bit-gamer.net

CD Projekt to fine Witcher 2 pirates

CD Projekt to fine Witcher 2 pirates

Developer CD Projekt has said it will pursue fine against those who pirate The Witcher 2.

CD Projekt, the Polish developer behind GoodOldGames and The Witcher, has announced that it will pursue fines against those who pirate upcoming sequel, 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.

139 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
sixfootsideburns 23rd November 2010, 11:16 Quote
yeah we'll see how that goes... the pirating community for games is so large that my guess is they will only catch a small % of them. And presumably will have to fine people out the ass to pay for the legal fees they are bringing on. I generally am not much for DLing games and I try to support the developers but lets face the facts... many many people do not share that same mentality and the prospects of catching a significant number is slim to none
NethLyn 23rd November 2010, 11:20 Quote
Well it's a trade-off, there's no DRM, but they're going after the people who just want to flat-out steal. However if we're talking about countries without existing anti-piracy laws that they can be bothered to enforce, you add the legal fees to the piracy losses and they could send themselves bankrupt.
liratheal 23rd November 2010, 11:28 Quote
Have fun with that, chaps.

Didn'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.
Grasshopper 23rd November 2010, 11:32 Quote
Will I be able to fine them if their game don't work propperly on my PC?
blink 23rd November 2010, 11:34 Quote
I really, really hope this works for them. And I hope the fine is double what it would cots just to purchase the game. Alot is riding on them being successful at this actually. It could end DRM altogether. Normally I would balk at playing the rat but I would not be opposed to turning in anyone who was pirating this game. At the very least, the rest of the gaming community should aid them in shaming and ridiculing anyone who pirates this game.

I didn't even play the first iteration but I may go out and buy Witcher 2 just to support them.
impar 23rd November 2010, 11:44 Quote
Greetings!

No DRM? Good.
Going after pirates? Good.

Wish them success.
Jack_Pepsi 23rd November 2010, 11:49 Quote
I wonder how many legitimate downloads get incorrectly flagged up as illegitimate. Either-way, I hope it works without any innocent people getting falsely prosecuted.
perplekks45 23rd November 2010, 11:53 Quote
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And under which law will they be allowed to get ANY personal details from ISPs?
fingerbob69 23rd November 2010, 11:55 Quote
Which would you prefer: DRM or a software publisher going after the pairates through the courts?

It's a no brainer really.
Phalanx 23rd November 2010, 12:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And under which law will they be allowed to get ANY personal details from ISPs?

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.
Cobalt 23rd November 2010, 12:16 Quote
As long as they are actually going through the courts (i.e. due process) then I don't have a problem with it. I'd prefer if they didn't go after people but it is within their rights and they won't be harming those who bought the game honestly.
Ream 23rd November 2010, 12:20 Quote
This is a step forward, people who buy the game will not have any trouble with DRM while people who pirate it will fear what will happen to them, this is what the gaming community have been wanting for years DRM free games.
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 12:39 Quote
I think this is a brilliant idea. What you guys don't seem to realise is that they don't have to catch a significant ammount of pirates for this to have an effect. All they need is enough to get the word out, and that should make the rest think twice.

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.
shanky887614 23rd November 2010, 12:43 Quote
i dont understand at all why people pirate

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
Kúsař 23rd November 2010, 12:57 Quote
Well it seems this is exactly the oposite of DRM - penalizing pirates instead of paying customers :)
impar 23rd November 2010, 13:02 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanky887614
i dont understand at all why people pirate
Imagine them as a plague of locusts. Swarming from AAA game to AAA game, they dont even spend the time in each game to really enjoy it, they just hop to the next one.
They are addicted to the hype.
Jim 23rd November 2010, 13:06 Quote
Whilst the idea of a company chasing people through the courts isn't a particularly nice one, I can't see why anybody would be complaining about this.

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.
lp1988 23rd November 2010, 13:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And under which law will they be allowed to get ANY personal details from ISPs?

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.

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.
Canon 23rd November 2010, 13:23 Quote
Take them for every penny I say, leave them without food and water, 1 less ass.
Redbeaver 23rd November 2010, 13:55 Quote
wow lotsa negative posts becoz theyr trying to catch pirates....

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.
Xir 23rd November 2010, 14:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kúsař
Well it seems this is exactly the oposite of DRM - penalizing pirates instead of paying customers :)

And I'm very gratefull for them attempting it. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanky887614
surely they can afford to fork out £20-40 for a game and if they dont like it return it
Where I live, Games are exempt from refunds when opened...where do you live?:D
GoodBytes 23rd November 2010, 14:41 Quote
Guys come one, The Witcher was an amazing game, with excellent review. It was truly worth every penny (the game was VERY long too). And i expect the same, if not better, experience with this new iteration, which looks like a very interesting game.

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.
kylew 23rd November 2010, 14:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NethLyn
Well it's a trade-off, there's no DRM, but they're going after the people who just want to flat-out steal.

*Groan* I think you need a new dictionary.
Zurechial 23rd November 2010, 15:00 Quote
I've long been a supporter and fan of these guys through their own games and GOG.
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.
kylew 23rd November 2010, 15:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
I've long been a supporter and fan of these guys through their own games and GOG.
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. :(
tron 23rd November 2010, 15:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blink
I really, really hope this works for them. And I hope the fine is double what it would cots just to purchase the game. Alot is riding on them being successful at this actually. It could end DRM altogether. Normally I would balk at playing the rat but I would not be opposed to turning in anyone who was pirating this game. At the very least, the rest of the gaming community should aid them in shaming and ridiculing anyone who pirates this game.

I didn't even play the first iteration but I may go out and buy Witcher 2 just to support them.

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.
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 15:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
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. :(

So are you saying that assault is OK? :|
BRAWL 23rd November 2010, 15:14 Quote
Good luck with that...

While you're at that, I'm going to go copyright air and fine you all for illegally breathing it.
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 15:17 Quote
Well that was a particularly bad analogy, if it was meant to be one.
steveo_mcg 23rd November 2010, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
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. :(

*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....
kylew 23rd November 2010, 15:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
*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.

