CD Projekt to fine Witcher 2 pirates
Developer CD Projekt has said it will pursue fine against those who pirate The Witcher 2.
Speaking in an interview with Eurogamer, CD Projekt co-founder Marcin Iwiński said that the company would protect the game, which will ship without DRM, by seeking legal action against pirates.
CD Projekt has previously alleged that other publishers are scared to stop using DRM, despite the fact that it arguably doesn't work very well.
'Of course we’re not happy when people are pirating our games, so we are signing with legal firms and torrent sneaking companies,' said Marcin.
'In quite a few big countries, when people are downloading it illegally they can expect a letter from a legal firm saying, "Hey, you downloaded it illegally and right now you have to pay a fine."’
CD Projekt recently started accepting pre-orders for The Witcher 2, with attractive deals offered through digital stores such as GoodOldGames. Check out our own Witcher 2 interview for more information on the game, then let us know your thoughts in the forums.
Previous Article
139 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyDidn't need a threat to get my money, after the insane amount of hours I spent in The Witcher, despite the abhorrent tages system that was in there at first.
I didn't even play the first iteration but I may go out and buy Witcher 2 just to support them.
No DRM? Good.
Going after pirates? Good.
Wish them success.
And under which law will they be allowed to get ANY personal details from ISPs?
It's a no brainer really.
They wouldn't, but they can pass on the details they DO get (IP, etc) to the police, who can then subpoena the ISP for information. It's a precedent that has been set by the music industry, so there is already procedure in place.
On a side note, i saw the preorder page on gog.com, they REALLY sweetened that deal. If i was the slightest bit interrested in the Witcher i'd jump on that opportunity.
when most of the games that are realised now you need really pwoerfull £4-500 pc's to fully enjoy surely they can afford to fork out £20-40 for a game and if they dont like it return it
They are addicted to the hype.
The game is being released *without DRM*. That's all any of us really ask for. If people still want to pirate a high-calibre, DRM-free game (and I don't doubt that they will), it seems a bit daft to be still complaining about the situation.
It just makes people sound pathetic. "Yes, we want a DRM free game, it's the future. It's better for purchasers. Oh, and when you're finished with that DRM game, we don't want you to go after pirates. Any pirates at all. Just let them enjoy their stolen game, it doesn't matter."
Effectively then, they want a game that will see a 0-day pirate release, installable as soon as the disc is ripped and uploaded to the web, and they want to play it for months on end with complete immunity.
That's not what they say when there's an argument about piracy on a forum.
And there are currently so many requests that the police has just simply stopped trying to keep up, we are still talking less than 1 % in which any action is taken. largely due to the police only going after the worst of them. The average pirate still has nothing to fear.
i mean, heck, i mightve downloaded a pirated game or two in the past, so i can relate to laughing at any of these futile matters...
...but its Witcher 2. A great game that i would definitely spend the money on, and now theyre saying its no DRM.
definitely all the positive energy to them if they want to catch them pirates.
and thank you for making this game non-DRM.
And I'm very gratefull for them attempting it. ;)
The guys of the company are awesome, they did everything they can to continuously fix bugs and improve the game. They released an "Enhanced edition" of the game with major bug fixes, new stories, all game music's in MP3 with a few more things. You think you have to go in the store to buy it, but nope. They made it so that The Witcher normal edition users can simply download the whole package, making everyone copy the full Enhanced edition. And I find that very generous from them.
And now that the The Witcher 2 is DRM free, we should all take side and purchase the game to encourage DRM free games. I know there is always pirates.. but if there is games that shows less pirating because it's DRM free, and more successful, then it might start a wave of having games without DRM, and call it an end to this system. Even if you don't like this style of game, you should buy it. Remember, we vote with our wallet. Publishers (probably Atari like the first one) doesn't look at your comments to judge if game is successful or not. They look at how much money it brought in to the publisher and developer.
Also, I don't know about you guys, but I am sick of all the re-ash FPS games that tries to be like Call of Duty, as everyone tries to cash in the crave. We should promote this. I am afraid that soon 99% of the games that will come out will be just ANOTHER FPS.
*Groan* I think you need a new dictionary.
Their methods are a bit unorthodox at times and their PR can be a bit.. strange.. but I find it very, very hard to see the fairness in comparing them to music labels in this situation.
Music labels rip us off with albums that cost ridiculous sums of money for what we get and sue indiscriminately to make money. CD Projekt on the other hand, are giving some extremely reasonable prices and deals for the release of this game and doing so without DRM as a policy on their part.
If they catch a few pirates and put people off stealing from them when they typically treat their customers far better than most companies out there, I say more power to them.
Seriously? Why do people still pretend piracy and stealing are the same thing? If we use your logic, assault and attempted murder are also the same thing. :(
Yeah, I'm thinking of buying a copy of this game (even though the game doesn't even appeal to me) just to support these guys.
I would like to see the complete end to DRM. It doesn't work, and in some cases of extremely inconveniencing DRM (Ubisoft), it forces people, who wouldn't normally pirate, to pirate the games.
Some of the original uploaders of these pirated games are well-known pirates, and should be taken out. We all know how difficult it is to track down pirates and casual pirates, but this company is taking the right steps forward, especially in terms of respecting its loyal paying customers.
So are you saying that assault is OK? :|
While you're at that, I'm going to go copyright air and fine you all for illegally breathing it.
*Groan* not this again....
Any way Assault and Attempted murder are both criminal offences so by your stupid analogy they are the same thing. Stealing is a criminal offence copy right infringement is a civil matter and are handled quite differently.
And in a attempt to stop this thread going completely of the rails, good on them for dropping any DRM plans and while i could live with out threats I realise they're not aimed at me since its been a while since i've pirated any games, hell its been a while since i had time to play the ones i bought in the last steam sale....
I know the difference between assault and attempted murder, but the people who claim piracy and stealing are the same thing are essentially pretending they're the same to invoke an emotional response. By my "stupid" analogy, attempted murder and assault aren't the same thing at all just because they're criminal offences, otherwise attempted murder and stealing would also be "the same thing" what with them both being criminal offences.
I will put my name to that, it costs you less to assault someone than to pirate a game/song/video. ;)
My ears perked up when I read DRM free. I might actually buy this if it gets good reviews. :p
Course if it doesn't get a good review (on bit-tech), I won't bother with it at all, and mark DRM free hype as a negative and clever PR to lure the punters in.
Their point was that they can't really fine you for it, in most places, downloading copyrighted content is a civil issue, there's nothing CD Projekt could realistically do about it.
It's great that they're finally getting rid of DRM, but the "we'll fine you for downloading our games", I see absolutely no need for them to say that because for the most part they can't.
That's what you got from my post? :?
If you want to put it that way though, the likes of the RIAA and MPAA seem to think copyright infringement is worse than assault...
I don't see them getting very far with that.
Unfortunately this may actually lead to the game being pirated even more as there is nothing physically preventing it any more (at least needs "cracking"). The threat of fines is probably not even on a pirates mind.
I do hope they suceed though, despite not liking the first Witcher game personally I could see the attraction it had to others.
You analogy does not fit with the "stealing" of games logic:
Assault and attempted murder can be two separate things. They are both crimes, but you can assault someone with or without attempting to kill them. You may just want to hurt them a bit.
Piracy is stealing, because you have taken (or downloaded) a product that you have not paid for. It's not half stealing or borrowing, it is stealing. There's not much difference to walking into a high street store and taking a retail copy of the game off the shelf, then walking out of the store and saying you're just borrowing it to see if you like it. The only reason "stealing" is more popular on the internet is because it's far easier to do, and your fear of being caught and prosecuted is a lot less.
The fact is that the copyright of these games is usually owned by the publisher. A copy-"right" is a legal right which is automatically granted to the game developer, who then may give over the rights to a publisher to invest their money into marketing and making copies of it for financial profit.
Now, whether the product exists as a boxed retail product or a digital copy online, doesn't matter. The fact is that the publisher owns the copyright and if you take a "copy" of the product and that copy has not been paid for, then it is stealing.
It's nothing to do with trying to invoke an emotional response, it's stealing, and that is a legal fact.
No, not really, just trolling tbh. I'm sick of bad piracy analogies.
