It is still unclear to me what the naysayers think IP holders (like CDPR etc.) and the law firms representing them should do:

1. Not send the scare letters, but right away sue the people

2. Not care about their IP rights at all but let people freely pirate and share their games

3. Something else.

I'd be fine with #1 (and I propose they'd concentrate on or start with the seeders who seem to be sharing the complete files for longer periods of time), suggesting #2 is plain stupid, sorry.

I don't think anyone was ever suggesting that innocent people should cough up the money demanded in the letter. If I got such a letter for something I didn't do, I'd simply go to the court without a paid lawyer (no lawyer fees) and tell them to GFTS.

CDP said a long time ago that they were going to do this

and Many other Publishers do this as well

Oh I know you aren't. I'm just commenting that as tempting as peer pressure may be, giving in to it (when it leads to unethical behavior) has never been acceptable in my book. Sure, kids want to fit in, but that doesn't mean that their desire to fit in justifies anything they might do in the name of peer pressure. This all goes back to my earlier point. If a kid does not have the money to pay for a game, he has two choices in my book. He can go out and earn the money for that game (babysitting, mowing lawns, etc) or he can save up the money (like gift money) to buy the game when he can afford it. This is, of course, assuming that receiving it as a gift is out of the picture. Pirating, even in the name of peer pressure, is still wrong and just as self-entitled.

Unfortunately, things really aren't that straight here.

1. Yes, blunt IP checks are notoriously unreliable, but if they are using more than a simple blunt check and they actually take the time to track details like specific dates and times that an IP was used and what MAC address used it, rotating IPs become a moot point, as are shared IPs in places like a dorm.

2. Some of these companies are like that, but we have no way of knowing if that is the case here, especially when you consider the source of the story. They are likely to paint any anti-piracy businesses in a bad light simply because they are such a pro-piracy site, when for all we know, these guys are actually ethical about the whole thing.

3. Please, you can easily prove whether or not you download all or simply part of any file, especially on bittorrent. Besides, the burden of proof is on the complainant to prove that you downloaded the whole thing, not on you to prove that you didn't. Though the fact that they seem to be focusing on Germany might indicate the rules in this regard are a little different there.

Having said all that, I personally have no problems with GOG or their parent company doing this, as long as it s done properly. They have always treated their customers fairly and with great respect and for a bunch of dickheads to then turn around a pirate their games... they deserve whatever they will get. If a few innocent people get caught up in it, well, if they are actually innocent, they have nothing to worry about and won't pay a fine anyway, so I fail to see the problem there. Besides, if the lawyers are actually doing their due diligence the number of truly innocent people caught up in this should be minimal or zero.

I keep seeing the "but they said they were going to" response. I realize it's probably offered as a counter to OP's position, which it seems everyone agrees was a little... uh... misinformed. But I'm not sure what comfort it would offer to anyone who might get a letter demanding $1K for a file they never downloaded.
My thoughts were similar, but I think it's important to remember that you really really want a lawyer if you're doing legal stuff, at least in the USA, and that a lot of people can't afford that.

On reflection, I think I would be a lot more comfortable with the practice if the demands weren't so exorbitant. "We think you were downloading our game/music/movie illegally, pay us $100 or go to court" is still extortion, but at least it's extortion on a scale that's accessible to more people and more in line with the losses incurred through the piracy.

Innocence is by no means a sure way to not be punished for a crime. No legal system is without it's flaws and no large prision is without its population who should not be there. Just thought I'd throw that in there. I am not a "greater good" sort of person myself. I don't mean you are or anything. Just thought I'd make it clear that innocent people do pay sometimes.. and to assume they don't, well it should never be assumed so, that's all.

With already a low chance of getting caught, if people knew they would only have to pay a small amount in case of that happening, they'd be even more inclined to pirate. That's counterproductive.

They don't intend to actually sue anyone. Rather, they're using the threat of bringing suit to extort payments from people.

