Interview CDProjekt explains their anti-piracy measures

[Gord]

1. Eating a dinner would already entail cost on part of the restaurant. Pirating the game, even seven times, doesn't.

Developing a game in the first place entails cost on part of the developer.

But that doesn't mean I should buy every game ever developed so the point is moot.

Hyperbole anyone?

 

[el Supremo]

Buy it used! Yuk yuk yuk.

Yes, better to not support anyone at all rather than support after verifying they're worth it.

Do you eat dinner at the restaurant, then decide if it was good enough to be worth paying for?

Shit analogy by shit poster.

1. Eating a dinner would already entail cost on part of the restaurant. Pirating the game, even seven times, doesn't.

Creating a game does, though. And you got youself a piece of entertainment (good or bad, it does not matter, it has let you kill some time nevertheless) without any cost. While game company worked hard to deliver it to you. How that is fair?
Hey pirates! There are no free lunches.

 

[villain of the story]

Still I am no fan of pirates as there is NO excuse to pirate sw.

Yep, absolutely not when you live as a privileged shitstain. As for the rest of the world, they can go fuck themselves and maybe whore out their mothers and sisters if it's so important.

So I assume you are posting from a public library?


Look, $30 - $60 is $3 / wk for ten to twenty weeks. What a life of privilege that must be! If only i could play free games like roguelikes. Wait a minute...some games are free?? Geez. Evil.

You are a moron.

 

[spectre]

And you got youself a piece of entertainment (good or bad, it does not matter, it has let you kill some time nevertheless) without any cost. While game company worked hard to deliver it to you. How that is fair?

If you deliver shit, you get paid shit. Perfectly fair and applies to all services.

And the bolded part is the reason we cannot have nice things anymore.

 

[Gord]

If you deliver shit, you get paid shit. Perfectly fair and applies to all services.

Still doesn't mean that you should pirate it, merely that you either don't play and therefore buy at all, or that you wait until the price has dropped far enough to be acceptable for you.

E.g. I might buy Rage if it's available for 3-5 bucks during a sale to get a glimpse of Carmacks glorious "megatextures", but the game doesn't interest me enough to pay more.

The problem of course is that without a demo, judging the quality of a game is hard, as reviews and gameplay vids only help so much. Which is why I can kinda accept the people that use piracy as a form of demo (and really stop playing if they don't like/buy if they do).
I do not think however that those people are more than a small minority.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I think John Walker on R,p,s would like it.
If any of you is registered there post it in that thread but also send it over to John Walker.

Will do.

 

[hiver]

i see it
:incline of the codex:

:TNO: !

 

[Coyote]

So, how was the Codex reaction when CD Project did the exact same thing two years ago? Or when they announced they would do it again with their new release one year ago?

The idea was mostly met with mockery and derision - in an "oh no, they'll send me a letter if I pirate it, what ever shall I do" sort of way - and even some praise when they announced it a year ago. Even Awor's response was rather subdued:

I always wondered why companies tend to be assholes to paying customers instead of doing something like this.

To be fair, that thread was probably heavily influenced by the tone of VoD's newspost (which de-emphasized the fine in favor of mocking the wishy-washy tone of Marcin Iwinski's statements) since people often just read the newsposts and not the articles to which they link, and even in the original article, nothing suggested the fine would be so high - just that it would be higher than the price of the game.

As for when they did the same thing for TW1, I don't remember the Codex ever covering it. It certainly didn't get as much press on gaming sites as it did this time around. And as I mentioned in another thread, the articles that do cover it tend to either imply that Atari rather than CD Projekt was responsible for contacting the firm or leave it ambiguous. Part of the reason this got such a big response, I suspect, is because lots of people previously saw CD Projekt as one of the "good guys" for their policies of no DRM, free DLC, and including feelies with their products - basically, rewarding paying customers rather than taking the more common route of hurting paying customers in the (ineffective) effort to fight piracy. A lot of those same people either assumed that this attitude extended to toleration of piracy on CD Projekt's part or find the methods/sum being demanded questionable in this case.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So, how was the Codex reaction when CD Project did the exact same thing two years ago? Or when they announced they would do it again with their new release one year ago?