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.
Glix 23rd November 2010, 15:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
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. :(

So are you saying that assault is OK? :|

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.
kylew 23rd November 2010, 15:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Well that was a particularly bad analogy, if it was meant to be one.

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.
kylew 23rd November 2010, 15:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
So are you saying that assault is OK? :|

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...
Paradigm Shifter 23rd November 2010, 15:33 Quote
I'm all in favour of CD Projekt doing this provided there are absolutely no "false positives" from the companies they are employing to do this. They really don't want to start saying Grannies who just about know how to use Word and order stuff from Amazon are pirates.
xaser04 23rd November 2010, 15:40 Quote
Whilst I applaud the fact that they are going DRM free I do have to question their statement that they will pursue fines against those who pirate it.

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.
tron 23rd November 2010, 16:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
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. :(

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.
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
That's what you got from my post? :?

No, not really, just trolling tbh. I'm sick of bad piracy analogies.
GoodBytes 23rd November 2010, 16:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Whilst I applaud the fact that they are going DRM free I do have to question their statement that they will pursue fines against those who pirate it.

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!".
kylew 23rd November 2010, 16:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
That still doesn't mean they're the same thing just because there is the chance they can occur at the same time.
Quote:
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.
Are you being serious? So because I haven't paid for something, I've stolen it? What if I won it or received it as a gift? What if I'd bought it second hand? Some developers think second hand games is the same as piracy, so are second hand games also stealing? It shares absolutely no similarities with going in to a shop and taking the game, why do you even try and say it's the same?
Quote:
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.
Doesn't mean piracy = theft.
Quote:
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.
No, it's piracy or copyright infringement, if it was stealing then it'd be a criminal offence, which we both know it's not...
Quote:
It's nothing to do with trying to invoke an emotional response, it's stealing, and that is a legal fact.
Umm, no it's really not. If it was a "legal fact" then anyone who pirates copyrighted media could be tried as a thief, it's not a criminal issue it's a civil matter...
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 16:13 Quote
Gentlemen, i think we have a pirate among us.
kylew 23rd November 2010, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Gentlemen, i think we have a pirate among us.

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?
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 16:21 Quote
Yes.
kylew 23rd November 2010, 16:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Yes.

Yes what? :(
GoodBytes 23rd November 2010, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragunovHUN
Gentlemen, i think we have a pirate among us. Stop trying to justify piracy - if you want to pirate stuff, keep it to yourself.

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.
kylew 23rd November 2010, 16:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Indeed, and he finds many ways to excuse he's or her's gesture.
He's or Her's? :?
Quote:
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.
Waffle says what?
Quote:
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.
Mo' waffle...
Quote:
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 say, is still less money in the developers 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...
Coldon 23rd November 2010, 16:44 Quote
seeing as how many studios are being downsized or shut down at the moment, people still try and justify piracy as being okay.

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...
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 16:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Yes what? :(

Yes you're an attempted assault murderer pirate.
Aracos 23rd November 2010, 17:10 Quote
Not what I expected of a company but I'm not fussed as I'll buy it anyway.
Tulatin 23rd November 2010, 17:36 Quote
... What? How the **** do they plan to prove you've "Downloaded it illegally", and more importantly, if this "Fine" is anything more than the price of the game, it's damn unethical. Plus, what gives them the right to arbitrarily assess fines.
Coldon 23rd November 2010, 17:49 Quote
what gives joe public the right to pirate it?
tron 23rd November 2010, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew


Are you being serious? So because I haven't paid for something, I've stolen it? What if I won it or received it as a gift? What if I'd bought it second hand? Some developers think second hand games is the same as piracy, so are second hand games also stealing? It shares absolutely no similarities with going in to a shop and taking the game, why do you even try and say it's the same?

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.

Yslen 23rd November 2010, 18:11 Quote
I really hope this works out and they somehow prove they saved money or saw increased sales as a result of this decision or something along those lines. Anything that brings the death of DRM is good in my book.
Tulatin 23rd November 2010, 18:18 Quote
There is no physical or financial loss as a direct consequence of piracy. Ergo it is not theft. It's basically the same as borrowing it from a friend. Get off your high horses.
DragunovHUN 23rd November 2010, 18:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulatin
It's basically the same as borrowing it from a friend. Get off your high horses.

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.
tron 23rd November 2010, 18:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulatin
There is no physical or financial loss as a direct consequence of piracy. Ergo it is not theft. It's basically the same as borrowing it from a friend. Get off your high horses.

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
MaverickWill 23rd November 2010, 19:13 Quote
And now, the correct way to deal with pirate trolls:

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?
thehippoz 23rd November 2010, 19:30 Quote
the original was awesome.. they'll make their money hopefully
SlowMotionSuicide 23rd November 2010, 19:48 Quote
Preordered the game the instant I got the offer to my e-mail. Really enjoyed the first game, and I sincerely hope their plan to go DRM-free doesn't seriously backfire on and bankrupt them.

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.
DXR_13KE 23rd November 2010, 20:47 Quote
All i can say to cd projekt is good luck.
GravitySmacked 23rd November 2010, 21:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowMotionSuicide
Preordered the game the instant I got the offer to my e-mail. Really enjoyed the first game, and I sincerely hope their plan to go DRM-free doesn't seriously backfire on and bankrupt them.

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!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
All i can say to cd projekt is good luck.

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.
RichCreedy 23rd November 2010, 22:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And under which law will they be allowed to get ANY personal details from ISPs?

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
dragontail 23rd November 2010, 23:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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
No, it's not theft, not under UK law anyway. Please stop going around quoting it as a legal fact because it's not. Thankfully someone else is done the work before so I'll just quote them:
Quote:
I've never seen that definiton of theft before, it seems loosely defined specifically for the purpose of backing your argument.

UK law is quite specific, wikipedia tells us:

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

"Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property."

Copyright infringement isn't theft, the idea that you're stealing or even really copying anything is nonsense. Even when you make a copy of the data that makes up a copright works, you're not really copying anything what you have at the end of the day, the arrangement of bits on a storage medium, is not even guranteed to be the same.