I think this is what will happen and be kept outside the media. The fine will be Lawyer cost + full price of the game + some minor fee to cover the time of any employee in the company that had to work on the case (if any), and possibly a bit more for profit. Maybe 1 000$ fine, negotiable down to 800$. Which is actually smart. It leaves a message, most people can afford it (e.g: not declare bankruptcy or be in debt for life). No mater the amount, my point is that I doubt it, that it will be like the music industry "Oh, you pirated 1 song... so see you in court. No fine, your going to court, and we going after all you have, and all you will have including that tuna can for the rest of your life! Wait what's that? not-guilty? You don't even have a computer? Ooohoh! Then we will sue you for terrorizing the artist at an emotional level by not buying that 1 song.. that is a full penny we won't get.. heuumm we mean discourage from making music ever again... you are now a terrorist!".
Do you think the terminology behind it matters to those who do it? It really doesn't, it's just tiresome when people go on about piracy = theft when it doesn't, it's piracy.
For me to say assault and attempted murder aren't the same thing, does it make me guilty of one of them?
Yes what? :(
Indeed, and he finds many ways to excuse he's or she gesture.
No mater how you put it, at the end of the day, it's still less money for the developers, or unable to hire more people to make better software due the lack of money. Remember kids, a company needs to satisfied it's shareholder, investors, have profits, and have a reserve of several millions of dollars in research and developer of a new software, and several millions put a side as a reserve in the case a software doesn't work... they have money to fix it, improve it, or make something else as a last resort.
Did Nvidia close it's doors despite the poor sale of Fermi, lack of contracts for Tegra chip, if rumor where true, possibly lost a contract with Nintendo to use Tegra 2 chip on the 3DS, and the inability to sale their several hundred million dollar investment they put for the Core i series chipset which they can not sale because Intel wants the monopoly. No! Why? Because the company has a huge amount of money put aside in the case of emergency situation like these. Every company of any size has and needs one, else they don't make it.
That is why companies, especially small ones needs every as much sale as possible, to build this safety reeves, to grow, to put more money in games to make them better.
Pirating a game and not paying it at the end of the day.. no mater what you put it, it is still less money for the developers that worked on the game and/or company.
Challenging some one claiming piracy = theft doesn't mean I don't buy my games...
In fact, I'd say I buy a lot more games than most people do. I've probably got around 400 games between PC, PS3, Wii and handhelds...
So if i code a system for a client and he manages to download a copy from my machine when i'm not looking and starts using it without paying me is that fine?! By some people's logic in this thread I had no rights to the system in the first place.
The witcher team are practically an indie studio, and deserve as much support as they can get, they truly have treated PC gamers with the utmost respect and so need to be supported. If people just pirate the crap out of the game then bye bye studio...
Personally I'm sick of endless sequels and mindless consolized games, companies that actually try do something different need to be supported... For example look at dragon age, DA2 is being consolized why? well cause it sold better... Out of the ~15 guys i know that played and loved it, only 2 of us bought it... Those same pirates are the ones bitching about it getting consolized... obviously irony escapes them...
Yes you're an attempted assault murderer pirate.
Are you for real?
We know that internet pirates usually invent all kinds of crazy analogies, and play around with the meaning of words in order to justify what they do. So here's a web link that can direct you towards gaining some understanding of "copyrights" - I have posted it knowing you may not read it, but just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Do you really think that just because there exists a specific technical term, such as "copyright infringement", to describe a particular form of theft, that it means it's not theft or "stealing"?
You are stealing a copy of a game.
Would you also think that if a person is only taken to a "civil" small claims court for stealing, say his friends XBOX controller, that it's not the same as "stealing"?
Stealing a copy of a video game is "stealing", whether you are prosecuted as a criminal or given a small fine via a civil court.
Oh by the way, if you won a copy of your game or if it was given to you as a gift, then you haven't stolen it. It was probably purchased by the person who gave it to you as a gift, unless they stole it. Nice try, but it's not a good analogy or whatever it was supposed to be.
And no, game designers do not think the second hand games market is the same as piracy. Yes, they do want to control that market, but remember, those copies of second hand games were purchased by the original gamer. So the second hand games are usually not stolen games. The second hand sale is not illegal at all, unless it specifically says on the game that you have purchased this game with the acceptance that selling it on to a second person is prohibited.
Just in case you try to be smart and reply saying that the pirated games uploaded to certain websites were legally purchased by the original pirate, it's not the same thing. This is because that original pirate uploader is effectively making many copies of that one game to distribute to potentially millions of gamers around the world. If on the other hand, he took advantage of the copyright law's fair usage aspects, and only decided to make two or three copies of the game at home for himself and his own convenience, then that is a big difference to uploading a cracked version of his game to a website that millions of people could download. He would be blatantly violating the game publishers copyright. It doesn't matter if he is making a financial profit from this or not. He does not have the right or permission from the copyright owner to make copies of the game for the public.
Each of the millions of home downloading pirates are all "stealing" because they are acquiring an illegal copy of the game that has not been paid for.
This is by far the most ridiculous statement i have heard in any conversation about piracy, including both pro and contra arguments. I can't even troll this, it just boggles my mind.
You better get yourself on a high horse right now :)
No it's not the same as borrowing your friend's copy. But I suppose it is if that's what you have convinced yourself.
Fact: The copyright owner does not necessarily need to be interested in financial benefits from his copyright of his product. So that means your "logic" regarding whether or not there has been some kind of financial loss as a result of piracy is irrelevant. You have stolen a copy of the game that was not paid for and you had no permission from the copyright owner. Simples. It's theft. :D
Piracy is AKIN to stealing. You get a copy of a game for free, and break the law in the process. Call it copyright infringement or theft, you're still breaking the law, and a MASSIVE dick for it. If your boss got you to work for a week, then didn't pay you, you'd be angry too, right? Probably take him to court...
I've got no problems with cracks for draconian DRM, as long as they serve a purpose beyond piracy ie not needing a constant internet connection a la Assassin's Creed 2. However, the game in question has no DRM whatsoever. None. Not even something like a CD key.
There's no anti-DRM crusade here, there's no "sticking it to horrible publishers and their insidious ways" going on - this is a bunch of worthless law-breaking scumbags stealing from honest people who are trying to open everything up so you don't get stuck with horrendous DRM, and the paying customer isn't punished..
Not only that, but these guys are offering a massive pack of downloads with every free pre-order, and if you buy the game at a higher price than the US version, in whatever currency, they give you free games and store credit to make up for it. How is that anything but perfect?
And, to every pirate troll whining about them taking legal actions against your sorry thief asses, please go and choke on bile. You people make me sick.
I'm with you on that, the very fact they're offering it DRM free should be commended!!
Yeah I can't argue with that either; not an easy task and talk like that is, unfortunately, like a red rag to a bull. The bull being people who don't believe in paying for the hard work and effort of others.
if you in the uk the digital economy act would be enforced, which means a couple of letters, from the isp, and then the copyright holder can request details, via a court order
Now about the fining pirates, no problemo, about no DRM, couldn't care less to be honest, either way both cost a lot of money being thrown in the wrong direction, I'm not saying piracy isn't a problem & I sure as hell don't know a good solution as some people will pirate even the best game ever made which really bugs me as it stops some outstanding games from ever being PC exclusives, people who pirate are really short sighted & have no love for pc gaming.
If I like the look of a game I just buy it, if I don't then forget it :), but all games should have demos & gameplay videos not cinematic trailers to make it look way cooler than it is, so you can at least get a rough idea of if you'll like it or not, I picked up the witcher in a steam sale so no real loss :).
Now Two Worlds 2, bought that the other day & is the best looking action/rpg I played & been enjoying it since, heaps better than the first one which is why I still have hopes for the witcher 2, it's gone & proven sequels are sometimes way better than the original :), honestly for an RPG it is eye poppingly good looking, bought it through a german proxy trick since it's not available to UK yet & happy I did :D.
Apparently The Witcher 2 is more action than RPG. And that every decision you pick get you to a different path (if the trailer is to be believed), so I think it will please you better. The Witcher 1 game style kinda depended on what difficulty you played. If you played easy you had less of an RPG element taking a part of the game. If you played hard you better know your potions and equip the best weapon you have and so on, very RPG'ish. But the battle is the same though. And they are using a different engine... personally I find that a good idea as the Unreal engine didn't seam to fit quiet well for such game style.
Tim
I'd just like to point out that here in little old mauritius 1000$ will put you in debt for quite a while.
1000$ is 5 full months of the minimum legal salary.
And a 50$ game is a 3rd of that salary.