The idea was mostly met with mockery and derision - in an "oh no, they'll send me a letter if I pirate it, what ever shall I do" sort of way - and even some praise when they announced it a year ago. Even Awor's response was rather subdued:

I always wondered why companies tend to be assholes to paying customers instead of doing something like this.

To be fair, that thread was probably heavily influenced by the tone of VoD's newspost (which de-emphasized the fine in favor of mocking the wishy-washy tone of Marcin Iwinski's statements) since people often just read the newsposts and not the articles to which they link, and even in the original article, nothing suggested the fine would be so high - just that it would be higher than the price of the game.

It's because when we were reading this we were thinking about something like them having to pay the price of a game and then paying a 100$ fine or something like that (160$ for a game is a lot of money - definitely a deterrent). Also, people who downloaded the Witcher II, not 0,0025% of them.

 

[Turjan]

So, how was the Codex reaction when CD Project did the exact same thing two years ago? Or when they announced they would do it again with their new release one year ago?

The idea was mostly met with mockery and derision - in an "oh no, they'll send me a letter if I pirate it, what ever shall I do" sort of way - and even some praise when they announced it a year ago. Even Awor's response was rather subdued:

I always wondered why companies tend to be assholes to paying customers instead of doing something like this.

To be fair, that thread was probably heavily influenced by the tone of VoD's newspost (which de-emphasized the fine in favor of mocking the wishy-washy tone of Marcin Iwinski's statements) since people often just read the newsposts and not the articles to which they link, and even in the original article, nothing suggested the fine would be so high - just that it would be higher than the price of the game.

It's because when we were reading this we were thinking about something like them having to pay the price of a game and then paying a 100$ fine or something like that (160$ for a game is a lot of money - definitely a deterrent). Also, people who downloaded the Witcher II, not 0,0025% of them.

Well, sure. But fines for stuff like that must be high to really work as deterrent. It's still a matter of economy. If you torrent 20 $50 games and get a letter asking for $150 for one of them, you are still ahead in the game.

As much as I find the law situation in Germany an abomination (there was just again a case of a senior citizen without computer being sentenced for downloading a hooligan film), small fines only make sense if every single instance of online piracy gets actually persecuted. The lawmakers seemed to favor less cases with higher fines as deterrent.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Turjan, don't try to reason with him...

I have mentioned several times that people that skip the fare on trains have to pay a fine far exceeding the cost of the ticket itself; and not only is this common procedure almost everywhere but it is also inarguably just. But they manage to completely ignore and miss the point every time. They will believe whatever they want to believe.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So, how was the Codex reaction when CD Project did the exact same thing two years ago? Or when they announced they would do it again with their new release one year ago?

The idea was mostly met with mockery and derision - in an "oh no, they'll send me a letter if I pirate it, what ever shall I do" sort of way - and even some praise when they announced it a year ago. Even Awor's response was rather subdued:

I always wondered why companies tend to be assholes to paying customers instead of doing something like this.

To be fair, that thread was probably heavily influenced by the tone of VoD's newspost (which de-emphasized the fine in favor of mocking the wishy-washy tone of Marcin Iwinski's statements) since people often just read the newsposts and not the articles to which they link, and even in the original article, nothing suggested the fine would be so high - just that it would be higher than the price of the game.

It's because when we were reading this we were thinking about something like them having to pay the price of a game and then paying a 100$ fine or something like that (160$ for a game is a lot of money - definitely a deterrent). Also, people who downloaded the Witcher II, not 0,0025% of them.

Well, sure. But fines for stuff like that must be high to really work as deterrent. It's still a matter of economy. If you torrent 20 $50 games and get a letter asking for $150 for one of them, you are still ahead in the game.

As much as I find the law situation in Germany an abomination (there was just again a case of a senior citizen without computer being sentenced for downloading a hooligan film), small fines only make sense if every single instance of online piracy gets actually persecuted. The lawmakers seemed to favor less cases with higher fines as deterrent.

There's no deterrent with 0,0025% probability of getting caught. It's just random robbery. Also, holding individual responsibility for a crime committed by other people is an abomination.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

As much as I find the law situation in Germany an abomination (there was just again a case of a senior citizen without computer being sentenced for downloading a hooligan film),

Link please.