The fact that we have copyright laws to protect this type of work and don't just use theft laws tells you that theft laws are not sufficient to cover this kind of crime.
Unfortunately, to show your statement is fact legally, we don't have to prove piracy isn't theft, rather you'll have to prove piracy is theft, under UK law. Off you go then, good luck with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaverickWill
And now, the correct way to deal with pirate trolls:

Piracy is AKIN to stealing. You get a copy of a game for free, and break the law in the process.
Absolutely. Spot on mate.
Waynio 24th November 2010, 00:22 Quote
I just hope they make the combat good in witcher 2 then I might consider buying it, didn't enjoy the first one at all so was quite disapointed after seeing all the positive pro reviews & user reviews, tried getting into it but just couldn't, the combat was really irritating & fiddly, I really like the way they keep supporting the game though for those that do like it, is it a hardcore RPG? might be the reason I'm not into it, I tend to prefer a slightly more casual RPG.

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.
GoodBytes 24th November 2010, 00:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waynio
I just hope they make the combat good in witcher 2 then I might consider buying it, didn't enjoy the first one at all so was quite disapointed after seeing all the positive pro reviews & user reviews, tried getting into it but just couldn't, the combat was really irritating & fiddly, I really like the way they keep supporting the game though for those that do like it, is it a hardcore RPG? might be the reason I'm not into it, I tend to prefer a slightly more casual RPG.

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.
Quote:
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 :).
Hey it worked like charm for many PS2 games. I still find people swearing that PS2 graphics are better than the Wii That's what I call brainwash marketing.
VoiceHorn 24th November 2010, 04:03 Quote
I know the original article was about the developer seeking fines from those who pirate the game and the discussion has devolved into definitions and semantics but I'm more interested in the fact that a developer is targeting the PC audience FIRST. I mean who does that now days? The game looks all the better for it. It's absolutely gorgeous compared to all the console ports we are used to. I didn't play the first game but when I heard PC exclusive, no DRM, a reasonable price point, free extras and cought a glimpse to satisfy my graphics-whorism, I pre-purchased on Steam right away. I hope this game brings them success if only to show other devs the light. Also, anyone who targets pirates is ok in my book.
Tim
Bad_cancer 24th November 2010, 04:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
....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)...

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)
Apoptosis 24th November 2010, 05:11 Quote
I am completely with kylew on this one. And I can also say that even though I enjoyed the first Witcher, I will not be buying the sequel. I will rather pirate the game than give any money to a company that uses bully tactics to make money.

Please try to understand: copying a game != stealing. A copied game != lost sale.
GravitySmacked 24th November 2010, 07:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoptosis
I am completely with kylew on this one. And I can also say that even though I enjoyed the first Witcher, I will not be buying the sequel. I will rather pirate the game than give any money to a company that uses bully tactics to make money.

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.
DarkFear 24th November 2010, 08:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoptosis
I am completely with kylew on this one. And I can also say that even though I enjoyed the first Witcher, I will not be buying the sequel. I will rather pirate the game than give any money to a company that uses bully tactics to make money.

Please try to understand: copying a game != stealing. A copied game != lost sale.

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...
xaser04 24th November 2010, 08:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkFear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoptosis
I am completely with kylew on this one. And I can also say that even though I enjoyed the first Witcher, I will not be buying the sequel. I will rather pirate the game than give any money to a company that uses bully tactics to make money.

Please try to understand: copying a game != stealing. A copied game != lost sale.

While I understand that getting a "demo" (so to speak) doesn't always equal a lost sale; 99.9% of the time it does.

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.
yakyb 24th November 2010, 08:57 Quote
[QUOTE=xaser04]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkFear


While I understand that getting a "demo" (so to speak) doesn't always equal a lost sale; 99.9% of the time it does.

99.9% where did you pluck that from ?
DarkFear 24th November 2010, 09:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb
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...
impar 24th November 2010, 10:29 Quote
Greetings!

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.
Chappy 24th November 2010, 10:33 Quote
Just Concentrate on the Quality and Remove the Stupid DRM Protection that doesn't Work with the Sole purpose of Annoying us PC Gamers who bought Genuine Original Software's. Damn! I Hate DRM's! Just Come up with Any Anti-Piracy Program or whatsoever just Please Abandon the Obviously not WORKING DRM.
eddtox 24th November 2010, 10:38 Quote
I don't tend to buy (or play) PC games because of the DRM but if this turns out to be decent I will probably get it.

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.
tron 24th November 2010, 10:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragontail
No, it's not theft, not under UK law anyway. Please stop going around quoting it as a legal fact because it's not.

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 else’s 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.

eddtox 24th November 2010, 10:50 Quote
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
simples
tron 24th November 2010, 11:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
How about we just call them copyright infringers, as that is the most accurate term.

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.

Apoptosis 24th November 2010, 12:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkFear

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"?

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.
impar 24th November 2010, 12:52 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoptosis
Basically they want to compromise people's privacy in order to find out who's illicitly copying their games.
As long as there are no fake positives, the term "bully tactics" doesnt apply.
eddtox 24th November 2010, 13:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.

Can you read?

There are similarities between copyright infringement and theft, but there are also differences, therefore the two things are not the same.
eddtox 24th November 2010, 13:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apoptosis
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.

-1
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

As long as there are no fake positives, the term "bully tactics" doesnt apply.

+1
Largoftw 24th November 2010, 14:59 Quote
Don't copy that Floppy! (Someone needed to say it) ;)
tron 24th November 2010, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox


There are similarities between copyright infringement and theft, but there are also differences, therefore the two things are not the same.

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."

GoodBytes 24th November 2010, 15:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Largoftw
Don't copy that Floppy! (Someone needed to say it) ;)

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 :)
Coldon 24th November 2010, 16:17 Quote
how exactly is a pirated copy not a lost sale?! Stardock released stats that 85% of demigod copies were pirated. Dont you think the company could have used that money to make more games?