(Not justifying piracy here, just giving you a sense of proportion)
Please try to understand: copying a game != stealing. A copied game != lost sale.
Please try and understand: copying a game = the publisher will more likely shaft future paying customers with DRM and/or move the game to console only.
While I understand that getting a "demo" (so to speak) doesn't always equal a lost sale; 99.9% of the time it does.
Maybe it's the language barrier that's adding to my confusion. Would you mind explaining how CDPR wanting to take legal action and trying to ensure their livelihood is "bully tactics"?
Personally I enjoyed the 1st Witcher immensely and pre-ordered a copy of Witcher 2 as soon as I got the GOG email. If I could afford it, I'd buy 50 copies of Witcher 2 just because it's DRM free...
Unfortunately this assumes that everyone who pirates the games would otherwise have bought it had it not been available to pirate.
Would it not be safe to assume (in general - obviously there are exceptions) that those whose pirate are doing so because they are unwilling (or simply refuse) to pay for the game.
99.9% where did you pluck that from ?
Not sure about the rest of the world, but in SA when someone says something happens "99.9% of the time" it's means "for the most part" or something to that extent.
I merely meant that if someone pirated a game, they normally don't do it just to see if they'd like the game before rushing out to buy a legal copy of it. Sure, there are people who do pirate it to see if they want to buy it, but they're vastly outnumbered by those who simply pirate it because they can.
I didn't mean to drag ACTUAL statistics into the discussion...
I stopped calling them pirates or thieves and just call them parasites.
They take advantage of the established system of developer/publisher/consumer and just parasite it, contributing nothing for it and harming the sustainability of it.
Always entertaining reading the justifications they give for their actions, though.
Also, piracy is not theft. There are similarities between them, just like there are similarities between forks and combs, but they are not the same thing.
@Impar: How about we just call them copyright infringers, as that is the most accurate term.
Yeah, maybe I should not have stated it as a Legal Fact, because that can be quite misleading. Especially to those who will focus and seek to disprove the "Legal Fact" point due to an inbuilt guilt or stone cold determination to justify their piracy habits. :)
Whether or not the Law covers their specific behaviour, or they manage to find some kind of loophole in the Law, technically, they are still stealing.
Now, you know and I know that laws can have grey areas and don't always totally fit the Dictionary Definition of words they may cover, or partially cover.
On top of that, the problem of Law definitions is that different Lands and Jurisdictions have slightly different definitions of what their Law covers. Again, further complicating the situation, which is why it's not so much about which Law covers your act of theft, but the fact you have a game sitting on your PC that you did not pay for.
If there was no internet, and no pirated game available anywhere on DVD, it would be likely that the only way you would have ended up with that 'FREE' game on your PC is if you walked into a high street store and took it from the shelf.
Now, just because we are dealing mostly with the act of taking the games via modern day technology, such as via the internet cyberspace, and you no longer need to steal it from a shop, doesn't change the fact that you have stolen something that did not belong to you.
What is the Dictionary Definition of Theft? "THEFT = Stealing of property: the stealing of somebody elses property".
What is the definition of theft defined under the Law?
What is Burglary? Certain Jurisdictions say Burglary can cover Trespassing and Theft
What is Fraud? The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. There are many types of fraud. Some cover various types of theft via deception or trickery.
What is Joyriding? It's to drive around in a stolen car.
Different types of theft.
Now, the fact that we have a specific law covering copyright infringement instead of just using the Theft Law does not prove that copyright infringement is not theft.
The reason we need a whole new specific copyright law is because we must detail and set the terms for the many complex areas of copyright ownership, including the many areas and scenarios that may or may not cover what the Theft Laws deal with.
How did that game get on your PC?
It's entirely up to you if you want to convince yourself that it's not theft because you didn't burgle a property or rob a shop in order to get it.
It's also up to you if you want to believe that quote you gave about the nonsense that: "when you make a copy of the data that makes up a copyright works, you're not really copying anything, because the arrangement of bits on a storage medium, is not even guaranteed to be the same". What kind of logic is that? It does not matter whether the bits of data are stored exactly as the original copy, you are still copying a game. And, even if the original pirate uploaded a copy that he did purchase legitimately, you have now downloaded a copy of the file that remains on the internet server for millions of other people to download copies from.
You can convince yourself that it is not theft because only the laws regarding "copyright infringement" would apply rather than the Theft Law. Even though the laws covering "copyright infringement do actually cover some areas of theft. In this case, the theft of the owners work, or the theft of a "copy" of the owner's work.
So, it's simple ... If you have a copy of a full video game installed on your PC that you did not pay for, win in a prize or something, and fair usage rights don't apply in your situation, and you did not get the copyright owner's permission to take that copy, then you stole it. It doesn't matter whether or not you took the copy from a high street shop or you took it from cyberspace, you stole it. You took something that doesn't and shouldn't belong to you.
simples
Exactly, "copyright infringers" is indeed the most accurate "Legal" term.
;)
The type of "Copyright Infringement", in this particular case, is the act of taking (stealing) a copy of a game that does not belong to you. It describes a form of theft. If you have a copy of a full video game installed on your PC that you did not pay for, win in a prize or something, and fair usage rights don't apply in your situation, and you did not get the copyright owner's permission to take that copy, then you stole it. It doesn't matter whether or not you took the copy from a high street shop or you took it from cyberspace, you stole it. You took something that doesn't and shouldn't belong to you.
Basically they want to compromise people's privacy in order to find out who's illicitly copying their games. They also want to fine anyone who does so. They're using a position of power to harrass individuals who do not have similar resources to defend themselves. To me, that's bullying.
If they want to ensure their livelihood, they should continue making games that people will want to buy. They should get over the notion that every copy is a lost sale, since many people who download a game illicitly have no intention of buying it otherwise. If someone who in _any case_ would not have given money to anyone for a game downloads said game, has anybody lost anything? No.
I know you think I'm splitting hairs or trying to justify piracy, but I'm just trying to get across the fact that simply copying imaginary property does not make anybody a criminal. I would urge everybody to reward developers who make great software, but arguing that not doing so ought to be a punishable crime is really excessive.
Can you read?
There are similarities between copyright infringement and theft, but there are also differences, therefore the two things are not the same.
-1
+1
Exactly! Just like Fraud or Joyriding can be different types of Theft. That's why I posted the following:
"copyright infringement is indeed the most accurate Legal term.
The type of "Copyright Infringement", in this particular case, is the act of taking (stealing) a copy of a game that does not belong to you. It describes a form of theft. If you have a copy of a full video game installed on your PC that you did not pay for, win in a prize or something, and fair usage rights don't apply in your situation, and you did not get the copyright owner's permission to take that copy, then you stole it. It doesn't matter whether or not you took the copy from a high street shop or you took it from cyberspace, you stole it. You took something that doesn't and shouldn't belong to you."
Actually, that is my BIOS boot screen, I changed it :D
http://www.giantrobotinvasion.com/images/2009/08/Dont-Copy-That-Floppy-Title.JPG
It makes a good laugh with friend :)
Obviously they lost no money on sales due to piracy at all... The mentality that a pirated copy isnt a lost sale is a load of crap that pirates convince themselves of when they feel guilty.
Piracy is especially bad for smaller indie devs like CD projekt.
In the UK, theft is defined by the Theft Act 1968, specifically:
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and thief and steal shall be construed accordingly.
As such, the only way that a software pirate could commit theft would be if they claimed authorship of the software (thereby "appropriating" it, as defined in section 3-1). Ironically, this seems to happen with software publishers appropriating the work of crackers in re-releases.
The law that applies to software (and music/video) piracy is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (defined in sections 17 and 18 with penalties covered in section 107).
As for the original topic, while I applaud the DRM-free release, it comes at a premium: CD-Projekt are asking £31.49 (with a ~£4 credit and one free game) while Amazon.co.uk are currently charging £24.99 for the Premium Edition. As Amazon's price includes a physical copy of the manuals and extras along with free delivery (and CD-Projekt avoids the costs of physical distribution, including production, storage, inventory management, delivery and distributor/retailer margins) it puts GOG's pricing perilously close to the "rip-off" level (I would make the same argument on similar price levels from GOG's DRM-crippled competiton).
Attempting to pursue software pirates sounds like an empty gesture though - aside from the well-reported problems of false positives and insufficient evidence, CD-Projekt needs to consider (as do other publishers) that at least some of those making unauthorised copies will go on to purchase the proper article - and that many have no (or a limited) ability to purchase (specifically teenagers lacking credit cards).
