CD Projekt Red halts legal threats against pirates
CD Projekt Red has announced it will immediately stop sending legal notices to suspected pirates, after some users raised concerns that it may accidentally target innocent victims.
CD Projekt Red has announced it will no longer contact pirates with legal action. Reports came last month that the company was contacting pirates to claim 911.80 euros (approximately $1,187), but the company ultimately decided that the loss of trust among some fans wasn't worth the risk.
"While we are confident that no one who legally owns one of our games has been required to compensate us for copyright infringement, we value our fans, our supporters, and our community too highly to take the chance that we might ever falsely accuse even one individual," a statement from co-founder Marcin Iwinski reads.
"So we've decided that we will immediately cease identifying and contacting pirates," the statement concludes (via Rock Paper Shotgun).
The statement goes on to reaffirm that the company doesn't support piracy, "It hurts us, the developers. It hurts the industry as a whole," says Iwinski. "We've heard your concerns, listened to your voices, and we're responding to them. But you need to help us and do your part: don't be indifferent to piracy." Not only encouraging players not to pirate, the statement tells users to step in and call foul on friends who pirate. "Unless you support the developers who make the games you play, unless you pay for those games, we won't be able to produce new excellent titles for you."
This should come as welcome news to those who feared the accusations would hit innocent victims, and it seems like the best way to handle the public relations spectacle. Nevertheless, the developer behind the previously PC-exclusive Witcher 2 is trusting fans by straying from DRM models, and piracy is a poor reward for their faith in users.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, CD Projekt Red halts legal threats against pirates.
CD Projekt Red has announced it will immediately stop sending legal notices to suspected pirates, after some users raised concerns that it may accidentally target innocent victims.-
Too bad. Pirates need to have their asses handed to them. Bunch of useless losers.
-
-
If I go to Best Buy, and get caught stealing a $60 game, what's the penalty?
I would assume a few hundred dollars in fines...probably not including court fees and possibly lawyer fees. I would also be arrested AFAIK.
So I don't see how that doesn't make sense. It's easier to steal online so the penalty as far as monetarily should be more, especially if you're getting the option of not dealing with the legal system.
Seems like the perfect way to curb piracy to me. Far better than DRM. The issue doesn't seem to be the penalty, it seems to be their ability to 100% correctly identify pirates.
-
Pirating isn't stealing fyi
-
ugh. I hate this line so much.
-
This is probably how he rests comfortably after BT'ing all the software he owns. And people wonder why congress are pursuing such a stupid solution as SOPA...its because of idiots like wickoattack.
-
Wow, you're intelligent. Your post made so much sense. Now I know why the MPAA and RIAA associated pirating with stealing because idiots like you can't tell the difference.
-
Pirating means you're not likely to get caught. Stealing generally means you have to physically go in and take something at risk.
So it's basically the difference between being a scumbag and being a scumbag and a pussy.
No 'fense, no 'fense.
-
-
-
-
Its exactly the same. With digital materials if you download it illegally that is absolutely stealing. People say that because you're not taking something you see or feel, its not stealing. Horseshit. Digital materials are different because you don't pay for what you see and feel, you pay for the digized information. So if you download it illegally you are stealing.
The only people i've seen use this lame excuse "its not stealing" are the very ones who BT shit all day long.-
-
So your trying to claim that digital items are worth less and you're using steam sales as an example of this worth? Steam makes a shitton more money on these sales than they do selling it at full retail price. It's not because they can "afford" to do it, they are making mad profit on it. Case in point:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/57308/valve-left-4-dead-half
-
I think it shouldn't be too hard to understand that Steam has less overhead than a box store. There are no shipping costs, no packaging costs, personnel costs, no rent to pay, no liability insurance (for property at least) to buy, no shrinkage inventory problems (someone stealing the game digitally does not reduce the number of available "copies" on the Steam storefront). With all that overhead, yes, with the game creator's consent, they can discount things down much more agressively.
-
-
The only reason you're making this argument is because you think pirating doesn't have the same negativity as stealing does, and you need to express how morally wrong it is. I guess it's beyond you to understand that pirating is also morally wrong and it needs to be simplified for you.
But don't worry about me, keep making sweeping generalizations about people who say pirating isn't stealing. Generalizations are 100% true.
-
-
You are gaining access to something you are not entitled to.