So since the content industry has in their possession what should be nearly the entire US public domain they are thieves? I'm okay with that.

Seriously, how does anyone get off defending people stealing a whole bank while castigating the dude stealing a candy bar? I don't fucking get it.
In the US you own it just as you own your car. You are only prevented from making additional copies for other people, that's all.
Bullshit, scarcity is absolutely relevant. If we suddenly invent food replicators do you actually want people to go hungry over some idea of ownership? Fuck that. And don't say, "it's just entertainment" our species has been reliant on entertainment, art, and game playing for tens of thousands of years. It is actually crucial to both our development and our societies.

We suddenly have the means to do something completely fucking awesome and we want to lock it up because we still have some outmoded idea that everything has to be owned. As far as ideas go it's not even an old concept, it only dates back a couple hundred years.

I write software for a living and I guarantee I get paid to write software that gets given away for free.

Assuming for the moment that we're okay with the industry effecting its own punitive judgments, it just has to be big enough to be a genuine inconvenience to most people. I don't think I've ever seen a posted littering fine > $200, but there's a lot less trash lying around than there was twenty years ago. You don't have to wreck people's finances.

This, there's really nothing wrong with this suggestion. CDPR made a mint on TW2 and will make even more on the XBox 360 release next spring. I don't care how many "pirated copies" there were, they had a video game that iirc sold as well as Dragon Age II.

Shaking pirates down is counterproductive, it actually can alienate your customers. I don't think much of it and many people are here to "support GOG" even if they don't strictly have to. I've spent 100s of dollars on games I already own on GOG. I've gifted games, promoted GOG to friends, etc. That's good will, that's a patronage of sorts. I'm not alone. If GOG loses that they will suffer and I'd prefer that didn't happen over something that just doesn't fucking matter.

So some 16 year old kid plays your game for free, so what? You think he'll be buying a bunch of video games once you shake him down for 1000 Euros? Will his friends? What about his parents? Does it make me want to pre-order new games off GOG when I know I won't get around to playing them for ages? This kind of shit only hurts the industry and especially the companies doing it. No amount of money or intimidation is worth the damage it causes.

The above is my opinion, clearly.
You're lumping a rather wide range of unethical behavior in one category. Kids that set small, furry animals on fire are in a different league from kids to pirate a game to play it. One may need serious counseling to become a productive member of society whereas the other will likely become a good little media consumer when they're grown and have a grown up income and lack of free time.
BS, they'll sue if they have to, otherwise the threats wouldn't work. You think the mafia collects protection money if they don't ruin the shopkeepers' livelihoods when they refuse?

They do intend, given the structure of the settlement, that most of these won't go to court. But if a minority bare their teeth they'll be happy to give them a public thrashing.

Why do you think that? If this was happening in the US, for example, we do not have a loser pays system, it is extremely rare for someone to pay your court fees for you here. Defending this could cost 5-20 grand before you ever saw a courtroom. There's an extremely strong incentive to suck it up and pay the fine, guilty or not, and any US attorney would tell you so.

Eh, I don't remember saying anything about setting animals on fire or even mentioning other forms of crime. All I did was call pirating unethical ... which it is. I'm not trying to be contrary or anything, I just found that one commenter's message on the article to be quite depressing. I do not think that it is out of hand to ask 13 year-olds to take responsibly for their actions and do the right thing. That involves paying for what you want, and not just taking it because "peer pressure" says you need something that you can't afford. I'm a little confused why people are offended by my statement.

I've seen very, very few cases in schemes like this actually go to court, as actually litigating a case quickly eats into the profits the law firm gains through this extortion. There may be one or two cases (that are guaranteed slam dunks) that are pursued to scare everyone else, but from what I've seen in the vast majority of cases where the targeted person fights back the threats are just quietly dropped. Of course, they rely on the people receiving the threats to not know this, so maybe if that starts to change they'll ramp up the litigation a bit to try to scare everyone back into paying without a fight.