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.
AstralWanderer 24th November 2010, 16:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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....it's stealing, and that is a legal fact.
Yeesh, you'd think anyone claiming a statement as a "legal fact" would take the time to read the laws in question.

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).
AstralWanderer 24th November 2010, 16:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
how exactly is a pirated copy not a lost sale?!
When the person using that copy has no intention, or ability, to purchase the software legitimately.

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.
TheUn4seen 24th November 2010, 17:03 Quote
There is a big hole in CDP tactics - in many countries where people have last bits of basic human rights and privacy (i.e. not UK and France) downloading for private use is NOT illegal - only uploading is (as in: "distribution without appropriate license"). And since all torrent clients now support protocol encryption for outgoing connections it is extremely hard to prove that someone actually shared the file. This is the case for example in Poland which is the biggest market for the "Witcher" (for cultural reasons, among others), so, realistically, if someone receives such demand, he can simply ignore it. Since it is a civil matter and the damage is below the treshold for criminal investigation (which is roughly 53 pounds in Poland), there is virtually no possibility of proving that someone shared the file.

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.
eddtox 24th November 2010, 17:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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."
Pasting the same regurgitated bile over and over again doesn't make it any less moronic.

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.
tron 24th November 2010, 18:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
Yeesh, you'd think anyone claiming a statement as a "legal fact" would take the time to read the laws in question.

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).

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 else’s property".

What is the Dictionary Definition is Steal? "STEAL = take unlawfully: to take something that belongs to somebody else, illegally or without the owner’s 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.
tron 24th November 2010, 18:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox

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.



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.

eddtox 24th November 2010, 18:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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 else’s property".

What is the Dictionary Definition is Steal? "STEAL = take unlawfully: to take something that belongs to somebody else, illegally or without the owner’s 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.

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.
tron 24th November 2010, 19:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
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. :)
Ravenheart 24th November 2010, 19:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanky887614
i dont understand at all why people pirate

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

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..
gnutonian 24th November 2010, 19:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4lanx
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.
In the last few months, two people got stabbed and one beaten to death near to where I live. And I live in a supposedly "fancy" area. Police budget/manpower (even though they work as "cyber police", they're still real police officers) shouldn't be wasted on protecting companies as long as society as a whole is at risk of gratuitious violence from idiots with small dicks. They can waste their resources on protecting companies after they've protected me from getting beaten to death on my way to the shop).
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)...
Quote:
'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."’
Correction: "Hey, you allegedly downloaded it illegally and right now we need to prove your guilt in the courts."

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?
Fizzban 24th November 2010, 20:17 Quote
It won't work. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up out of pocket trying to track down and fine people.

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!
eddtox 24th November 2010, 20:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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. :)

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.
Coldon 24th November 2010, 20:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnutonian
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?

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.
tron 24th November 2010, 21:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
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.

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.
AstralWanderer 24th November 2010, 22:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
Nice research. Thanks for posting the links. I had a good read.
Glad you found them of use. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
...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.
You still seem to confuse copyright infringement and theft - theft means taking an item from someone with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. Copyright infringement involves making a copy - no act of taking is involved. There is no overlap between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
Now there may not be a specific Law called "STEAL"...
The Theft Act 1968 seems to fit the bill rather well. Might I suggest you peruse it further?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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".
First of all, I am not trying to justify software piracy - I purchase all my games (while boycotting many due to offensive DRM) and you have no business trying to insinuate that I - or anyone else here making similar arguments - commit piracy.

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.
Rebourne 24th November 2010, 23:19 Quote
I was going to buy it... Now I'm just going to avoid it all together. I was looking forward to it too :(, bummer. I just can't buy something that is going to use the money to fund those anti-piracy firms that extort people and charge single mothers millions of dollars for downloading four songs.
GoodBytes 24th November 2010, 23:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebourne
I was going to buy it... Now I'm just going to avoid it all together. I was looking forward to it too :(, bummer. I just can't buy something that is going to use the money to fund those anti-piracy firms that extort people and charge single mothers millions of dollars for downloading four songs.

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.
eddtox 25th November 2010, 08:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
As I said above, I do not pirate and I think piracy is wrong, so I will thank you to stop suggesting that I do - it just makes you sound like an idiot who is incapable of reading.

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.
tron 25th November 2010, 08:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

You still seem to confuse copyright infringement and theft - theft means taking an item from someone with the intention of permanently depriving them of it. Copyright infringement involves making a copy - no act of taking is involved. There is no overlap between the two.

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. :)
Bindibadgi 25th November 2010, 09:36 Quote
Reported post read, and ignored. He has made a constructive post, which people are free to do. Carry on.
eddtox 25th November 2010, 10:52 Quote
I'll just quote my post above, seeing as you seem to have missed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
As I said above, I do not pirate and I think piracy is wrong, so I will thank you to stop suggesting that I do - it just makes you sound like an idiot who is incapable of reading.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Reported post read, and ignored. He has made a constructive post, which people are free to do. Carry on.

I hardly consider moronic trolling about how everyone is a filthy pirate constructive, but I'll keep that in mind for future discussions.
Krikkit 25th November 2010, 13:40 Quote
Trolling doesn't just mean he disagrees with the general sentiment you know. :p
AstralWanderer 25th November 2010, 19:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
Since you chose to put forward your viewpoint as a "legal fact" it seems perfectly relevant to quote the appropriate legal definitions. And there should be no confusion since the dictionary definitions that you quote and the legal ones largely overlap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
APPROPRIATE

What does the word mean? It more or less means the same as to acquire or take something for you and yourself.
"Appropriate" is defined here. To quote:

"(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 transferor’s 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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
Chapter VI (Rights and Remedies of Copyright Owner) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 does not grant the copyright holder "ownership" of copies for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968, but instead the right to claim compensation or to seize the copies concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
PROPERTY

What does property mean? Here it means something that somebody owns, whether it's a physical PC DVD or a digital form.
Section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968 provides a broader definiton:

"“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
As noted above, the publisher is not the "owner" of every copy (nor is the copyright holder). They are licensors with the legal right to permit (or forbid) the copying, broadcasting, performance or modification of their work.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
DEPRIVE