-
-
-
Are you joking or is this the way you justify pirating shit in your head? Downloading digitized copyrighted material is absolutely stealing. A car at a dealership - you pay for what you see. Digitized works are different -- such as video games -- you pay for the blood sweat and tears the author put in, you are not paying for the medium it is carried on (which literally costs pennies). You are paying for the digitized material and you can't fucking justify pirating as "not being theft". It is theft.
In short if this is how you justify downloading pirated stuff, because OH HEY ITS NOT STEALING, you are fucked up.-
You mad bro?
I buy more games than most people
I don't pirate games
I know the difference between pirating and stealing
Here I made a list of facts for you, please enjoy them at your leisure. -
No body wins in online discussions regarding Piracy. That being said, it's soo hard not to get sucked in to the logical flaws and fallacies put forth in many arguments and comparisons.
I know i'm pissin into the wind* here on this one, but for the sake of reason:
If the digital copy represents the sweat and tears of the artist, then for 2x digital copies, the artist had to sweat twice as much? And when they sell 1million copies, well that thats a whole swimming pool of bodily fluids right (a million tear drops).
No wait, that doesn't work out, because it's a fixed/sunk cost-investment, and for digital goods there really is no marginal cost in producing extra copies.
It just goes to show you that the idea of intellectual property ("property" that has no real manifestation in the physical world, and as such isn't bound by the laws and constraints of physical access) is an inherently tricky subject. You can't treat it 100% like regular property, but you can't say it's completely free either.
It really depends if you lean towards a capitalist outlook (the original author deserves to make as much money as they possibly can, everyone else be damned) or a more social leaning one (as long as the original author is fairly compensated and doesn't starve, then society benefits from the greater distribution of creative works).
That's not a logic/reason argument though, it's an ideological one. Ie. There are no winners, on right/wrong, no black/white.
* - the only thing you end up with, is piss on your face.-
The problem for video games is only 1 in 5 that make it to the shelf turn a profit. When you include cancelled games into that number, it's lowered to 1 in 25.
When developers and publishers are citing 10:1 and 20:1 pirate:sale ratio, that shit fucking hurts. Turning over even 5% of those pirated copies into sales would be a substantial (50-100%) increase in sales. -
That is crazy. If someone creates something truly awesome, and you love it, then you should pay for it. It rewards the creator. It is not for you or anyone to decide when the creator has "made enough" or "isn't starving." Music is not food. Video games are not air. You can do without. If you can't pay for it, move along, or do something productive so you can ultimately pay for it.
It just raises the price the rest of us pay for games, makes us suffer DRM, and reduces the quality of the games by reducing the potential return to entice designers to make something really good. -
Your "fallacies" are full of fallacies.
Firstly, you're saying if company A uses 100,000 man hours to produce Game A and company B uses 100,000 man hours to produce Game B they should make the same amount of money? What if Game A is buggy and chopped a lot of content that was promised and Game B is a shining gem of awesomeness? Furthermore, who's to say that company A's employees were really working, or working hard for all those hours?
Secondly, material goods to not sell for cost. Ever heard of brand names? Cost of production is not always even the minimum retail pricing. Look at the profitability of consoles at the beginning of their lifespans, they sell for a loss. Basically, things are sold for whatever the market is willing to pay for them, be that a loss or a 300% markup(or more).
"Fairly compensated" according to who, exactly? What is "fair compensation?"
It's not an ideological argument, at least it shouldn't be. The people producing the item are the ones who should choose what kind of compensation they want, or the society in which they live. It is not you as an individual who gets to decide how much to pay someone, everyone else be damned.
-
-
Obviously piracy is bad and hurts developers, publishers and the whole industry including gamers. I would say though that I agree it’s not the same as stealing something from a shop, and I don't think pirates should face extra fines compared to shop lifters. If anything I think punishments should be equal to or lower than shop lifting, because while its unquestionably bad and harming developers, you're not actually taking anything away.
A game shop has already bought the game on the shelf, if you stole it that is a 100% lost sale because they can't sell it anymore. Online, a pirate hasn’t harmed the ability to sell to anyone other than the pirate themselves. I guess this is where the piracy doesn't always equal a lost sale argument comes in.
Overall I hate piracy, and pirates can DIAF for all I care, but I'm scared of the crippling effect a £700.00 bill all of a sudden can have on someone’s life. I think its disproportionate to the crime.
-
All I said was it isn't the same, and it seems you agree. However it seems that some people read into that reasoning a little too much.