 

[Turjan]

As much as I find the law situation in Germany an abomination (there was just again a case of a senior citizen without computer being sentenced for downloading a hooligan film),

Link please.

Here you are.

 

[Turjan]

So, how was the Codex reaction when CD Project did the exact same thing two years ago? Or when they announced they would do it again with their new release one year ago?

The idea was mostly met with mockery and derision - in an "oh no, they'll send me a letter if I pirate it, what ever shall I do" sort of way - and even some praise when they announced it a year ago. Even Awor's response was rather subdued:

I always wondered why companies tend to be assholes to paying customers instead of doing something like this.

To be fair, that thread was probably heavily influenced by the tone of VoD's newspost (which de-emphasized the fine in favor of mocking the wishy-washy tone of Marcin Iwinski's statements) since people often just read the newsposts and not the articles to which they link, and even in the original article, nothing suggested the fine would be so high - just that it would be higher than the price of the game.

It's because when we were reading this we were thinking about something like them having to pay the price of a game and then paying a 100$ fine or something like that (160$ for a game is a lot of money - definitely a deterrent). Also, people who downloaded the Witcher II, not 0,0025% of them.

Well, sure. But fines for stuff like that must be high to really work as deterrent. It's still a matter of economy. If you torrent 20 $50 games and get a letter asking for $150 for one of them, you are still ahead in the game.

As much as I find the law situation in Germany an abomination (there was just again a case of a senior citizen without computer being sentenced for downloading a hooligan film), small fines only make sense if every single instance of online piracy gets actually persecuted. The lawmakers seemed to favor less cases with higher fines as deterrent.

There's no deterrent with 0,0025% probability of getting caught. It's just random robbery. Also, holding individual responsibility for a crime committed by other people is an abomination.

Well, regarding the abomination, I said so myself in the part you quoted. On the other hand, you seem to suggest that the fine should more be in the $1,000,000 range to make the deterrent work?

 

[Gord]

You can find the story e.g. here.

Although some people in the forums there pointed out that the article is allegedly somewhat badly researched and it seems at least probable that someone had used her connection to download the movie in question.

Don't exactly know what to think about that case.

 

[Turjan]

You can find the story e.g. here.

Although some people in the forums there pointed out that the article is allegedly somewhat badly researched and it seems at least probable that someone had used her connection to download the movie in question.

Don't exactly know what to think about that case.

I have the feeling that most Spiegel articles are badly researched nowadays. Anyway, the court didn't really want to dwell on this case. They dedided against a fine, but she has to pay that stupid lawyer fee. And, of course, she cannot prove that she had no computer at the time or that one of her family or one of the nurses did not use her internet connection. I just dislike the whole system.

The important point for the current topic is that the court believed in the infallibility of the software that determines the IP address and of the assignment of this IP address to a person.

 

[Gord]

Yes, this whole Abmahn business, or at least the way it is abused here, is unworthy of a constitutional democracy.
Put some creedy lawyers and technophobic and/or uninformed judges into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster.

Actually we probably need some more blatantly stupid decisions, so that politicians can't deny that it has to be fixed.

Also Spiegel Online is more and more resembling yellow press. Unbelievable how far that journal has fallen...

 

[SCO]

you wouldn't like the way they'd "fix it"

 

[janjetina]

If you torrent 20 $50 games and get a letter asking for $150 for one of them, you are still ahead in the game.

So what? If you get caught torrenting those 20 games, you will accumulate a hefty $1000 fine.
Single torrent = single crime -> single punishment, that has to fit the crime. There are no contingency penalties for law violations, in case you have violated the law more than you are charged for and proven guilty.

 

[el Supremo]

If you torrent 20 $50 games and get a letter asking for $150 for one of them, you are still ahead in the game.

So what? If you get caught torrenting those 20 games, you will accumulate a hefty $1000 fine.
Single torrent = single crime -> single punishment, that has to fit the crime. There are no contingency penalties for law violations, in case you have violated the law more than you are charged for and proven guilty.

If you know, beforehand, that your fine will be disproportionally large, and commited the act nevertheless, why the buthurt? You got what you were asking for.
Maybe pirates are afraid, that this MO may spell end of piracy as we know it? Fear not, if this laws become prevalent world wide, file sharing will adopt something like onion routing. Sure, that thing has more then 50% overhead, so no one bothers right now, but in the face to draconian any-piracy laws...