What does deprive mean? It means to take from somebody, or keep something from its rightful owner.
Covered here:

"(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 other’s 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 other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
Further, most pirates have the intention of permanently depriving the publisher of their copy, especially if they like the game.
Really? Have they mounted raids on the likes of Ubisoft or Activision to destroy their gold masters? Stormed retailers to seize their shrinkwrapped goods? Unless you can provide some solid proof of this, then I suggest you are talking utter nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
It can also be argued in many situations that you are depriving the publisher of financial earnings.
This is where copyright holders are on more solid ground - clearly not every unauthorised copy is a lost sale (many would have been made by those unable to purchase) but there will also be cases where people could (and undoubtedly should) have purchased. Then there are those who use unauthorised copies as a trial before purchasing (this Gizmondo article has one developer noting that 10% of such copies "go legit"). Since the biggest impact is made by "collectors" (those who copy with no intention of seriously playing or purchasing), an estimate of an overall 5-10% loss (i.e. unauthorised copiers who would have purchased) seems the most reasonable, taking into account the sales gains from triallers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
This sort of comment is where your posts descend from valid arguments to repetitive, attention-seeking trolls. You have been told multiple times that people here are not advocating copyright infringement yet you persist in trying to label anyone that opposes your view as a criminal.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
I started computing in the early 80s so I can tell you what things were like - most people exchanged copies or purchased them from commercial copiers (e.g. market stall traders). When Leisure Suit Larry was released in 1987 for the PC, it was estimated to have been the most copied game ever, with only 1 in 10 copies being legitimate. High street stores almost exclusively stuck with cheap (£10 or less) titles with minimal packaging - for anything more weighty (like RPGs) you had to use mail order, either direct from the publishers or from specialist stores.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
First, you are encouraging it by trying to use the Theft Act to desensitise these persons against the true reality of their thieving actions...blah blah blah
Try using a dictionary next time you participate in these forums. There are a lot of insightful, intelligent people here - but posts like yours makes me wonder where evolution went wrong. :(
eddtox 25th November 2010, 21:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
Trolling doesn't just mean he disagrees with the general sentiment you know. :p

Why, thank you so much for that most enlightening comment - I don't know how I've lived without your wisdom.
tron 26th November 2010, 00:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer


I started computing in the early 80s so I can tell you what things were like - most people exchanged copies or purchased them from commercial copiers (e.g. market stall traders). When Leisure Suit Larry was released in 1987 for the PC, it was estimated to have been the most copied game ever, with only 1 in 10 copies being legitimate. High street stores almost exclusively stuck with cheap (£10 or less) titles with minimal packaging - for anything more weighty (like RPGs) you had to use mail order, either direct from the publishers or from specialist stores.

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.

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 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer


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).

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.
Twist86 26th November 2010, 18:06 Quote
Any publisher that spends this much time on pirates I usually ignore their games. They treat us legit buyers as thieves and waste time/resources that could have been put into the game and done better.

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.
GoodBytes 26th November 2010, 18:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twist86
Any publisher that spends this much time on pirates I usually ignore their games. They treat us legit buyers as thieves and waste time/resources that could have been put into the game and done better.

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
gnutonian 27th November 2010, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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 agree it's not a right. Neither is owning a BMW. But the two aren't the same. A game can be supplied at near-zero cost (a digital copy) whereas a fancy car can't (as a digital copy of a fancy car is hard to drive to the shop).

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.
Coldon 27th November 2010, 15:24 Quote
And what about the poor developer that still wants a salary at the end of the month? You know the one that pirates put out of business due to bad sales...

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...
eddtox 27th November 2010, 15:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
And what about the poor developer that still wants a salary at the end of the month? You know the one that pirates put out of business due to bad sales...

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.
GoodBytes 27th November 2010, 15:45 Quote
I completely agree and is 100% true. (with Coldon)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon

but with joe entitled that will spend $1000 on a GTX480 SLI setup but OMG WOAH $60 for a game: "
You reminded me of this:
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.

Quote:
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...
6 hours of work, and how many of hours of play you have? Except for some exception (but that is why we have reviews). Many games give you over 60 hours of game play. And some like TF2 and StarCraft, just to name 2, provides unlimited play time. Heck even StarCraft 1 you can still play online with others.
Coldon 27th November 2010, 17:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddtox
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.

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!
gnutonian 27th November 2010, 18:16 Quote
@Coldon: I completely agree. If "piracy" (not the Gulf of Aden kind) really hurts business as much as the industry likes to claim (which seems to be bullshit, to be honest - the industry's percentages are less credible than politicians; however I'm sure there are at least several lost sales), then undoubtedly the developers get hurt. But, as one can read twixt my brackets, I doubt it.

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!).
DarkFear 27th November 2010, 19:01 Quote
Just thought I'd point out that Demigod and COD:MW2 isn't exactly games that can be used in a "it's not just crappy games that get pirated" argument... *puts on flame retardant pants* :p
Coldon 27th November 2010, 23:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnutonian
...