-
-
This x 1000. If this is how they comfort themselves after BT'ing copyrighted shit, whatever.
-
Yes, that's why they're 2 completely different offenses. Because its a useless semantic argument. Good work.
-
-
Kinda fundamental to the whole debate isn't it?
-
-
-
-
-
You're right, I could have elaborated. I should have elaborated, because then I would have prevented what appears to be an anti-piracy ragefest instead of a civil discussion.
-
[deleted]
-
-
The funny part about all this is that it seems everyone who's raged at my comment, read only my comment, and not the ones before. What I was implying would have been more obvious that way.
-
-
-
Here's the solution: Don't steal shit. If the penalty was only making good when you got caught, or paying 2x the price, people would do a cost/benefit analysis and keep right on stealing. Hell, nail them for $2k for all I care. Don't want it to happen? Then don't be a problem that puts hard working people out of business.
-
Part of me agrees with you, but there are some problems with that.
There are the cases where an innocent party is accused. Maybe because the technology they used is not accurate, maybe someone else used your Wi-Fi to download a game. And what about situations where, for example, some tech savvy kid uses their grandparent’s connection to download a game? Is it okay to nail a pensioner with a £2k bill for something they probably didn't even know could happen?
I totally agree pirates and the people making piracy possible should be punished, but the punishment must fit the crime. I think charging someone a fine so many many times more than the value of the game is not fair. It should certainly be inflated beyond the price of the game to make it a deterrent, and maybe bigger fines / punishments for repeat offenders, but we shouldn't cripple people’s lives for what is, relatively speaking, a small crime.
-
-
-
-
It's called piracy. What is so difficult that people can't accept that?
-
You are playing a game of semantics.
-
accept what? a synonym for stealing? ok I can accept that if that's where you are going with it.
otherwise, give me something else to accept.
is it that difficult to understand the deliberate circumventing of market pricing and copy protection and intellectual property? people consuming the exact same thing as someone else, but deliberately went around the marketplace? -
[deleted]
-
-
In their fucked up world, stealing is only when you take something which can see or feel. Thats a green light to download all the music, movies, and video games you wan't, because you're definitely not taking something that doesn't belong to you. Nope.
-
Hi I'm creeping-death and I have difficulties with the English language. Please simplify it for me.
-
Sure, if you walk into a store and take Adobe CS5 off the shelf and install it, stealing.
If you download Adobe CS5 off the internet and install it, stealing.
VERY simply put, installing software that you didn't buy is stealing. Piracy is, by definition, stealing. Taking something that you didn't pay for. Whether it is a ship and it's cargo or downloading software and a keygen.
I can't comprehend how you don't see that taking a product that someone else has put time, energy and money into developing for sale to the general public to not be stealing. If you follow your logic, go ahead and grab an iPad from an Apple store and argue that you're just pirating data because that's all a product is, really. Years of data to develop software, hardware, marketing and so on.
Take from this what you will.-
the fun part about these arguments is that neither side will budge on their extremist views:
anti-pirates: refuse to acknowledge that illegal duplication isn't a direct equivalent to stealing a physical item
pirates: refuse to acknowledge that illegal duplication is a 'victimless crime' devoid of any negative results to the creators
-
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
-
No, it does not. Did you design the software? No. Did you pay for it? No. Then you're stealing. There is no "middle ground". The "middle ground" is filled with people whining "But I want it but I don't know if it'll be good so I'll steal it and then maybe pay for it if I think it's worth my money."
It's rationalization for being a turd, period.-
Whatever. I personally lean more towards the "it's stealing" side of the argument, but I also recognize that it's not exactly the same as stealing a product that is limited in production by finite resources.
-
-
-
How is it "extreme" to view copyright violations as anything but stealing? Yes, you might not hold a physical product in your hand but if you buy software of Steam and install it, you never have a physical copy, either. Yet, guess what, one is theft and one isn't.
-
-
continuing with this point, the infinite shades of grey in human action define every other judgement we have on every other crime. there's a reason why we have multiple levels of murder charges, down to manslaughter, etc. in that example even the ramifications are the same, but the motive and preconditions are different, yet we still make a distinction between it because dealing in absolutes is for sith and zealots.
-
How are the ramifications different. In one case, you steal a burger. In another, you steal the burger and the plate it came on. That is the only difference.