The software (and music/video) industries do like to exaggerate their losses to encourage politicians to pass more restrictive legislation, but everyone else suffers when legal monstrosities like the US' Digital Millenium Copyright Act or the UK's Digital Economy Bill are passed as a result.
As for piracy impact on sales, there was a good text on the topic from some indie developer not long ago (i can't find the link atm) with some in-depth analysis, and the conclusion was simple - piracy attributes to a maximum of 5% of lost sales, which is worth far less than the cost of most DRM systems. Remember that most of piracy comes from countries where games are way more expensive (in relation to average income) than in UK, for example in Poland most AAA console titles cost about 70% of a minimal wage and an average teenager can afford at most two, three games a year.
Of course I don't approve of pirating, aside from music. As I always said - If you can't afford gas and taxes you don't buy a car, the same applies to PCs and consoles. Playing games is not an obligation, it's a privilege.
And in any case, most of today's mainstream games are just as pathetic as movies, you're better off learning something useful instead of wasting time on them.
You're not "taking" anything. You are acquiring a copy at no cost to the creator. You are copying without a right to do so.
Other than that, the three posts above this one say it all.
Nice research. Thanks for posting the links. I had a good read.
However, all of it is totally irrelevant.
If you read the posts I made after the one you quoted, you may have noticed that I already dealt with the 'statement of legal fact' mistake.
As for your research on the specifics of a Law, I have also already dealt with those points regarding the differences between certain Laws, law definition variations by different jurisdictions, and how laws can partially overlap the dictionary definitions of certain words. Such as Fraud is defined differently to Theft, yet Fraud usually involves theft, but via deception or trickery. Copright Infrigement can overlap into theft.
There are many types of copyright infringement. One of those being the act of stealing a copy of a game from the copyright owner via a dedicated pirated goods website.
What is the Dictionary Definition of Theft? "THEFT = Stealing of property: the stealing of somebody elses property".
What is the Dictionary Definition is Steal? "STEAL = take unlawfully: to take something that belongs to somebody else, illegally or without the owners permission".
Now there may not be a specific Law called "STEAL", but many types of different offences can involve the act of stealing something.
And in this subject of piracy, you guys are trying to hide behind a "legal definition" of an applicable offence that covers certain types of theft. So you have convinced yourself that it's much more comforting to you if you forget the thieving reality of your action, and use a more palatable description, such as the legal term of "copyright infringement". It is copyright infringement, that is true, but it involves theft. Look back at the dictionary definition of the word "Steal". In this type of piracy, the home pirate has taken something that belongs to somebody else. He has not taken the actual copyright ownership from the publisher, but he has indeed taken a "copy" which, according to the very same copyright Laws, that "copy" actually belongs to the game publisher who has not given you permission to take it. What's the definition of steal again? It means to take something that belongs to somebody else. And, that copy of a pirated game that is installed on your home PC is property that belongs to the game publisher, regardless of how much you try wriggle out of this fact.
OK smart guy, what is the definition of "Acquiring a Copy"? "ACQUIRE = get or take something: to get or obtain possession of something".
Should I also post the definition of "get" or "obtain" for you as well?
Read your post again and tell me if it makes sense. According to you, you are not "taking" something, you are "acquiring" it. It's the same thing.
According to the Copyright Infringement law, that "copy" of a game you have politely "taken" actually belongs to the game publisher who has not given you permission to take it. What's the definition of steal? It means to take something that belongs to somebody else. And, that copy of a pirated game that is installed on your home PC is property that belongs to the game publisher.
Oh, come off it. I'm not disagreeing with you because I think piracy is fine. I'm disagreeing with you because I hate misapplied sensationalist, emotionally charged bullshit terms being bandied about.
For the record, I do not pirate, and I don't appreciate your insinuating that I do.
The term "copyright infringement" was coined precisely because "theft" did not appropriately describe what was happening. Just like the "motorcycle" was coined because the term "bicycle" did not appropriately describe what had been created. They have huge similarities, but the differences between them are significant enough to make them two different things.
I agree that copyright infringement can be just as bad as theft and even worse, but that does not mean it is theft.
I am aware of why the specific law regarding copyright infringement was needed. I just don't understand how you can think that a particular type of copyright infringement is not Theft, when the pirate has blatantly acquired (downloaded) a copy of a game that legally belongs to the game publisher. He has stolen it from the copyright owner.
According to the English dictionary (and me), stealing is clearly defined as: to take something that belongs to somebody else. The copy of that game belongs to the publisher. I am not just saying that for the sake of saying it. It is a fact of law. The very same copyright law says that the downloaded copy belongs to the copyright owner, so it is stealing. He has something on his PC that does not belong to him, but belongs to the copyright owner who has not given him permission to take a copy for himself.
Anyway, I suppose we're just going to have to accept that we will continue to disagree on this subject. :)
Exactly,
I would have no problem/won't have a problem spending my £24.99 at Amazon for the Witcher 2 Premium Edition, but I will say this I don't justify spending almost £50 on a game (in my case Fallout: New Vegas) and it being bugged to hell and back! NO game I've ever played is as bugged as that one and I really wish I'd downloaded it instead of spending that amount of money on the collector's edition of the game which constantly crashes and which still hasn't had a comprehensive patch since it's release date a month ago...
People will say no doubt that my reason still doesn't justify piracy, well in a way it does as I'd rather spend that £50 (that in my opinion was wasted money) on clothes/nappies/food for my 2 young children than line the pockets of a game company that just don't give a **** even a month after the game has been released! And the reason it's a waste of money even though it's a fantastic game is because if it had said when I bought it that it would crash a shitload of times and generally be unplayable 60-70% of the time I'd have saved my money...
And a lot of people haven't experienced bugs with New Vegas (apparently...) but I and millions of others have and come on having to save the game a shitload of times just in case the game crashes is no way to play/enjoy any game, and it doesn't fail to crash at least 5 times minimum every bloody day because of the piss poor state of the game when it was released.
So sorry for the off topic but just mentioned it to TRY and get my point across..
I rarely see any cops on the street here, as apparently there is simply no money to pay these fine officers of the law to protect our society from criminals; but the French government's got more than enough money for HADOPI (the "copyright protection" agency for whom an accusation is equal to being found guilty)...
And IP is really shitty proof. The only way IP was ever used as clear evidence in a courtroom is because the judge/lawyers were too technologically challenged. As far as the internet is concerned I'm somewhere near Manchester, UK - physically, however, I'm in France. Prove that it was me using this server to download this or that.
Games/music/whatever companies need to get off their high horses. Yes, the proles like your product, but may not want to/be able to pay for it so "pirate" it (without guns/boats/being on the sea). Get used to it. When WWIII/the apocalypse begins your importance will be less than absolute zero. It's only in our capitalist "entitlement society" that we've come to accept this "bulls' defecation".
Tell me how a hard-working garbage collector/binman, married with kids, on a pitiful 1500 salary a month (after taxes), paying a rip-off rent for the "privilege" of living in a crappy area near the city, is to pay for your game... Or does he, because he can't afford it, doesn't have the right to unwind once a week?
I'm all for them trying something new against pirating, but if this works I'll eat my hat.
Personally I can't wait for this game, and I will be preording it, woo!
Not quite. You see, that copy if the game only comes into existence when it is actually copied. That particular copy never belonged to the publisher because it never existed before being copied. Something that doesn't exist cannot have an owner. The pirate is not "taking" anything, they are causing something to be (re)created without the permission of the rights owner. Therefore, they are infringing copyright, not stealing.
Because obviously before video games, people had no way to unwind, and how did this poor unfortunate binman afford the console or the PC necessary to play said game. That argument is a load of crap...
If you can afford to buy the game then dont play it! I understand if a month is rough and you simply cant afford another game, i bought 2 games this month and couldnt afford the crazy pricetag of COD BLOPS. Played it at a friends house and was glad i didnt bother.
The point is gaming is A PRIVELAGE, not a right! that binman can go out and have a pint, read a book, take up a hobby, watch the soccer, etc... he doesnt need a video game to relax! And i'm sorry but 50 out of 1500 is only 3% of his salary, i'm sure he could afford it and skip 2 trips to the pub.
