It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)You can have faith in CD Project Red again!(146 posts)(146 posts)
(146 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
TheJoe: We had faith in CDP, John Walker didn't.

The moral of the story is: Take Rock, Paper, Shotgun out of your RSS feeds.
Yeah because trying to talk CDPR out of using extortion tactics was totally the wrong thing to do. No. Blinkered faith is where it's at, alright.
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
pH7: 1. There are multiple reasons not taking them directly to court - the lawyers being the only ones really benefitting from it for one - thus it's at most a weak indication of the accuracy of the methods being used.

I don't know german law but here the court doesn't have time to have every little argument dragged to court, thus there are steps that need to be taken before you're even allowed to bring it to court. Regardless, at the point where a letter can be sent out they've already spent a given amount of money; why add even more costs after that when you can accomplish what you set out to do - deterring pirates by showing them that their actions actually may have unpleasant consequences?

If I'm stopped for a speeding violation, I get the option to accept a fine there and then. This fine is smaller than what I'll get if I refuse and it's taken to court. Is this extortion? Not at all, it's recognizing that no one (except lawyers) is really benefitting from flooding the legal system with minor transgressions, offering a quick and easy solution.

The way you put it, it sounds like you'd prefer it if CDPR immediately dragged people to court rather than attempting to resolve the issue (one way or the other) at an early (and inexpensive) stage. I really don't see how that'd be an improvement - other than getting rid of the false extortion label.
Long reply incoming:

A speeding violation is done by a police officer who is qualified to make a judgement. Only in rare cases will the court make an exception and even then, it's even more rare for the judge to agree that the speeding violation was wrong. Rather, there will be circumstances where the fine will be waved - like driving an injured person to the hospital.

Here, things are very different:
a) the company involved is NOT qualified to judge and are, in fact, the ones that collect the evidence instead of an impartial source

b) they assume you're guilty without extenuating circumstances, something that they can't possible know about. For example, you bought the game but pirated it because you couldn't wait until it arrived in the mail (as was the case with me) or you just wanted the crack.

c) the fine is kept lower than what it would normally cost in court to avoid people going to court. This works both ways: if you're guilty, it's cheaper than getting sued in court BUT if you're innocent or if there's extenuating circumstances, it's suddenly impossible to prove you're innocent without it potentially costing you a lot of money - and courts are notorious for being techno-illiterate so you never know how the sentence will be. There's been cases where people have been baffled by how completely wrong the sentence was because the judge was totally out of his depth but that doesn't stop their ego from still saying a verdict ...

So you see, matters aren't that simple. CD Projekt can claim they have a fool proof method but the truth is that this is not possible. There's no such thing - you'll ALWAYS have shared IP in dorm rooms for example so say the landlord is the one who is officially the one who signed the contract with the ISP, he'd be the one having to pay the bill and there would be no way to prove who exactly did the downloading. Don't believe fairy tales - even MAC addresses can be spoofed with ease and even then, only the police seizing goods could clarify matters.

In short, they're talking crap and anyone with half a clue about how such things works knows that. They were just talking PR crap which is another reason why they ticked me off - they made a big mistake and then hid behind PR nonsense saying they were absolutely sure only guilty people paid up.

avatar
pH7: 2. You don't have to be very adept at human psychology to see that such a "strategy" would fail. Good news never travel as fast as bad news and scandalous/outrighteous hearsay. It's not cynicism that makes you suggest this, though.
Agreed - it was definitely NOT their idea to have a public backlash. That only works with moves that are mildly unpopular (like adding DRM) but not stuff that people actually find horrible like this.
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
paralipsis: I am relieved to hear that CDPR has ceased using ethically dubious methods to go after pirates. The whole process drifted far too close to the realm of blackmail to sit well with me.

I'm similarly not comfortable with being labelled pro-piracy for disapproving of CDPR's actions. But piracy and all that is associated with it are sticky enough issues that I understand how it could become an emotive matter. Still, it doesn't seem to further the debate much by doing so.
That's semantic bullshit. You say you're not in favor of piracy, but you disapprove of pretty much the only tool that CDPR has to combat piracy. I remember when copyright was effectively not enforced for software and piracy was rampant because there were no consequences. The company wasn't hurt beyond lost sales and chances are they had no idea who was pirating their materials. CDPR was quite clear over a year ago that they would be sending out these sorts of letters to people that were caught pirating the game.