Oh, and yeah, you are less likely to get caught if you pirate as opposed to swiping the software at a store.-
i'm sorry you lack the ability to make the distinction between duplication and larceny and their impact on the faulted party.
i'm also sorry you typed out that nonsensical analogy, because i had to re-read it like ten times just to practice due diligence and verify you have no idea what i'm saying.
and yes, the chances of being caught pirating are less than most forms of theft.. however my point was about the affect on the person/business being infringed upon, not the party at fault.-
I'm sorry you're so sorry, for all the wrong things.
You should be sorry for introducing the term "larceny" like it was what you meant all along. Larceny is a subset of theft.
You're sorry because you don't understand the difference between media and medium, which is why it took 10 tries to grasp the analogy.
You're sorry because you think that the "affect" on the person/business is not the same. If by that you are trying to split hairs and say "well gee, on one end you're stealing intellectual property and on the other you're stealing intellectual property and the box it comes in.", then you are correct and making a distincition without an EFFECTIVE difference.
So let's get down to brass tacks. You steal software from a store and the cost is $55 of development, risk payoff, overhead, whatever, and $5 of box. If you steal it by copying it, you just stole $55 instead of $60. That's your difference. You want to hang your hat on that and call people "extreme" for saying that a person who does either is a thief, or that there's a difference? There's your difference. You're still a thief.-
thank you for not saying "brass tax"
-
Larceny was just a term that I thought would drive the difference between physical goods and potential revenue home. Sadly, you don't care about that difference in your view, or you're diluted enough to think they're the same thing. All I can say is I sincerely hope you're not a supreme court judge.
-
Larceny is the theft of PERSONAL property, and requires TRESSPASS onto real property owned by another to be part of the process. You're not tresspassing in a store.
So, really, fail. -
Also, "deluded", and "Supreme Court Justice", not Judge.
Also, regarding your "physical goods" statement: When you buy software, the medium is incidental to the purchase. You're not buying the DVD to own a DVD but to own a license to the movie, software, or whatever is on it.
You fail to grasp that the real value is the intellectual property. The HAMBURGER as opposed to the PLATE (get it now?). You are stealing the actual product in both cases, whether by copying the intellectual property for unlicensed use or taking a physical copy for unlicensed use.
Saying "I would never have bought it but I will use it" is complete bullshit. Then don't use it, at all. It's not yours, and the truth is you WOULD buy at least some of the things you take for free.
But you won't, because you're a thief, and if that lies heavy on you, well, too bad, thief.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thankfully I'm not in either camp.
-
-
-
OOOO! What if you DL Adobe, and burn it to disk, and stamp it, and make a counterfeit box, and shrinkwrap it, and put *that* on the shelf (thereby generating a "new retail copy")?
Of course, with bar-coded inventory, that'd be tough to hide, but assume either there's a way around that. or it was years ago, and was The Bard's Tale on Apple II or something.
Wow. Counterfeiting would take too much work for my tastes!
-
-
-
Dude, whatever. You like to steal the works of others. Own up to it and get on with your life. Stop trying to convince yourself, or us, that it's OK or different somehow.
And if you don't pirate, then I'll just say you're wrong. It's stealing.
Hi, I'm wickoattack and I think that all posts should be constructed with perfect grammar and spelling, and will go on spellcheck attack in an effort to squirt an ink cloud. Just like a squid.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Regardless if you believe stealing/piracy are equivalent or not, I think we can all agree that what the MPAA or the RIAA does has to do with them wanted butt loads of money, regardless of how they get it. The RIAA even at one point wanted to sue Limewire for 75 TRILLION dollars. Might was well ask for infinity dollars. They are hardly the benchmark to test legality/morality against.
-
-
Stating this on the Shack will get you stomped on, as you can see. I actually agree with you, though. I don't think it's right calling it theft because of the definitive difference of taking something that can no longer be possessed by the original owner, and making a copy of something. I don't condone piracy, I don't think it's acceptable, and I in most cases I don't think it's any more acceptable than theft. But I refuse to call it something that I feel it by definition is not.
Piracy is a hot topic, but I don't see why people can't see the difference between someone trying to define the true meaning of words or terms, and a person trying to justify pirating something. "Let's just call it theft because it's so wrong and pirates are losers!!!" just isn't good enough for me.