I can understand guys downloading a game to check it out as a demo, i do that but i promptly uninstall it if its crap and go buy the original if it's good. This usually only happens if i've bought several games already that month and am a little broke. Most people dont, they simply just play through the game and dont bother ever buying it or helping the developer in anyway.
This gets funnier :)
If you truly believe what you have just said, I would love to see you try to explain that nonsense in court.
And, if you are so confident that the downloaded pirate copy of that video game you have installed on your PC is not legally owned by the game publisher, then you should have no problems approaching that particular game publisher, with your full name and address, telling them what you have done, then winding them up by "smartly" telling them they don't have any legal ownership of your downloaded game with its DRM removed.
Regardless of the opinion you have just invented, the copyright law is very clear.
And, the reason it is called a "copyright" law is because it deals with the many subjects and scenarios regarding a persons work and the copying of it.
If somebody legitimately buys a copy of a video game, then removes the DRM and puts that "cracked" copy of the game on an internet server for millions of people to download, that "cracked" or "modified" work still remains the property of the author or publisher.
In fact, much of the copyright law exists in order to protect the author's work against corruption, modification, or straight perfect duplication, so that throws your opinion out of the window. So please go back to the drawing board and try to invent something else tomorrow or the next day, so that I may come back and recite some copyright law facts for you again.
All copies of the copyright material remain the property of the copyright owner unless you have purchased your particular copy, or they have given you permission to take a free copy of the game. Even then, you may own your copy, but they still own the "copyrights" to your game. Meaning you are not allowed, with the exception of the fair rights usage clause, to make copies of that game, including modified copies of that game.
So, any copies of the game that may have come into existence by a pirate and not the game publisher, is owned by the copyright owner, who is the author or publisher. And if you have that copy on your PC, then you have taken something which belongs to the publisher. So you have effectively stolen from the publisher, because stealing is clearly defined as: to take something that belongs to somebody else without permission.
However it is important that people do not fall for the propaganda spun by the film/music/software industries that try to equate copyright infringement with more serious crimes (including terrorism) because they will then use this as a springboard to impose more draconian limitations on the paying public. As it stands, we have ever more onerous technological restrictions (regional coding on DVDs/Blu-ray, HDCP on high-definition content, online activation/media checks on games) which give more control to content distributors and greater costs for consumers.
Music Industry != CD Projekt
Unlike the Music Industry, CD Projekt talks about a fine, this is same approach Microsoft follows (among other companies). You still use Windows, so you seam to not mind.
A story a read on the news paper that there was a small computer company selling to small businesses custom solution computer and servers with (without the client knowing) pirated software including the full range of Microsoft products. It was found out, and the company closed down (no more reputation), and the owner was fined by Microsoft around 90 000$ in damages.
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the amount they saved by going pirate software with all their clients, plus lawyer cost. I am sure that the undisclosed fine from CD Projekt will be similar, where it's the price of the game + lawyer cost + a little extra.
Personally as CD Projekt is a very small company, I don't think they have enough to afford taking anyone for giggles, I am sure they will make sure that you clearly pirated the copy, come to you, ask if you have the game, if not, present you with a fine, else you can fight in court. In court the judge can place a warrant and the police can grab the suspects computer and check if the game is there. If not, there is no proof, case close, if there is.. well...
you get the idea.
The Music Industry tactics is bring you to court, and delay everything until you can't afford a lawyer, and then attack you. Or similar cheap tactics.
Of course I can't guaranty anything I am saying, but I feel they just use a scare tactics. I however think that this is not the way to do thing. i mean, it's fine and all, but don't say stuff like "we will sue you", because of this, I am sure pirate, to show how "good" they are and satisfied their ego, will pirate the game. Sa basically, because of CD Projekt statement, they ask for trouble.
Example, is Nintendo, and again Microsoft, they don't say anything. You are caught, then you'll pay the consequences.
I agree with all you said in the paragraphs I italicised, but the last paragraph is bilge. Something which does not exist cannot have an owner. The copyright owner therefore cannot own that which does not exist. However, they have the right to control its production (copying) and seek remuneration for it. When you copy a game without the rights owner's permission you infringe upon their exclusive right to control the distribution of said material. You are not "taking" anything, therefore it is not stealing.
It may be as bad as stealing, but it is not the same thing. It may lead to the rights owner losing revenue through a lost sale and therefore be akin to stealing, but it's not the same thing.
I wouldn't mind them saying "Copyright infringement is as bad as theft", but to say the two things are the same thing (even though they may have similar consequences) is disingenuous. It's sole purpose is to try to elicit an emotional response which they would not get if they used the proper term for it ("Piracy" is the same). This whole mess could have been avoided if they had been straight up from the beginning and tried to educate people that copyright infringement is as bad as stealing. Instead they've tried to take various cheap shortcuts (like "Home taping is killing music") which have just made them lose credibility.
Interesting. You still seem to be confusing the Theft Law and its lack of use in copyright affairs with the actual true broad dictionary meaning of the word Theft, and how that true meaning of theft can be applied in many situations when that Theft Law is not used.
Anyway, I totally disagree that we should be looking at the Theft Law in this debate. However, just for you, lets analyse it:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
APPROPRIATE
What does the word mean? It more or less means the same as to acquire or take something for you and yourself.
How did that free game get on your PC? You didn't just wake up one morning and find it magically appear. You had to go online and actively seek it. and take it for yourself.
Regardless of who created that copy, as soon as it came into existence, that copy, by Copyright Law, belongs to the author. You did not pay for it, and you did not get the publisher's permission to acquire that copy. So that means you have acquired something that legally belongs to somebody else.
PROPERTY
What does property mean? Here it means something that somebody owns, whether it's a physical PC DVD or a digital form.
Regardless of what you may believe, that copy on your PC is legally the property of the publisher, even if it is somewhat altered from their original works.
DEPRIVE
What does deprive mean? It means to take from somebody, or keep something from its rightful owner.
Whether your copy exists as a couterfeit DVD game or a digital version, as soon as it is created and you appropriated it, I can assure you that the publisher will want it back, either given back to them physically, if applicable, or at least to have proof that the copy is destroyed and taken away from your appropriating thieving self.
Further, most pirates have the intention of permanently depriving the publisher of their copy, especially if they like the game.
It can also be argued in many situations that you are depriving the publisher of financial earnings. Theft. You guys like to promote the idea that you would not have purchased the game, but do you really think that is true in all cases. What if there were no digital copies, no internet, no demos, and no second hand market? Would you have no games? No, you would have bought the game, maybe. Or walk into a high street store and steel it from the shelf. Then tell the store security guy that you are just going to see if you like it. Or, tell them that each stolen copy does not result in a lost sale, because you never had any intention of paying for it.
Yes, I know that some piracy would not have equalled a lost sale, but all of you guys are just as bad as each other. First, you are encouraging it by trying to use the Theft Act to desensitise these persons against the true reality of their thieving actions. Second, the person who downloads just for the purpose of "trying out" the game is encouraging piracy due to his support of the pirate website, and also due to putting ideas into his friends minds when visitors see his games and then ask where did he get it from. So now more people are going online to download the games. Some of these people may have bought the game if they did not find out about his pirate collection. Third, as each of them contribute to the huge piracy download statistics, they are making more and more game companies turn away from the PC market, effectively aiding in the destruction of PC gaming in terms of more DRM and less titles available. But that's another argument. :)
I hardly consider moronic trolling about how everyone is a filthy pirate constructive, but I'll keep that in mind for future discussions.
"(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferors title, amount to theft of the property."
Section (2) is intended to cover land/housing, as per section 4(2), so we can focus discussion on section (1). Now if someone copies an "item" (for this purpose, software such as a game, video or music track) they are not assuming the right of an owner - the original is still in the owner's possession and the copier is not claiming authorship (though they might subsequently do so, which would then involve them in "intellectual property theft").
Basically if we met in the real world and I swiped your coat and threw it in a ditch, that would not qualify as theft since I would not be claiming to own it (or for that matter, to deprive you of it permanently). If I took your coat and instead listed it on eBay, then I would be claiming to own it so it would then qualify as theft. If I made a copy of your coat (leaving you with the original intact) and sold it, that would fall outside the remit of the Theft Act - it would not be theft but could constitute an infringement if you had copyrighted your coat. Unauthorised duplication of software is best compared to the creation of counterfeit goods (dealt with by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act also).
"Property includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property."