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...
AstralWanderer 28th November 2010, 15:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
Please don't get me wrong. I do actually trust you when you say you don't pirate games.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
What, pointing out the truth (albeit one you seem uncomfortable with) somehow makes me a bad person? Unauthorised copying is not a black-and-white good-or-evil issue as you seem to believe - there have been many past cases of content creators benefitting from it (as cost-free advertising) ranging from musicians who grew from bootleg records to some of the indie developers I noted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
Don't you realize you are feeding the pirates.
No, I neither realise nor accept it. People who want something that is non-free should pay for it - that is my view. However if someone makes a copy to try out prior to purchase (and is honourable enough to delete it quickly if they decide against it) or if someone genuinely cannot buy (not enough money, no access to a credit card or - in this crazy world of geographical licensing - lives somewhere where the product is not sold at any price) then their copying does no harm.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
Fine - then I can, with no guilty conscience, lump your posts together with the attention-starved trolls, pro-corporate shills and I-always-follow-the-law-except-when-I-choose-not-to hypocrites that discussions of this ilk seem to attract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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.
Because it is a different offense pure and simple. Confusing unauthorised copying and theft is akin to confusing rape and assault - they have different effects and I could argue that you are trivialising the victims of theft by equating it with copying, just as you are arguing that I am trivialising copying by distinguishing it from theft.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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?
Illegally yes. Dishonesty however involves deceit or deception, neither of which plays a role here (unless the person copying tried to sell on those copies as legitimate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
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?
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law...". More specifically, consider counterfeit goods - if you make a facsimile Gucci handbag, no-one is going to argue that it isn't yours to start with. However since it breaches Gucci's copyrights, they could apply for it to be seized from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
If you think he owns it legally, then you have got to be delusional.
If he didn't own it legally, then there would be no need for the seizure provision in Section 100 of the act. That this section exists at all shows your argument to be incorrect as far as UK law is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
And what about the poor developer that still wants a salary at the end of the month? You know the one that pirates put out of business due to bad sales...
I would sympathise completely with developers who sink so much time and effort in only to feel that they get an insufficient return. But I would also point out that there are many other reasons for them getting shafted aside from the copying angle:
  • 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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...
Sadly, it's because so many feel that way that lends to easy exploitation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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 did mention above the example of a teenager able to persuade their parents to fork out for a PC (for education, honest!) who faces a much harder time asking them to pay anything like a similar amount for games. How great a portion of unauthorised downloads would this account for? Given the maturity of the comments made on torrent review threads I would suggest 30-50%. Now this may represent a loss now - but many of those too young to buy currently will mature and become more responsible consumers when they start earning their own income - that was the case for me (when I started university I was able to purchase games and have done so ever since).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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 this way - if they're such morons, would you really want them as customers? They'd then be entitled to eat up what profits you make with dumb support calls, trolling posts in official forums or abusive behaviour in online play. As long as you can identify them as illegitimate, you can instead enjoy telling them to go forth and multiply...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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
According to that article, it sold 6 million (an incredibly high number, considering the original Witcher sold 1 million) while being downloaded 4 million times. That's a 40% unauthorised copying rate, which given that most games seem to have 80-90% levels, seems astoundingly good. And a lot better than what that douche deserves in my view...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
Hmm...I thought the original was consolized to some extent given the UI compromises compared to the likes of Neverwinter Nights. However I'll probably skip on the sequel (and for the record, I boycotted the DLC due to its online activation requirement).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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?
Well I bought Crysis (boycotted Warhead due to, sigh, DRM), though a couple of years after its release. It was a rare example of a game that wasn't deeply discounted, which suggests strong sales performance - while they started poorly, Crytek did reach the million sale mark (to be expected, considering the pre-release publicity was about how you would need to buy a new PC to run it). Since that means Crysis sold at the same level as The Witcher, maybe it's Crytek's expectations that should be criticised?
Coldon 28th November 2010, 16:14 Quote
All valid points just a few comments...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
I would sympathise completely with developers who sink so much time and effort in only to feel that they get an insufficient return. But I would also point out that there are many other reasons for them getting shafted aside from the copying angle: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.

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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

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.

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)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Sadly, it's because so many feel that way that lends to easy exploitation.I did mention above the example of a teenager able to persuade their parents to fork out for a PC (for education, honest!) who faces a much harder time asking them to pay anything like a similar amount for games. How great a portion of unauthorised downloads would this account for? Given the maturity of the comments made on torrent review threads I would suggest 30-50%. Now this may represent a loss now - but many of those too young to buy currently will mature and become more responsible consumers when they start earning their own income - that was the case for me (when I started university I was able to purchase games and have done so ever since).Look at it this way - if they're such morons, would you really want them as customers? They'd then be entitled to eat up what profits you make with dumb support calls, trolling posts in official forums or abusive behaviour in online play. As long as you can identify them as illegitimate, you can instead enjoy telling them to go forth and multiply...According to that article, it sold 6 million (an incredibly high number, considering the original Witcher sold 1 million) while being downloaded 4 million times. That's a 40% unauthorised copying rate, which given that most games seem to have 80-90% levels, seems astoundingly good. And a lot better than what that douche deserves in my view...

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Hmm...I thought the original was consolized to some extent given the UI compromises compared to the likes of Neverwinter Nights. However I'll probably skip on the sequel (and for the record, I boycotted the DLC due to its online activation requirement).Well I bought Crysis (boycotted Warhead due to, sigh, DRM), though a couple of years after its release. It was a rare example of a game that wasn't deeply discounted, which suggests strong sales performance - while they started poorly, Crytek did reach the million sale mark (to be expected, considering the pre-release publicity was about how you would need to buy a new PC to run it). Since that means Crysis sold at the same level as The Witcher, maybe it's Crytek's expectations that should be criticised?

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...
tron 29th November 2010, 09:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
If he didn't own it legally, then there would be no need for the seizure provision in Section 100 of the act. That this section exists at all shows your argument to be incorrect as far as UK law is concerned.

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.
AstralWanderer 10th December 2010, 08:12 Quote
Sorry about the delay - missed the updates on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
... 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...
Perhaps I should have clarified that my case was a physical copy, not digital, so out of that £7 you'd have to account for manufacturing and distribution/postage along with the distributor/retailer markups. I couldn't see more than £1-2 of that price making its way to the developer.