-
-
-
-
hahahahaha
-
If this is what they did in Germany, there's more to it than that. The whole thing was a money printing scheme. The software they used to track the IP addresses of pirates in peer to peer networks they used was certified as 100 percent bug free and it's data admissible as forensic evidence by a structural engineer. Then it was also assumed that Telekom and other providers never make any mistakes. If they make a claim, then it's fact. Considering my experiences with my provider I don't think that's actually the case.
A few years ago my ex's son was caught, around the time rainbow six vegas came out. I paid for it, and it was fine, because he did it, and that's just what happens. Then I got a threat around the time Twilight 2 came out, saying that I had downloaded Twilight. I wouldn't watch that movie if you paid me to. But, here I am presented with a choice, either I pay 1000 Euros and sign this thing where I promise never to download ever again, or I reject their claims, and have to face the possibility of being made responsible not only for me having downloaded it, but for having uploaded it, having likely caused hundreds of thousands in damages in the process, which they would then seek to get from me. And that's where the idiocy comes in of providers that are infallible, and software that can't possibly ever fail. They have evidence that shows my guilt, and I don't have anything to show my innocence, other than my taste in movies. Not really an effective defense.
It was a pretty effective threat, on the other hand. They send out these letters and hope to scare people into paying, whether or not they actually did something. It's like spam mail. Because some of them do, it has become a profitable business.
I did not pay for Twilight, by the way. They don't actually want to take anyone to court and my lawyer told me to just ignore it. Never heard from them since. They just want to threaten enough people to pay so it makes it worth their while. The cut, by the way, that went to Ubisoft for Rainbow Six: Vegas was the price of the game. The rest was all legal fees and overhead costs. For sending a letter. One of thousands that week. Laughable.
-
-
That's a classy move on their part. Going after pirates is fine, but -only- if you can identify them positively.
-
[deleted]
-
That's an odd definition of "not obligated" you have there.
-
"If you could prove that you did not steal the game, nothing would have happened to you."
See this is the bullshit part. You're innocent until proven guilty. You shouldn't need to prove your innocence on something they may or may not even have proof of. Blanket accusing people is not ok by any standard. If they can certainly prove you're guilty, then fine, send notices or get people in court.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
I really like CD Projekt. They seem like a really well run company.
-
GFWL FOR WITCHER 3 I CANT WAIT LOLOLOL
-
Glad to hear this, very glad. I am certainly not indifferent to piracy, I shun anybody who pirates games and refuse to help them. The new game from CD Project Red Should be steamworks. it's the accepted method these days and removes zero day piracy.
CD Project Red should not treat pirates as loss of sales. Treat pirates as the competition. Provide a good quality service and people will buy your games. Remember than some people will never buy your games. -
-
-
-
I don't have a single illegal MP3, no bullshit. The Youtube point is a good one. Generally speaking the good versions are from the copyright holder, and those are the ones I listen to. In times of EXTREME stress, where I can't find any version anywhere, I have listened to a Youtube clip, and treated it a bit like the radio, which to your point is wrong.
-
Radio stations pay royalties for the music they play.
-
That's why I agree that it is in fact different. If Youtube isn't marking "illegal" songs and sending a small payment to the copyright holder, it's wrong to listen to it.
-
I don't understand. You say it's not like the radio, it's wrong, but you do it sometimes?
-
Youtube pays for views/hits, though...Kinda like a royalty.
-
But they pay the uploader, who is not necessarily the copyright holder, right?
-
That's what themongbat was saying when he said he only listens to songs on youtube that have been uploaded by the copyright holder.
-
-
-
Oh I see -- you're admitting that it's wrong to treat it like the radio. Sorry, I misread the last sentence of your original post.
Are you going to change that habit?-
Yeah, I actually am. I rarely do it anyway, or I do it usually with songs I already own on Zune (or rent, rather), so those I think I can still be on the side of the angels with, but other stuff, no, I cannot listen to. It's not right.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It's a fair point. I've dl'd some music illegally, but that was bc the version of the song I wished to purchase couldn't be purchased in the US, anywhere. Itunes, AZ, beatport, rhapsody, napster. Nada. That's the case for a great deal of content in other countries. The either delay the release substantially, or they don't support it well enough to encourage purchase either through content offered or the price(as in it's more expensive than the US release). I don't like piracy, but I hate it more when content is controlled so strictly that it's not only easier to pirate content but sometimes absolutely necessary.
-
-
In an another news: http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1216416p1.html
Don't want to link to ign but i read these 2 pieces only mins apart, can't help it :p
-