A law giving the copyright holder automatic ownership over every copy would criminalise every retailer and distributor since they would then be committing theft (through claiming ownership themselves) every time they sold a copy to Joe Public.
"(1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the others authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the others rights."
Now it may be that you have been personally affected by this as a developer - if so, then please let me know what products you worked on so I can be sure to boycott them. I have no interest in supporting developers who think they are entitled to everyone's money any more than I would support musicians who think likewise.
Did the software industry die as a result? Clearly not - it has grown massively since but that growth has caused problems for many companies. Out-of-control budgets for AAA titles, the frighteningly short shelf-life for new games (giving them only a few months to recoup their development costs), the vast choice available to PC gamers (including lots of freeware content and mods for older games) and, not least, the ridiculous inconvenience of certain DRM systems (which only hamper legitimate users) are all greater threats to the industry in my view, since they constrict the industry's lifeblood of legitimate purchases.
There are solutions to many of the above (DRM-free digital distribution via GOG and similar services being the best in my view, offering steady pricing while bypassing the problems involved with retail).
File-sharing has brought two significant changes for the software industry - firstly, it has almost killed off commercial copying (who's going to bother paying a market stall trader when their product offers nothing over what you can download?) and the second is more visibility of the scale of copying. If 100,000 people bought unauthorised copies of GenericFPS from DodgyCo's Emporium, GenericFPS' author had no way of tracking this. File sharing GenericFPS however, can be tracked with a greater degree of accuracy.
Why, thank you so much for that most enlightening comment - I don't know how I've lived without your wisdom.
Please don't get me wrong. I do actually trust you when you say you don't pirate games. But at the same time you are not helping your own position when you say you don't do it, then follow on, within the same debate, to provide unnecessary examples and hyperlinks of file-sharing or piracy benefits, and how the software industry has grown massively since a particular previous generation of piracy. Don't you realize you are feeding the pirates. This is why when I speak out, I group all of you guys, including the pirates, together. In my opinion, you are all, directly or indirectly, a part of the problem of piracy. All feeding off of each other. Now, you don't have to agree with my views on linking Piracy with Theft. And, we may continue to debate it until the new year. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that there is a one in a million chance that I am wrong about saying piracy is stealing. Why is it so incredibly important for you to prove that wrong? What do you really have to gain from this? I'm not implying that you, sir, are a pirate. I'm just saying you sound like them. You are encouraging them even though that may not be your true intention.
Anyway, let's get back to the debate ...
We both agree on much of this. We both already know which Law is most applicable in which situation. So, there's not much to debate here.
However, let's revisit the argument of who actually owns the "copy" of a video game when that copy came into existence by a pirate and not the publisher:
Let's break this down into two parts -
1) If that pirate copy is not owned by the game publisher / developer/ copyright owner, then who actually does legally own it?
I am sure that by now, in this debate, we both agree that the pirate has created that copy dishonestly and illegally. Right? So, he has acquired that copy illegally. Meaning, he has violated the copyright law. So, legally speaking, does he own it? Of course, he may own it in the sense that it is installed on his PC, but does he legally own it? Remember, he acquired it illegally. He only came in possession of it by breaking the law. That copy did not originally exist, but he created it illegally. He can not possibly own it legally. If you think he owns it legally, then you have got to be delusional.
Now, in the situation where the copy was made by the pirate, I can assure you that the game company will not wish for that pirate to keep possession of that copy. Therefore, even IF that copy did not have a legal owner when it was first created by the pirate, the game company can automatically claim legal ownership of that copy at any time.
How? because the pirate broke the law in order to create or acquire the copy of somebody's work.
So, even if there was some kind of initial doubt as to who owns it, then legally, the game company can come forward at any time and take back ownership of that copy.
That pirate copy never did legally belong to the pirate thief, did it? He has something installed on his PC that does not belong to him. He stole it.
2) Although the previous argument is already more or less "bombproof", and no further argument is required, let us still look at it from my original point of view, the complete perspective of the copyright law.
From this perspective I am arguing the point that the game company never loses ownership over any new copies of the game created by the pirate, and they do not need to physically come forward and claim ownership of the pirate copy.
You are saying that if the game company maintained ownership of every copy, even the copies sold in shops, then we would all be criminalized, even the retailer. That's a wrong way of looking at it. Let me explain:
It is the copyright owner's intention that his work is sold in a certain market (and under certain licence conditions). Now, whether you buy via that market or even acquire a legitimate copy outside of that market, he still owns the copyright to each copy, and there will also probably contain a Licence Agreement within each copy of game.
Technically, the way it works is that every copy of the game that is made, automatically carries through the copyright and licence agreement.
You seem to believe that the copyright owner only has a legal ownership over say a particular batch of legitimate copies produced from say his master copy by a particular manufacturer / distributor.
Just because the pirate decided to make a new copy from a copy, does not make the slightest bit of a legal difference to the ownership.
That pirate copy is automatically licenced the same as the legitimate copy on a shop shelf, and by pirating, he has broken the agreement and cannot own it.
That is why I call pirates thieves. Because they have acquired what legally belongs to somebody else.
I use to buy every single game I saw from 1999 to 2005 because the games didn't focus on pirates and they ROCKED because they put some love/time into the game. Now I get a 5 hour "single player campaign" with a crappy story line and is a re-skin of the last for $60. They wonder why sales are down when its pretty obvious to me.
5 hours! Oh you mean, Kane & Lynch 2.
http://angryjoeshow.com/2010/08/kane-lynch-2-review/
Warning: Hilarious video
My binman-argument comes from my opinion that it seems like, in life, everyone is intent on ripping you off, whether it's the government or corporations. It's up to our smelly binman to decide how he wants to unwind - there are already plenty of things he won't be able to afford, so why deny him one that could be supplied so cheaply?
Especially as, like in the music industry, the profit of games made my the big manufacturers do not go to the people who deserve it (the creators/developers), but in the pockets of the guys who own the company.
And, in my once-poor opinion, after 500-600 rent, food for four people, etc... 50 becomes a lot of money. And then for the "privilege" of playing a stupid-ass game he'd have to be ripped off as well?
No matter how many "affordable" alternatives there are to playing a game, I simply can't see any good reason to deny someone something that can be supplied at near-zero cost.
Also its a little known fact that studios do get a chunk of profit directly from the game sales BUT only after the game has sold a minimum quantity agreed upon by the publisher, so the studio makes nothing until the publisher has covered its costs.
Modern games cost millions to make, indie studios cannot get that sort of cash, i doubt the bank manager would be much impressed by two scruffy geeks asking for a couple of hundred thousand dollars loan to start a game studio.
Also, the working conditions are tough for game devs. Constant crunch times, 60+ hour weeks, working weekends etc... The guys doing it are doing it cause they love it not for any other reason. For example I can get a massive salary atm doing SAP work instead of working at a university doing my masters just to try and get a job in the games industry. With the skillsets those guys have, they can can pretty much land any cushy high paying low stress dev job of their choice.
So what happens, they work their asses off on a game, under a ton of pressure from the publisher to deliver the game ASAP. The game launches and then 85% of the game copies out there are pirated, the publisher then turns around and says sorry your game sold poorly so we're shutting you down or the studio get reorganized (ie downsized).
Now before some idiot comes along with the argument that only crap games get pirated, look at the download stats for COD:MW and MW2, they were downloaded millions of times, so piracy is a problem for pretty much every game out there.
The problem isnt with the binman, who cant afford a game (but magically had enough cash for a console/gaming PC :? ) but with joe entitled that will spend $1000 on a GTX480 SLI setup but OMG WOAH $60 for a game: "game dev be tripping yo, I'z be stealin that stiz". I would say that 75% of game pirates can actually afford to buy the games they steal but choose not to... The worst part is running into guys that downloaded the game before released and now feel special that they got to play it before everyone else, or the morons that pride themselves on (and brag about) how much money they saved by pirating.
Look at it from this perspective a game is less than 6hrs work at minimum wage in europe, My current salary is an absolute joke at the moment (after all my monthly expenses I only have around 250euros to spend on food, petrol and fun) and yet i can afford to buy two games a month. So I'm sorry but people are just entitled twats that want everything given to them for free...
1.Are those real statistics, or just numbers you've plucked out of the air to illustrate a point?
2.The developers' poor working conditions are less to do with pirates and more to do with the greedy pigs who run the industry.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/apps
And I believe it is very true. Where really expensive stuff, we have no problem, but the inexpensive stuff, it's a budget problem.