What you're suggesting may as well be pro-pirate as it certainly doesn't affirm the publisher's right to enforce its ownership of the copyright. Now, if the game was 30 years old, I'd probably be inclined to agree, but this game is still quite new and lastly, CDPR has bent over backwards for the customer base shurgging off piracy to release a DRM free game. It does not behoove them to not enforce their rights for future times when they're negotiating for new IP to use.
avatar
hedwards: Honestly, there isn't really any difference there. It reminds me of a sketch from The State where the guys are in prison and asked by the warden not to walk through that large open gate and to consider it "off limits." Well one of the guys does walk out because there's nothing to stop him from doing it.

This is really the same thing, giving lip service to not being pro-piracy, but arguing against the only enforcement possible is really a matter of semantics. At this point we have no reason to believe that CDPR was going beyond reasonable means to enforce its rights and that the list wasn't cleaned of people that hadn't done anything wrong.
avatar
HGiles: Actually, at least one statement from CDPR admitted that they had targeted at least one innocent person. Given what we do know about potential piracy-tracking techniques, it's very reasonable to assume that other innocents were targeted also.

CDPR's "100% of people targeted are pirates" statements were bald-faced lies and contradicted by later statements. Now, they may have had a very high rate of people who paid up, but frankly if the average person gets a letter threatening them with a lawsuit, they're going to pay up. That's why this is compared to extortion. It's very different from being stopped by a policeman and given a ticket - the police have to have court-worthy evidence, provide you with a court date & a lot of specific information. Your accuser is there face-to-face with you, the fine in question is much, much lower and the proof is reliable. CDPR just sent out threatening letters and let the cash roll in.

This isn't the only possible enforcement measure - gimped games come to mind, releasing a free demo would knock out the try-before-buy segment. And isn't CDPR's whole position that enforcing against pirates is wasteful?
A few things. One if that one person genuinely didn't pirate the materials, that's still way within the margin for error on what would expect from any sort of enforcement action. One out of several thousand letters is actually pretty impressive if you think about it, and it's easy enough for them to just stop pursuing things at the point of notification. It also doesn't necessarily deal with other possibilities like somebody else using that computer to download or seed the game.

Secondly, did CDPR file suit against the individual when informed of the error or not? You don't typically have to send a check immediately on letters like that, normally you do have the opportunity to consult with an attorney or notify them that you didn't pirate the copy.

And lastly, as WBGhiro mentioned, didn't that guy admit to pirating the game?

Sounds to me like CDPR was being quite light with the demands when all is said and done, which is probably why they were so confident about their accuracy. Personally, the only coverage I've seen has been from pro-piracy sites and even that hasn't been particularly compelling as far as supporting the CDPR shouldn't enforce its rights cause.

Additionally, none of those mechanisms actually work for piracy, they make it marginally less convenient for pirates to rationalize piracy, but a demo isn't enough to really know if a game is going to work on a particular computer in many cases.

And they never said that enforcing against pirates was wasteful. They were incredibly clear about their intention to enforce their rights, just not in a way that would hurt people that had bought the game. I have no idea where people got the idea that CDPR was cool with piracy or wasn't going to enforce its rights, but they've been on record for over a year that this was coming.
Post edited January 12, 2012 by hedwards
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
paralipsis: I am relieved to hear that CDPR has ceased using ethically dubious methods to go after pirates. The whole process drifted far too close to the realm of blackmail to sit well with me.

I'm similarly not comfortable with being labelled pro-piracy for disapproving of CDPR's actions. But piracy and all that is associated with it are sticky enough issues that I understand how it could become an emotive matter. Still, it doesn't seem to further the debate much by doing so.
avatar
hedwards: That's semantic bullshit. You say you're not in favor of piracy, but you disapprove of pretty much the only tool that CDPR has to combat piracy. I remember when copyright was effectively not enforced for software and piracy was rampant because there were no consequences. The company wasn't hurt beyond lost sales and chances are they had no idea who was pirating their materials. CDPR was quite clear over a year ago that they would be sending out these sorts of letters to people that were caught pirating the game.

What you're suggesting may as well be pro-pirate as it certainly doesn't affirm the publisher's right to enforce its ownership of the copyright. Now, if the game was 30 years old, I'd probably be inclined to agree, but this game is still quite new and lastly, CDPR has bent over backwards for the customer base shurgging off piracy to release a DRM free game. It does not behoove them to not enforce their rights for future times when they're negotiating for new IP to use.
There is a clear and unequivocal distinction between disapproving of enforcement methods and tacit approval of the illegal action. It is absolutely not "semantic bullshit". To equate the two as the same muddies the debate in an immature way.
Posted January 12, 2012
Great news.
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
PoSSeSSeDCoW: There was a news story a couple of weeks ago about how IP addresses, assigned to the RIAA, were used to torrent copyrighted materials. The RIAA later came out and said that the IP address was not in use by them, so someone else must have used their IP to torrent materials. I was just making fun of them using a defense that they actively argue against in court.
avatar
hedwards: The RIAA had serious problems with credibility. I don't personally like this sort of enforcement, but CDPR doesn't have the history of abusing the process that the RIAA, MPAA and various other trade groups do.

