http://kotaku.com/5868672/witcher-devs-playing-judge-jury--executioner-with-alleged-pirates
You wanted a "more official source"? Here you go.

And here's a Eurogamer link, too.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-12-15-cd-projekt-responds-to-demanding-nearly-and-8364-1000-from-alleged-pirates

Which are just reposts of the original blogpost with no further research done. Yeah, online journalism at its best.

So you write an extremely abusive post about GOG, who have *nothing* to do with the alleged legal action, then post 'proof'' which is just rehashing the same information ? You returned, so your outrage has a time limit ?

My outrage is far from over. It's the "last time" I am commenting on other forum topics and the "last time" I'm buying from GOG or CD Projekt (unless they change their tune and release an apology), but of course I still need to follow up on this particular topic, since many of you can't seem to accept Torrent Freak as a legitimate source, and since many more blindly defend CD Projekt just because they did something right with their DRM free policies.

I'm not defending CD Projekt, and what they may, or may not, be doing.

I will, and do, stand up for GOG, who have nothing to do with the actions of the parent company.

They certainly didn't deserve the crap you laid at their door in your initial post.

I've just finished reading the entire thread.

I approve of the posts by orcishgamer and red_avatar. They seem to have the right idea.

I was disappointed at the number of posters who thought such tactics were ok and either discounted the harm done by chasing innocent people or thought it was acceptable in order to catch the pirates.

Only the other day I was railing against steam for having downtime and saying how I'd be more likely to buy a game on gog rather than steam if I had the choice. Now it's swung back the other way again. At least there was nothing malicious about steam.

I accept that this is not gog but the parent company that we are talking about, but that doesn't matter much to me, I'm still disappointed and wary. I feel that supporting gog is indirectly supporting CDP.

You're upset that innocent people may be affected by the legal action, but it 'doesn't matter much' to you that the people who work for GOG are *also* innocent in all this ? Okay....

There's a difference between innocent people being harassed for money they don't owe and gog losing potential sales to me because I associate them with CDP.

I don't know if you really can't see that or you're just being deliberately feisty.

And the proof that innocent people are being harassed is where, exactly?

Actually, the Eurogamer one seems to include an actual response from CDP, not just a repost of the original article, and that response, with that same "oh noes, piracy hurts the industry so much, oh dear or dear what else could we do???" lines we hear from the "bad guys" elsewhere as well, only makes it even worse.

As for GOG having nothing to do with their parent company, what about this: Will GOG post and release an official statement delimiting themselves from any and all such actions and stating that they do not approve of them? IF and when they do that, we can say that they have nothing to do with it.

They have. In that other thread about the subject.

Hm, never checked that one.... *scans for blue posts* All I see is a sort of "it wasn't me", not a clear delimitation and certainly no statement of disapproval. But if I missed it, do link, since I just glanced through very quickly for just the blue posts.

Just click on the ! next to the thread, you'll get every staff post.

http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/cd_projekt_red_goes_after_file_sharers_riaa_mpaa_style/?staff=yes

One of the blue post (one of the most recent) explained the distinction between GOG, CDprojekt and CDproject Red (according to GOG, they're the culprit).

Ah, thanks. New here, didn't know that :) (Didn't show me anything I hadn't noticed though.)

Yes, saw that one, but as I said it just specifies that they didn't do it, the only comment they made about the action itself being in the first one, where they say it'd be inappropriate for them to comment on the actions of another company. Wanted them to decide it is appropriate to say they're against such actions...