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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
... 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)...
Dragon Age in a weekend? Yeesh, I was able to stretch it out for 3 weeks! Maybe "slothful players" who drag out their gaming experience should be added as a threat to the gaming industry. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
I take the opposite view, treating any game as a long term investment that I'll want to revisit 5-10 years from now (if it's a good game, that is). I've recently been replaying Homeworld (2000), Settlers II (1997) and HoMM V (2006) along with a real oldie, Wizard's Crown (1986). The majority of the games I own would not be playable if they had required online activation due to the publishers/developers vanishing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
It would be interesting to see hard figures on this - but I suspect that many who do "go responsible" then acquire other time/moneysinks (families, houses, etc) while a good portion of those who don't, download a disproportionately large number of games while possibly playing only a few. So a small portion of the gaming public captures a large slice of download figures, and everyone else suffers. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
Those figures were retail only though (no indication of whether mail order was included but I suspect not) and anyone who's been in a store recently will likely have struggled to even find PC games. The prevalence of "casual" titles like the Sims in the 2007 "PC Top Ten" suggests to me that they're getting a skewed sample - likely those who haven't noticed how much cheaper mail-order has been for the last 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
I'm very curious to see the overall sales figures for the witcher with both re-releases compared to crysis...
Apparently (as of March 2009) the Witcher sold 1.2 million units (physical and digital) while Crysis was close to the million mark by the third quarter of 2008. Given the hype that Crysis enjoyed, the Witcher would be doing very well to outsell it - on the other hand there were very few RPGs to compete with the Witcher when released, while the PC platform is full to bursting with FPSs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tron
That piece of legislation you kindly posted actually proves my point and not yours...
Right on. So you think that a penalty that has to be requested by a plaintiff and decided upon by a court then becomes automagical and a fundamental right? Well, good luck with your legal career - though "career" in your case seems more likely to be a verb than a noun.
Coldon 10th December 2010, 09:12 Quote
all valid points but to cut the argument short in my opinion in the current state of things DRM is necessary, now DRM like ubisoft's always on BS can go DIE! but EA's DRM hasn't been instrusive at all... whatever they used on dragon age and BFBC2/MOHAA was perfectly fine but i would prefer it most if all games were steam based...

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...
eddtox 10th December 2010, 09:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
all valid points but to cut the argument short in my opinion in the current state of things DRM is necessary, now DRM like ubisoft's always on BS can go DIE! but EA's DRM hasn't been instrusive at all... whatever they used on dragon age and BFBC2/MOHAA was perfectly fine but i would prefer it most if all games were steam based...

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.
AstralWanderer 10th December 2010, 11:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
... in the current state of things DRM is necessary, now DRM like ubisoft's always on BS can go DIE! but EA's DRM hasn't been instrusive at all... whatever they used on dragon age and BFBC2/MOHAA was perfectly fine but i would prefer it most if all games were steam based...
GOG seem to manage without DRM (and I've been happy to throw a couple of hundred pounds their way as a result) as do publishers like Shrapnel Games, Basilisk Games and Spiderweb software (on their CDs - their downloads have hardware-tied serial keys). In fact, most of the shareware industry could be described as being DRM-free in that you only need register once and can then use your personal key indefinitely (the smartest developers display registration details on the program's main window giving those with unauthorised copies an incentive to purchase their own). Introversion's Chris has a thoughtful article on the downsides of DRM. Finally we have the Witcher 2 itself being released DRM-free.

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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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...
What if Steam decides that one of your imported games was pirated? What if your credit card provider reverses a Steam transaction? Valve have a life-or-death power over your game account and aside from the privacy implications (their ability to monitor what and when you play, data which could be sold to marketers and employers) they could also gouge more money out of customers by imposing a subscription fee (discussed elsewhere, just to avoid taking this thread off-topic too much).
tron 11th December 2010, 09:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
Right on. So you think that a penalty that has to be requested by a plaintiff and decided upon by a court then becomes automagical and a fundamental right? Well, good luck with your legal career - though "career" in your case seems more likely to be a verb than a noun.

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. :)
Coldon 11th December 2010, 09:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
What if Steam decides that one of your imported games was pirated? What if your credit card provider reverses a Steam transaction? Valve have a life-or-death power over your game account and aside from the privacy implications (their ability to monitor what and when you play, data which could be sold to marketers and employers) they could also gouge more money out of customers by imposing a subscription fee (discussed elsewhere, just to avoid taking this thread off-topic too much).

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...
AstralWanderer 15th December 2010, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
What if, what if, what if... That is bordering on paranoia.
It's a non-issue with "normal" software that you purchase, install and can expect to "just work". Systems like Steam however require buyers to maintain an ongoing relationship so checking what can go wrong is prudence, not paranoia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
Count yourself fortunate - I had two transactions reversed by Paypal on their own initiative (after having carried out about 40 previous ones successfully) and they refused to do anything without having my bank details (which would have meant giving them Direct Debit access). Needless to say, I refused and had to make alternate arrangements to pay the merchants involved.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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...
There's no mention of Valve providing offline patches in the Steam Subscriber Agreement and that's the only source that matters. Even if they did offer a legally-binding guarantee, odds are that they would not be able to fulfil it for reasons detailed by Shamus Young in his Authorization Servers article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
Again, count yourself fortunate. There are plenty of examples posted online showing the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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...
For a developer - yes. They get a greater share of the sale price (and receive it sooner) than with retail. However for consumers that are charged full price (despite there being no physical costs), have no guarantee of continued access to their purchases, no privacy (Steam knows what, when, and to some extent where, you play a Steam product) and a real possibility being blackmailed into paying maintenance fees in future, the dangers have to be considered at least as great as the benefits, though not as obvious.
Coldon 15th December 2010, 15:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

For a developer - yes. They get a greater share of the sale price (and receive it sooner) than with retail. However for consumers that are charged full price (despite there being no physical costs), have no guarantee of continued access to their purchases, no privacy (Steam knows what, when, and to some extent where, you play a Steam product) and a real possibility being blackmailed into paying maintenance fees in future, the dangers have to be considered at least as great as the benefits, though not as obvious.