I wasn't completely opposed to the RIAA enforcement at first, but it became very obvious, very quickly that they weren't at all concerned with the law. They were using unlicensed investigators and weren't bothering to investigate other possibilities once they had a name that seem to sort of match.

If CDPR had been doing that sort of thing, I would definitely be boycotting them as well, but up until now the only allegations I've seen are from pirates without any sort of documentation or corroborating evidence to suggest that there's anything shady going on with the enforcement. In fact I haven't even seen anybody who was willing to speak on the record about it other than from CDPR.
That attitude is certainly understandable.

I definitely don't like the entitled attitude that many people in the gaming community seem to have - if there's some perceived slight against them, they view it as grounds for pirating that company's software, which only has a negative effect on gaming on the whole.
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
gyokzoli: Splendid: CD Projekt To Stop Legal Threats
Now I am starting to loose my faith. I want them to start shooting ah fighting pirates again this very moment. :)

No, it was probably a waste of money but I liked the moment of fear that they may have induced in the pirates minds.
Post edited January 12, 2012 by Trilarion
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
paralipsis: There is a clear and unequivocal distinction between disapproving of enforcement methods and tacit approval of the illegal action. It is absolutely not "semantic bullshit". To equate the two as the same muddies the debate in an immature way.
Precisely. "I don't condone piracy" and "I don't condone blackmail" are not mutually exclusive statements. It's perfectly possible to be against both. Personally, I'm a little worried about all the people here who do seem to condone blackmail.

The end doesn't justify the means.
Posted January 12, 2012
I agree with Wishbone and Paralipsis. And there's simply no way to directly combat piracy on a large scale without innocents getting caught in the crossfire. Only way to know if someone really did pirate software is if you take a look at what's on their PC, and even then, they might still actually own the game and they just decided to grab a pirate version for whatever reason.

You'll never be able to get rid of pirates by trying to punish them. Only thing you can do is try positive reinforcement for those who do purchase legit copies. It's not something that tends to come naturally to most people, but it's the only way to make real lasting progress against piracy.
Post edited January 12, 2012 by KingOfDust
Posted January 12, 2012
I never lost faith in the first place.
Posted January 12, 2012
YES! Thank you!

I would have never thought that was possible. A great move bye CDP and a big FUCK YOU to this lawyer scum! I'm going on a weekend alcohol binge anyway, so this is really a good time for me (an alcohol binge with lawyers, funny enough).

So, what am I going to buy now :-D.....
Posted January 12, 2012
Great, now there will be no consequences for pirating CDPR's titles. What a "victory" for all the whiners, leechers and moochers.
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
Wishbone: The end doesn't justify the means.
If there was a less fallible way of tracking pirates. If there was more focus on legal proceedings and if it all seemed less seemed less like a quick cash grab then... well that's already far too many ifs, isn't it?

It's good that they put a stop to this. Perhaps I'd have preferred that they did it because of a change of heart rather than the risk of losing support. But it has stopped. That's the main thing.
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
Red_Avatar: b) they assume you're guilty without extenuating circumstances, something that they can't possible know about. For example, you bought the game but pirated it because you couldn't wait until it arrived in the mail (as was the case with me) or you just wanted the crack.
Do you also rob a bank because you don't want to wait for your next paycheck? Sorry, this argument is utter self entitled bullshit. You don't need a crack for a DRM free game. That's the whole point.


On topic, I'm disappointed about this result but I'm certainly not going to fly off the handle and boycott GOG like people did in the reverse. It just sucks that the majority of the frothing backlash was caused by pro-piracy sources making this seems like a victory for pirates, and a loss for CDPR and the customers who actually bought the game.
Posted January 12, 2012
avatar
reaver894: People will still bitch about it because they did it in the first place, Its a catch 22 situation.
Actually, whether it was only due to pressure or not, they did the right thing by their fans and that counts for something in my book.
avatar
PenutBrittle: On topic, I'm disappointed about this result but I'm certainly not going to fly off the handle and boycott GOG like people did in the reverse. It just sucks that the majority of the frothing backlash was caused by pro-piracy sources making this seems like a victory for pirates, and a loss for CDPR and the customers who actually bought the game.
I bought the game and I consider this a win for everyone, fyi.
Post edited January 12, 2012 by orcishgamer
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)You can have faith in CD Project Red again!(146 posts)(146 posts)
(146 posts)