Modern Warfare 2 Pirate Stats (and they wonder why it sold so poorly on PC) - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10422892-17.html
Demigo - 85% piracy rate - http://www.techspot.com/news/34329-stardock-roughly-85-of-demigod-players-are-pirates.html
I'm not going to provide proof of the long hours game devs works, it easy to find...
You cant blame the publishers, its like that in every industry, they put up a lot of cash upfront and hope they make the money back, when they dont then its an issue. Activision right now is the wrost of the lots and ironically, EA lately has become the PC gaming savior, as its releasing almost all its titles out on the PC.
Well I'm guessing on the figure for the pirates, but i'm also assuming that most of the guys pirating the game HAVE a PC or console that they can play it on.. Secondly an internet connection to download it with... Assuming the person downloading it has both, then you're telling me that they can afford to pay for high speed internet and a games PC and not afford the game?! Most piracy occurs on PC which is a more expensive platform than console so that further illustrates the point.
Honestly now, out of all the people you know that pirate how many of them cant actually afford it, all my friends pirates cause they would rather spent the money partying or buying other crap, not cause they are broke.
Like goodbytes pointed out, people will pay a ton of money for the hardware but then when they have to pay a fraction of that for the game then its an issue.
I used to pirate when I was a kid (even then I bought whenever I could, i remember saving up for months to buy fallout2 and BG2) but once I got a job I started buying all my games, i obviously cant afford everything I want so I just read a few reviews and pick the ones that seem the best. Later on I might buy the game on a steam sale or something.
Back to the point, the witcher was one of the best RPGs ever!!! And from what i can see the witcher 2 looks more impressive than any upcoming RPG! I will honestly throw money at them for it! These days with the high piracy rate, i'm doing my best to try and send as much of my money back to the devs as possible, even though most of it gets collected by the publishers, at the end of the day the publishers are the ones paying the salaries and entirely funding the studios!
The developers get hurt because the big bosses choose to pay them shitty wages at the start. Then "piracy" comes along, and they use that excuse to lower the wages even more. The same way the "recession" was used to sack people and make others work twice as hard, saying "at least you still have a job" - and nearly everyone always falls for that bullshit.
I'm with the developers. You (you're a developer, right?) should get the money. But, as with the music industry (where publishers take the cash rather than the artists), the system needs to change if this is going to happen.
And I'm supporting a non-violent revolution against this crappy system we have now until it changes. Especially as - see my stabbed/beaten paragraph in an earlier post - politicians put way too much focus on copyright infringement nowadays. France's HADOPI agency (they'll accuse you then make you pay, because they're the government) has a 12 million euro budget for 2011 - but France has so little money for cops, they have to send several on early retirement without hiring new ones.
This bullshit happens because the industry bosses are good pals with the politicians (the rich are hardly going to socialise with the unwashed masses, are they?). Our hypothetical smelly binman can't go outside safely to the pub because there's no cops to protect him. But he can't play a game indoors because he has no money to waste on it, despite the fact it could be delivered to him at near-zero cost? That's bullshit.
This world pisses me off. Anger makes me even shittier at trying to explain my point of view (but good at pretend-punching politicians!).
Yeh man, totally get where you're coming from, its just its not really as simple as that, piracy isnt as much of an issue on consoles as on PC and i'm also seeing it from the PC gaming viewpoint that the platform while attractive for developers isnt attractive to publishers since they end up being hard hit by piracy...
Look at Dragon Age, a great success of a game, targeted primarily at PC gamers, but now since the game sales were massively higher on consoles, the sequeul is getting consolized. its why most games are multiplatform these days with the PC coming in last every time. Crysis was played by pretty much every gamer out there and yet had abysmal sales. Its the PC performance benchmark FFS, hyped into oblivion and yet barely sold any copies even tho everyone I knew was playing it as soon as it launch, no one i know bought it... Now crysis 2 is multiplatform? I wonder why?
i really wish there was DRM scheme that actually worked, since piracy isnt going away. CDprojekt aren't going to lose any sales by removing DRM but they arent going to gain any either so its the safe choice. I hope their legal battle works out and most of all that they sell many millions of copies...
As for the comments made by others here regarding people's ability to afford $1,000+ PCs, for young users it will be their parents who purchased the PC (for "education", right?) who may then be reluctant to shell out more than a token for games.
Secondly there are cases where a copy may be unauthorised *in the eyes of the law* yet still morally legitimate - for example someone making a backup copy of games they have purchased. Section 50A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 does address this (an addition made by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992), but the wording (specifically the "which it is necessary" provision) seems to make this far from an absolute right.
- The ruthless discounting of any game at retail after a couple of months (as an example, I was able to purchase the deluxe edition of TitanQuest for just £7 seven months after release). This creates the almost impossible hurdle that games have to recoup their development costs within just a couple of months before they hit the bargain bin.
- Competition - not only does the PC have the largest software base with dozens of new games coming out every month (and many classic oldies available from sites like GOG), but it also has an unrivaled collection of freeware and modifications for older games. Since even the most dedicated here has limits on the time they can spend gaming, it should be clear that new game purchases are very much an option, not a necessity.
- Bugs, bugs, bugs! It has become a mantra for many that games aren't playable until after the first (or even second) patch - since waiting can get you a cheaper price as well as a better gaming experience, what sense does it make to buy at release?
- DRM - If a game is tied to the publisher's ability to maintain verification servers or issue new keys for every installation onto a new PC, then the prudent user will either boycott it or buy-and-download to get a "legal" DRM-free version.
DRM-free digital distribution can ease many of these problems, allowing prices to be maintained for longer (case in point, the fantasy wargame Dominions 3 is still being sold for US$54.95 (with a November discount) despite being a 4-year old game.That's a misconception, bargain bin prices only help the developer in the long run. For example Batman: Arkum asylum, i was never really interested in the game, so i never bought it when it was released but there was a steam sale on a few weekends ago when the GOTY edition was available for $15, thats $15 that the developer wouldnt have gotten from me without the bargain price. Publishers want to recoup their initial investments, lets say they spent $5 million on a game (production and advertising), they end up selling 100 000 copies in the first 2 weeks (poor sales), they've recouped their investment, now any income coming in from the game is pure profit, so dropping the price in a month or two makes financial sense since a lot of people wait for prices to drop and so buy the games then. It makes especially good sense for poorly selling games since a lot of people will pick them up out of a bargain for the hell of it, since its cheap (like me with batman, which i still havent played).
For example titan quest may not have sold a lot of copies initially, but now it continues to provide income for the game company even at the reduced prices. Rather have a guy buy your game for $10 than pirate it... Thats pretty much the point of the steam sales as well. Steam is a platform that is almost pure profit for the publisher and in turn the developer...
cant argue with that, but i often dont have time to muck about with mods and so on, nor do i spend a lot of time multiplayer, so for me its all about the single player experience! Games often last me two to three evenings or an entire weekend (dragon age)...
i have no real issue with such DRM schemes since its often highly unlikely I'll end up replaying an old game, and most old games have had DRM removal patches any ways. As for the bugs, people dont realize the complexity of modern games, its not as easy to get games polished when devs are under stringent publisher deadlines. Even so I dont think its necessary to be extremist and avoid the game till the second patch, often i'll buy a game and not have time to play it, so by the time i do get around to it the second patch would have been released. For example that exactly what happened with me and fallout new vegas.
Well that was what happened with me, but the problem is that most people don't become responsible adults nevermind responsible consumers. They get used to getting what they want for free when they want it and anything else is just not cool.
COD 4 sold a crap load, but the bulk was on consoles, the PC sales accounted for less than 10% of that (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50951), whereas the witcher sold over a million on PC alone. If only 25% of those 4 million downloads were bought by PC gamers maybe we wouldnt have had dedicated servers removed.
Obviously there was some compromise made interface wise but the game was primarily a node to the good old PC RPGS like baldurs gate, high iso camera, etc... all of which is now being removed from the sequel. I personally had no issue with the DLC, as i said I have no issue with online activations.
I'm very curious to see the overall sales figures for the witcher with both re-releases compared to crysis...
Thanks for making my work easier. I appreciate it. :)
That piece of legislation you kindly posted actually proves my point and not yours.
Right to seize infringing copies and other articles.
An infringing copy of a work which is found exposed or otherwise immediately available for sale or hire, and in respect of which the copyright owner would be entitled to apply for an order under section 99, may be seized and detained by him or a person authorised by him.
