pH7: 1. You're missing the point; it's about offering a quick and easy option as an alternative to going directly to court - which they have every right to do. Just like you and everybody else have the right to file a civil lawsuit against anyone you please.
No, YOU are missing the point - you are interchanging a biased lawyer company who benefits from these settlements with a police officer who is backed by the law. One is doing it to make a buck, the other is doing it because it's his duty to uphold the law. One will use tactics to maximise income, the other won't.
pH7: a) They don't have to be as this is not necessary in order to file a lawsuit against someone.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Who doesn't have to be as what?
pH7: b) Even if I own the game I'm not allowed to pirate it. Pirating isn't the same as playing an illegal copy - it's about sharing (you don't even have to install it yourself) a copy with others. Hence, even if you've bought the game (it just hasn't arrived yet),
they have every right to drag you to court. Pirating isn't always sharing - it can include sharing, but doesn't have to be. You're entitled to a backup in a lot of countries including mine. I can rightfully download a pirated copy although, you're right, I can't share it. That's why I always turn sharing off if I use torrents - or set it so low (1kb/sec) that I barely shared a megabyte or two before the game is down downloading.
If they can prove the people they're sending letters were involved in sharing the game many times over (and not just a tiny fraction of the game), then I actually wouldn't mind as such. However, in past cases this wasn't the case - and since they won't divulge their way of working, how can we not remain sceptical?
pH7: c) I won't argue that some judges are techno-illiterate, but it's pretty clear that most people have no clue about courts either, so it's no wonder one can get baffled by some rulings. I believe it's mainly because people think a judge has the freedom to be lenient the way the offended has; e.g. CDPR dropping the fine against one pirate that had also bought the game - the judge couldn't have done the same as that would be against the laws. Further, people simply aren't aware of how many laws they break and/or don't see it as breaking laws. Even using a trainer on a legally bought game is illegal according to the EULA - I have no idea of how that would turn out in a court, but the developer would actually have a case - which baffles me too on a "human level", although it makes sense(?) in a legal context.
I know all too well how most courts work. A judge is appointed who has to listen to both sides and give a verdict using the evidence offered. The verdict, as you say, has to fit within the confines of the law BUT a judge also has the ability to use reasonable judgement meaning that he can even put laws besides him if there's a just reason for this.
If you own a license to the game and downloaded it (which, as I said, is legal in many places), he's well within his rights to drop the lawsuit - I think you underestimate what judges can do. It's up to the judge to determine the worth of a lawsuit - I doubt the case would ever fully even get to court before getting dropped.
And EULA isn't law - EULA has been thrown out of court before because the EULA agreement is only readable AFTER you bought the game. They then tried to circumvent this by adding a EULA URL on the box where you could read it, but that is still very iffy if you ask me. In the end, it's not even sure how far the EULA would count considering a lot of it breaks consumer laws - especially EU ones (US consumer laws are shitty at best).
pH7: The only viable alternative to sending out those letters is to take uspected filesharers directly to court. How is that any better? I really don't get why people can get so upset when given a better alternative - its existence does not make the original alternative void.
This has been answered before - the point is they shouldn't be doing it like this in the first place - read below for why.
pH7: 2. Actually, in Germany it is that simple. Whoever "owns" the IP (e.g. the landlord) is responsible for everything that IP is used for. Yes, it's a law I hope never will be passed where I live, but it is a law there where thses letters were sent out. If you can document that said IP shared your property illegally, then the owner of the IP will be held responsible, regardless of it being fair or not - it's the law.
Whether it's the law or not, doesn't matter - see, YOU don't get the point. That's exactly the thing - they focussed on Germany because it was much easier to get people to pay up because of this horrible law. Anyone with half a brain knows that it's wrong - old people with an open wifi shouldn't get sued because they're technologically illiterate. Most judges won't even know what an open wifi means or how to close it and they'd expect the average joe on the street to know that?
And THAT is the biggest point - that CD Projekt went after people in a country with this terrible law. That they could attack people using a law that is inherently unfair. In fact, I'll write an article about it on my blog because putting it here would be too long, but the way the current technological world works, means that lawsuits over digital works on small scale should never be punishable except with small fines because of how hard it is to stop people sharing a network or kids or anyone else from committing any sort of copyright breach. I don't think YOU realise how easy it is to break the "law". Even surfing the net and browsing sites automatically makes you a pirate since your browser will cache copyrighted images - that's how utterly insane the current legal system is!
pH7: However, CDPR didn't use what the German legislation served them on a silver platter. Instead of going directly to court - where they'd most likely win because of this law - they contacted the person first, making sure that it was correct, even excusing one person that wouldn't had a chance to prove his "innocence" (he was guilty) in court. There's a lot of guess-work in this case, but that's a fact that shows that CDPR did not assume that accuracy of the method reflected the particular kind of pirates they were after.
Oh dear, now you're being daft - and naive. They focussed on Germany exactly because of the legislation which would mean people are more likely to pay up. It's called "leverage". Look it up.
pH7: Fairytales about MAC adresses? Yes, I know MAC addresses can be changed and even spoofed (wouldn't be much of a point in this context, though), but I also know that less than 1% actually does this on a regular basis. As far as I can tell, you'd have to change your MAC several times during the download of TW2 for it to have any effect. The inconvenience of it alone would be enough for people to rather take their chances in the big legal letter lottery.
Again you miss the point. They claimed their system was waterproof in a statement made before. My point was that there's no way this is true - not that many people use MAC spoofing (which, incidentally, can be done automatically by some of the better torrent programs - IP conceilment as well).
pH7: 3. There's a lot of crap talk, yes, but to me it's more crap coming from the pro-piracy side of it. On one hand you expect CDPR to waive any and all legal rights they have to defend their property if you think it could potentially hurt someone, and on the other hand you reserve the "right" to willfully and knowingly contribute to spreading their property illegally because you yourself don't find it morally objectionable.
Besides the question. WE are their customers, they have to appease us, not the other way around. If they pull a move that pisses off everyone, they have to pay for it. If they talk crap and say nonsensical things, then they are to blame for that.
Honestly, your entire post basically says "I'm missing the point". You're saying a lot of stuff that is true but completely besides the question.
