people that pirate in some form in the US (http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-copy-culture-survey-infringement-and-enforcement-in-the-us/)

TL;DR -If people have access to legal channels, they won't pirate as much. It's about having more avenues to entertainment at prices people can afford on a global market, not enforcement of copyright.

[Magus]

I think the main problem with this approach is it's a shakedown by lawyers to settle without going to court, because in court they will then try to sue you for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Basically if you could be assured that if taken to court the maximum would be like that 900 pounds they get you to pay via legal threats, or maybe like, I dunno, 5,000 dollars or whatever, they want without having to actually sue you and prove things in a court of law, it would be much better, since 5000 dollars is still a lot of money to pay out for copyright infringement and probably enough of a deterrent for most people but isn't insanely unreasonable.

And of course there could still be exceptions where if you actually instigated the original upload and wanted to profit off of pirated stuff (the actual people who should be being investigated, really) you could be sued for a shitload of money and face jail time.

As it is now, it's kind of like how our criminal justice system seems to put way more drug users in jail than drug dealers.

[Aerozord]

TL;DR -If people have access to legal channels, they won't pirate as much. It's about having more avenues to entertainment at prices people can afford on a global market, not enforcement of copyright.

if they dont have access to a legal channel, how are them getting access to it increasing legal sales?

Where are the controls for these studies?

Though while I have your attention I want to check something because others have asked and I dont believe you actually answered.

Are you upset that the fees are extreme, or that a company is taking legal action against people that steal from them?

Oh and this is just a semantically nit-pick but

Also, infringement is not theft. Infringement of a copyright does not deprive you of the ability to sell your copy of a CD or anything else.
Technically they did both. Theft is merely getting something without consent of the owner, for example "stealing cable". Also using same example in our modern lexicon theft is an acceptable term to describe this action. I mean we accept the term "stealing an idea" despite the fact you aren't ripping the chemical pathways out of their head.

Copyright is being violated, but taking that copy is only a violation thanks to technicalities of technology, and pretty sure legally the crime would be theft. The real violation is producing the copies of the work for others to have.

To use a physical analog if I take a book, thats theft, if I make copies of the book and hand it out, thats copyright infringement.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Stuff

The quintessential example Gabe Newel offered was the market composed of the former Soviet bloc. Piracy was, according to the industry running rampant over there and therefore there was no need to even make the attempt to localize products over there.

Products would get to Russia months or even years after the west, with absolutely terrible localization. We're talking Zero Wing levels of terrible translations, which were not only incredibly overpriced but only available in region locked form in brick and mortar stores. It was just fucking terrible to be a Russian gamer because no matter how legally you wanted to get something at the end of the day there was never an incentive to. You had to chose between waiting months extra for what may as well have been a pile of shit or get a better product (Yes, the pirates provided better localization than the companies did.) for free almost immediately from the comfort of your own home.
Gabe's idea was that the market in Russia/Ukraine wasn't actually any more interested in piracy than anyone else. They'd just been treated like crap.
Valve releases HL2 and other products in Russia, on time and with proper localization and a fair price: Piracy gone.


He doesn't go in depth about the localization, I think that might have been further conjecture or commentary from where I read the article a few months ago. Still:

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a sensitive issue. Many games have been the subject of boycotts due to a draconian use of DRM. The most extreme DRM forces players to be online, and to stay online, if they wish to play the game. What are your views on DRM?

In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customers use or by creating uncertainty.

Our goal is to create greater service value than pirates, and this has been successful enough for us that piracy is basically a non-issue for our company. For example, prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become our largest market in Europe.

[Jagos]

if they dont have access to a legal channel, how are them getting access to it increasing legal sales?

Where are the controls for these studies?

The "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies" book looks at Competitive Pricing Points. Basically, how hard do people work for their money in the country in question? What the studies found is that the price of Photoshop in Mexico is $3600 USD. In other words, it's overpriced, causing a black market for pirated goods. This isn't a bad thing for software, where the developer has the privilege of a lock in effect. Adobe is the standard through piracy because people become used to PS as they work for companies that buy licenses to newer products.


Are you upset that the fees are extreme, or that a company is taking legal action against people that steal from them?

I'm upset with the stance that they've taken. It's hypocritical for them to say they won't burden legal customers with DRM but pirates are more deserving of punishment because they might not buy the game but torrent it first. It stinks of the same hypocrisy of the MPAA or RIAA who feel they deserve money from people for overpriced static media like CDs and DVDs. Since they feel entitled to that money, I feel entitled to not support their products any more than I have. I will play the games and beat them, but I won't support a company that decides to take more time to treat consumers like they're criminals instead of making a better game or community.

Technically they did both. Theft is merely getting something without consent of the owner, for example "stealing cable". Also using same example in our modern lexicon theft is an acceptable term to describe this action. I mean we accept the term "stealing an idea" despite the fact you aren't ripping the chemical pathways out of their head.

Copyright is being violated, but taking that copy is only a violation thanks to technicalities of technology, and pretty sure legally the crime would be theft. The real violation is producing the copies of the work for others to have.

To use a physical analog if I take a book, thats theft, if I make copies of the book and hand it out, thats copyright infringement.

Nope. There is no loss of object (http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-is-not-theft-111104/) occurring. If copying were theft, Jesus (http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/532) killed the bread industry a long time ago. In the legal definition of theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_States) it requires you to deprive someone of an object. Infringement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22) does not deprive anyone of a product of value.