 

[Turjan]

If you torrent 20 $50 games and get a letter asking for $150 for one of them, you are still ahead in the game.

So what? If you get caught torrenting those 20 games, you will accumulate a hefty $1000 fine.
Single torrent = single crime -> single punishment, that has to fit the crime. There are no contingency penalties for law violations, in case you have violated the law more than you are charged for and proven guilty.

You say this bolded part as if there were some kind of intrinsic and objective measure for which punishment fits which crime. There is no such thing. This is always a matter of consent (obviously not total consent, but you get the drift). The deterrent factor plays a role in numerous forms of punishment, and it's a given that a deterrent is supposed to be seen as an excessive price for a law violation, otherwise it's mot a deterrent.

It's also a trade-off. I guess what you see as proper punishment might work in an internet that has something similar like near total control and censorship. In principle, a system of reliance on a few somewhat excessive punishments as warning to others instead of total control seems at least to keep the door to a relatively free internet open. Not that I give the latter much of a chance, but we can at least hope.

 

[janjetina]

If you know, beforehand, that your fine will be disproportionally large, and commited the act nevertheless, why the buthurt? You got what you were asking for.
Maybe pirates are afraid, that this MO may spell end of piracy as we know it? Fear not, if this laws become prevalent world wide, file sharing will adopt something like onion routing. Sure, that thing has more then 50% overhead, so no one bothers right now, but in the face to draconian any-piracy laws...

First of all, this fine is not imposed by the court, in fact it appears to be an offer of settlement. However, as an offer of settlement, it is absurdly high (in fact the amount makes this nothing but a money-grubbing attempt by a desperate company) and a sensible approach for anyone getting caught would be to combat it in court. Even pleading guilty to charges, meaning you'd have to pay the court imposed fine + court costs would likely result in a lower total amount.

There is zero chance that the fines would be a deterrent to pirates. Any computer literate person knows how to use proxies when needed and there goes the reliability of any IP detection method.

 

[janjetina]

You say this bolded part as if there were some kind of intrinsic and objective measure for which punishment fits which crime. There is no such thing. This is always a matter of consent (obviously not total consent, but you get the drift). The deterrent factor plays a role in numerous forms of punishment, and it's a given that a deterrent is supposed to be seen as an excessive price for a law violation, otherwise it's mot a deterrent.

The appropriate amount is usually determined by law. Comparing different types of offense by the damage inflicted and using common sense is a guideline for legislators (and judges who are given certain leeway when punishment is issued). Corporations, such as the Polish maker of bad action adventures, are not and should not be in position to determine the punishment, and particularly they should not invoke deterrence factor as that goes far beyond the scope of their authority. Now, a court of law would in this case (given that it's proven) award CDP actual damage + legal costs. What you are talking about are punitive damages, and, according to Wikipedia, they would not apply in cases such as this one, especially in front of the European court:

Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously invidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Patrick Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:
Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
Where a statute expressly authorises the same.
Rookes v Barnard has been much criticised and has not been followed in Canada or Australia or by the Privy Council.
Punitive damages awarded in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.[11][2]

It's also a trade-off. I guess what you see as proper punishment might work in an internet that has something similar like near total control and censorship. In principle, a system of reliance on a few somewhat excessive punishments as warning to others instead of total control seems at least to keep the door to a relatively free internet open. Not that I give the latter much of a chance, but we can at least hope.

There is no total control in legal system. Not every violation of law gets revealed and processed, let alone punished. Should we start handing out out capital punishment for petty crime then?

 

[Kraszu]

If you torrent 20 $50 games and get a letter asking for $150 for one of them, you are still ahead in the game.

So what? If you get caught torrenting those 20 games, you will accumulate a hefty $1000 fine.
Single torrent = single crime -> single punishment, that has to fit the crime. There are no contingency penalties for law violations, in case you have violated the law more than you are charged for and proven guilty.

If you know, beforehand, that your fine will be disproportionally large, and commited the act nevertheless, why the buthurt? You got what you were asking for.

Yes how can you find the law unfair if you know that there are people punished based on this unfair law, perfect logic.