Actually that proves both of my two previous main arguments:
1) That if (only for arguments sake) nobody legally owned that pirate copy when it was first created into existence by the pirate, then the game company can indeed come forward at any time and claim ownership. On top of that they can make a legal application to physically seize their property from the pirate.
2) That under the current facts of reality that the pirate copy did automatically belong to the game company as soon as that copy was made, the game company can apply to seize its property.
You are wrongly interpreting the fact that the copyright owner is required to make an official application to seize their property as meaning they don't legally own the pirate copy until they make an application. That is clearly a wrong way to look at it.
The correct way to view the application process is to think of say a similarity with a Police Search Warrant. There is a huge difference between legally owning something and just being in possession of it. If you had your coat stolen and you knew where that thief lived, you wouldn't break into his home in order to get your property back would you? If you did, then you would also be breaking the law. If you are smart, then you would apply to the courts to set a legal procedure in motion to take back possession of your 'legally' owned property. Now, the game company's application works in a similar way. The game company would be breaking all kinds of law if they attempted to enter and search the pirate suspects property, including the searching through of his PC and backup hard drives, without a legal notice to do so.
The legal notice does not mean to suggest that the copyright owner did not legally own the pirate copy until the notice was given. That would be nonsense. The notice is to gain the legal right to take action to physically retrieve their property without breaking the law in the process.
When the game company puts forward an application, the court, once hearing the facts regarding who owns the copyright, will automatically view the pirate copy as legally belonging to the game company as soon as that pirate copy came into existence.
Why? Because, with the exception of the fair rights usage clause or similar rights, this blatant piracy involves the pirate making unauthorized copies. Those unauthorized copies, even with the DRM, copyright notice, and the End-user Licence Agreement removed, still belong to the game company, and the court is not stupid and will not be fooled just because the licence agreement and copyright notice are removed by the pirate for that particular copy. They will take the view that the pirate copy must be treated as if it physically contained the copyright notice as well as the End-user Licence Agreement. The pirate cannot legally own that copy, even if it was possible for him to legally own it, because he is not respecting that particular pirate copy's copyright notice or licence agreement.
That pirate copy legally belongs only to the game company, which legally owns all copies of its games, and those games are normally 'licensed' to the end user. The pirate broke the agreement as soon as he created that copy. So that particular copy legally only belongs to the copyright owner, who can then apply to gain access and seize it.
Digital distribution does change the picture a lot since the only cost is the distributor's markup, which would be 20-30% compared to the 90% taken by retail (once the return, write down and consignment costs are factored in as noted here).
i honestly think the steamworks model for games is best, since then the game is tied to your account, and even if i lose all my game discs i can just just redownload them, automatic patching etc etc...
I'm fairly OK with steam, although I do wonder what will happen if/when they go out of business or if/when they decide to do a "spring clean" and remove a load of old games. Of course it might never happen, but it's worth being aware of it.
It really comes down to what customers are prepared to tolerate. Those willing to overlook the problems caused by online activation or hardware-tied serial keys will very likely harden their stance once they incur financial loss (most likely in cases where the developer/publisher goes out of business).
That cleverly or strategically worded "penalty" you are referring to is not just a legal punishment given to the pirate for committing an offence. Those copies do not belong to the pirate, and the game company wants to seize them.
Most people will share the view that if your coat was acquired by somebody without your permission, then that 'acquiring' person is simply in possession of your belongings. Most people would not consider your coat to 'legally' belong to that person during the period where you did not bring the matter to a court's attention.
Regarding the game pirate, I can assure you that the court will not share the view that the pirate was the first rightful and legal owner of his pirate copy since the time of its creation and up until the time when the game company filed an application with the court for its seizure.
It is simply impossible for the pirate, in this blatant piracy scenario, to legally own that pirate copy. As soon as he created that particular copy, he is never considered to be the rightful owner, regardless of whether or not an application for seizure is made by the copyright owner. That copy legally belongs to the game company. The pirate may only 'own' the copy in the sense that he just happens to be in possession of it. However, it never 'legally' belongs to him.
If you are determined to think differently, then good luck with your delusion. :)
What if, what if, what if... That is bordering on paranoia. Imported games are technically a moot point since games have specific regions of sale, there have been issues where guys have moved countries only to find that games wont activated but all such issues were quickly resolved with steam support. The credit card issue is a PAYPAL issue and not a credit card issue, and no offense but I've dealt with paypal service and all disputes are easily dealt with. I jsut think he had no idea how to find a dispute and resolve it or there was a deeper issue.
The other issues also look suspect, valve have said on numerous occasions that if steam shuts down offline patches for all the games will be released. Steam is probably the one of the biggest things keeping PC gaming going...
I've dealt with steam support as well, i activated a game on the wrong account and they reversed the activation in less than a day and let me reactivate on a different account. Some people will just never be happy and will bitch no matter what... Steam is a huge benefit and if you cant see that then I just dont know...
And that isn't limited to Paypal issues either - as a consumer you have the right under UK law to seek redress from the credit card company should a merchant fail their obligation to refund you for a faulty product or service. Try that with Steam for a failed service and bye-bye account.
NO physical costs?! are you kidding me? so who is that pays for all of valves servers and bandwidth costs? There are numerous private steam content mirrors but valve still runs the large majority of the content servers (over 60) with peak bandwidth usages of over 300Gbit. Obviously there are NO physical costs involved that must mean there are no costs in running steam (cause like magical unicorns provide free bandwidth or something). The extra money spent on packaging and transport is now spent on servers and bandwidth.
Gabe newel has spoken out numerous times about the worst case scenario of steam shutting down and how valve will remove the steam authentication check. Allowing you to play your games in offline mode. I cant find the link to the interview now but its out there.
Steam allows me to buy games that are no longer available in RETAIL stores. It is also a huge benefit to indie developers as they have a now safe and secure method of distributing their games without having to pay massive licensing fees for credit card services, DRM licensing, for distribution servers and bandwidth, etc... all that is covered by the percentage valve gets.
If you wanna be paranoid and fear the system then it's your prerogative, but don't undervalue it just cause some guy added a pirated game to his steam account and had his account suspended for it. Every service to date has had a few bad service report but if steam was such a bad service why are close to 3 million gamers using it?
As for the privacy issue?! OH NOEZ steam can see my hardware and what games I like to play?! What a horrible invasion of privacy, i need to go take a 3 hours shower cause i feel so violated. Seriously?
back on topic, i honestly think that the Witcher should be released as a steamworks game but thats unlikely to happen, the no DRM route is a good choice but i really really hope it doesnt back fire on them :(:(:(
Where I think they are slipping up is in making the downloadable version only DRM-free. Many buyers will value having the physical items (which, in the "original extended" version included 3 booklets, a map, a DVD and 2 music CDs) and face having to buy twice to get the best of both worlds - and the download is priced higher than the physical copy to boot. A "DRM-free pack" adding the GOG goodies to a retail release (at a lower cost) would seem a better option.
Well in the ass end of the world i can get a full color 6 page booklet, CD pressed and album art done for around $0.75 per disc for a run of 6000. The price drops even more with larger quantities. You cannot base the your server costs from what is commercially available, try to host a steam content mirror on one of their packages and see how much it costs you (I'm pretty sure the 10+ TB hard-drive space may be a potential issue never mind the routing & user connection issues). Also basing your retailer profit margins off of a random forum thread isn't exactly proof.
Of course, when you're talking about a 30-million user service with 10+TB of data, then major economies of scale kick in - I'll bet Steam pay a good deal less for their bandwidth than the figures I supplied.
I don't think you understand the complexities with hosting such a service but meh... keep thinking it's just bandwidth costs.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html
a slightly different breakdown here, no publisher would give retail 40% of the game cost, that sounds a little ridiculous, i can understand around 15% but 40%?!
also gog's collection of pseudo-modern games is lacking, for example these games arent available on GOG even tho they are reasonably old.
frontlines: fuel of war
deus ex 1, 2
vampire: bloodlines
Here you need a doctors certificate immediately otherwise time off counts as leave. Only given 2 weeks paid sick leave a year and around 2 weeks leave. Employer can identify those people by... wait for it... REFERENCES... thats what they are there for. If someone cant juggle their lives then it will reflect in their past work experience.
So yes, your points may apply in SA, I do not know, but as far as the UK is concerned, Astral has the right of it.