[Azisien]

I suppose most of the discussion to be reaped out of this thread has already come and gone, but hey these articles are popping up and caught my eye. (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/12/15/the-witcher-2-devs-claim-100-accuracy-in-identifying-pirates-demand-money-from-thousands/)

This method of pursuing alleged pirates became famous in 2008 after British law firm Davenport Lyons used the tactic on behalf of a number of clients, including Atari, the North American publishers of The Witcher 2. The problem is that the practice traditionally relies on an alleged pirates IP address, which are a poor way to track an individual person due to being dynamic, easily masked, and easily shared amongst multiple people over unsecured wifi, shared houses or public spaces.

CDP RED feel they’ve found a way, using a method developed by an external company.

“We’re addressing only 100% confirmed piracy causes that are 100% possible to prove,” said Michal Nowakowski, VP of Business Development for CD Project RED, via email. He wouldn’t be drawn on the methods used, however. “We are not worried about tracking the wrong people. As this is the trade secret of the company working on this, I cannot share it. However, we investigated the subject before we decided on this move, and we aware of some past complications (the famous Davenport case). The method used here is targeting only 100% confirmed piracy cases. No innocent person was targeted with the letter so far. At least we have not received any information as of now which would indicate something like that.”

When asked, CDP RED also refused to name the company whose services they were using, for fear of damaging that company’s business. Which is deeply odd, as identification for doing your job isn’t normally damaging. But he also claimed CDP RED weren’t the only people using these methods. “For some reason the spotlight came down on CDP RED, however you should be aware this is something that about 95% of the games industry is actually doing. Pretty much all the major publishers and most of the independent developers.”

...

Speaking to us last month, CDP’s CEO told PC Gamer that “None of [the] solutions really work, so why not abandon it altogether?” He also estimated piracy of over 4 million copies.

When asked how many people had agreed to pay the compensation, Michal couldn’t give exact numbers, but said that no case had gone to court so far. “As far as I know the vast majority of people identified decided to admit to piracy and pay the compensation as a means of settlement.” He also had hopes that the move could lower piracy rates in future. “I do believe this may work as a deterrent to future pirates, especially the most notorious ones. I would personally hope these people would be more convinced by our pro-customer policy, but if they are of the unchangeable kind that never bought and never will buy a legal game, I would at least hope they do not trespass on our title. Do I believe this will stop the piracy? That’s impossible, and never will be. But maybe it will be smaller.”

Michal was keen to stress that CDP RED still believed that releasing games DRM-free was the way to go. “We trust in our customers and I really do feel they repaid us in a great way by buying and supporting us, for which we are more than grateful.” Still, they felt pursuing pirates was necessary. “There is always a group of people, who no matter what is their financial situation will choose to download the software, just because they can,” said Michal.

“In terms of the compensation, the amounts that were circling around the internet were higher than what is actually asked from people as a settlement.” The actual number requested is private as part of the settlement’s confidentiality, but Michal wanted to make clear that no one was getting rich from the pirates.

Of course the knee-jerk response is how can they be sure it's 100%? Not even SCIENCE is 100%! I was hoping there would be more discussion of why the charge is 900 Euros. My assumption, of course, remains that that covers the legal team, this torrent tracking company, the cost of the Witcher 2, and maybe a small chunk of extra fees. Ludicrous? Indeed! Probably a lawyer's fault.

[Jagos]

And now, they claim that they can do it with 100% certainty. Link (http://torrentfreak.com/the-witcher-2-devs-defend-pirate-witch-hunt-with-bogus-accuracy-claims-111224/)

Nevermind all of the evidence that says they're full of it, they believe that pirates are evil assholes who need to pay more. Wow, what an utter disappointment from an otherwise good company!

[Amake]

Jesus (http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/532) The fun part is I think some larger bakeries these days are trying to design better flour molecules and such that they probably can copyright. When Jesus returns he'll be stuck making ass-flavored open source bread.

[Kim]

Jagos is saying a lot of completely ridiculous stuff that I think the majority of us can agree is silly, but just the same CD Projekt has said they'll stop going after the pirates. So now Jagos can stop feeling like he's morally justified in pirating their games and can go back to paying them for their work.

[Osterbaum]

Piracy is not the same as stealing.

[Marc v4.0]

Piracy is not the same as stealing.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4549162/ef788e95.jpg

[Osterbaum]

Exactly the way I felt when I read [...]justified in stealing their games[...] that.

[Kim]

There. Updated.

[Osterbaum]

This pleases us and we thank you.

[Fifthfiend]

Just as long as I can continue to feel morally justified in stealing on the basis of not giving a fuck.

[Osterbaum]

I think 'not giving a fuck' is a valid moral justification for everything. Since obviously you don't give a fuck even if it isn't.

[Jagos]

Jagos is saying a lot of completely ridiculous stuff that I think the majority of us can agree is silly, but just the same CD Projekt has said they'll stop going after the pirates. So now Jagos can stop feeling like he's morally justified in pirating their games and can go back to paying them for their work.

I did pay for their games. I won't ever again. I don't feel that CD Projekt is a good company because of their hypocritical stance.

Stop putting words in my mouth when I've explained my argument and shown in detail where CD Projekt is wrong.

[Kim]

"I'm pirating their games because they're going after pirates!"

They stopped going after pirates.

"I'm still pirating their games. Because they're hypocrites."

So what you're really saying is there's no incentive for them to not go after the pirates at this point.

[Aerozord]

"I'm pirating their games because they're going after pirates!"

They stopped going after pirates.

"I'm still pirating their games. Because they're hypocrites."

So what you're really saying is there's no incentive for them to not go after the pirates at this point.

I think its more like saying "I am just trying to justify getting this game for free"

[Osterbaum]

I think you guys are twisting his words.