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 :(:(:(
AstralWanderer 15th December 2010, 16:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
NO physical costs?! are you kidding me? so who is that pays for all of valves servers and bandwidth costs?...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).
By "physical costs" I meant those involved with a physical product, which for a game would include the cost of manufacture (CD/DVD, manuals, packaging), transport, storage, inventory management (dealing with returns/damaged goods and arranging for new batches to be produced). Most significant in this would be the distributor/retailer markup (retailer margins typically taking 50% of the sticker price).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
The extra money spent on packaging and transport is now spent on servers and bandwidth.
From previous calculations, the bandwidth cost of a "typical" game would be less than £0.08 compared to a "physical" cost of £3.00. No way are the two equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
Steam allows me to buy games that are no longer available in RETAIL stores.
Mail order, eBay and DRM-free download services like GOG do that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
The benefit offered to developers does not excuse the risk to customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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?
Valve claim 30 million rather than 3 and my answer is the downsides are not obvious (except to a minority it seems). A similar situation existed with music DRM-download services until many got their fingers burnt with the closure of Virgin Digital and Yahoo Music. Now we have stores offering DRM-free MP3 tracks because most music consumers won't touch DRM with a barge pole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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?
If you don't work for an employer and don't deal with online vendors then no, you don't need to care. However the information Valve can collect would be of value to employers who could use it to check employee behaviour (especially if sick leave happens to coincide with a major game release) and to examine prospective new hires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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 :(:(:(
CD-Projekt have little to lose from this in my view - they're not wasting money on ineffective DRM and are building customer goodwill. Most importantly though, they've been running the GOG service for over 2 years so they clearly can judge better than anyone else in the industry how much business there is in DRM-free releases.

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.
Coldon 15th December 2010, 16:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
By "physical costs" I meant those involved with a physical product, which for a game would include the cost of manufacture (CD/DVD, manuals, packaging), transport, storage, inventory management (dealing with returns/damaged goods and arranging for new batches to be produced). Most significant in this would be the distributor/retailer markup (retailer margins typically taking 50% of the sticker price).From previous calculations, the bandwidth cost of a "typical" game would be less than £0.08 compared to a "physical" cost of £3.00. No way are the two equal.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Mail order, eBay and DRM-free download services like GOG do that too.The benefit offered to developers does not excuse the risk to customers.
Yeh, cause getting stuff shipped to africa or using ebay is risk-free. I cant believe you just listed EBAY as less risky than steam. GOG has wait for it good OLD games, what if i want a 10 month old game that isn't available at retail anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

If you don't work for an employer and don't deal with online vendors then no, you don't need to care. However the information Valve can collect would be of value to employers who could use it to check employee behaviour (especially if sick leave happens to coincide with a major game release) and to examine prospective new hires.
really dumb analogy... sick leave = medical certificate at pretty much any major company. Don't see how seeing that a potential employee plays a lot of video games has anything to do with hiring practices. Pretty sure past references and qualifications are a little more important. I spend a fair amount of time gaming and yet can still juggle two jobs and a social life.
AstralWanderer 16th December 2010, 02:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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.
Thanks for the info - care to post a link to the company concerned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
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).
I wasn't talking about hosting a copy of the full Steam service but the bandwidth costs involved with a single (9GB) game. Disk space should be a non-issue there. As for routing and user connection, neither should be a problem for a provider linked to 3 of Europe's main Internet exchanges but at the same time I don't doubt that a US-based service would work out cheaper, and likely better (I couldn't find any firm quotes for one at the time).

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
Also basing your retailer profit margins off of a random forum thread isn't exactly proof.
Then how about 1C's publishing director's article on this? According to him, retail margins account for 50% of the sticker price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
Yeh, cause getting stuff shipped to africa or using ebay is risk-free. I cant believe you just listed EBAY as less risky than steam.
Well, I can only speak from personal experience here but I purchased over a dozen games through eBay before Paypal started giving me grief. Since then, I've been able to get a similar service (with the same vendors in some cases) via Amazon Marketplace. Of course, with eBay there are steps you can take to protect yourself from being bilked - which aren't available to a Steam subscriber.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
GOG has wait for it good OLD games, what if i want a 10 month old game that isn't available at retail anymore?
GOG do include releases from 2007-2008 but if you're looking for something more recent then eBay, Amazon MarketPlace, Play.com are all options for UK buyers. I can't speak authoritatively for the mail order business in South Africa but a Google search seemed to turn up a few other possible avenues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
really dumb analogy... sick leave = medical certificate at pretty much any major company.
In the UK, you don't need a doctor's certificate unless you've been ill for seven days or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
Don't see how seeing that a potential employee plays a lot of video games has anything to do with hiring practices. Pretty sure past references and qualifications are a little more important. I spend a fair amount of time gaming and yet can still juggle two jobs and a social life.
...because employers want to be able to identify those people who can't juggle jobs/social lives with their gaming...
Coldon 17th December 2010, 07:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer
Thanks for the info - care to post a link to the company concerned?
http://www.cdt.co.za/index.php?page=cd
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

I wasn't talking about hosting a copy of the full Steam service but the bandwidth costs involved with a single (9GB) game. Disk space should be a non-issue there. As for routing and user connection, neither should be a problem for a provider linked to 3 of Europe's main Internet exchanges but at the same time I don't doubt that a US-based service would work out cheaper, and likely better (I couldn't find any firm quotes for one at the time).

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Then how about 1C's publishing director's article on this? According to him, retail margins account for 50% of the sticker price.

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%?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Well, I can only speak from personal experience here but I purchased over a dozen games through eBay before Paypal started giving me grief. Since then, I've been able to get a similar service (with the same vendors in some cases) via Amazon Marketplace. Of course, with eBay there are steps you can take to protect yourself from being bilked - which aren't available to a Steam subscriber.
GOG do include releases from 2007-2008 but if you're looking for something more recent then eBay, Amazon MarketPlace, Play.com are all options for UK buyers. I can't speak authoritatively for the mail order business in South Africa but a Google search seemed to turn up a few other possible avenues.
none of which ship to SA, the online stores locally stock what the local suppliers have, stock runs out quickly locally and suppliers don't bring in more. So for old games you're restricted to GOG or steam...

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

In the UK, you don't need a doctor's certificate unless you've been ill for seven days or more....because employers want to be able to identify those people who can't juggle jobs/social lives with their gaming...

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.
eddtox 17th December 2010, 09:56 Quote
It sounds to me like this is degenerating into a discussion about conditions in various countries. Some things might be much cheaper in South Africa, and some much harder to get, but in the UK **** is expensive and you can find games in bargain baskets for years after release.

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.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums