News CD Projekt to fine Witcher 2 pirates

Exactly, "copyright infringers" is indeed the most accurate "Legal" term.


The type of "Copyright Infringement", in this particular case, is the act of taking (stealing) a copy of a game that does not belong to you. It describes a form of theft. If you have a copy of a full video game installed on your PC that you did not pay for, win in a prize or something, and fair usage rights don't apply in your situation, and you did not get the copyright owner's permission to take that copy, then you stole it. It doesn't matter whether or not you took the copy from a high street shop or you took it from cyberspace, you stole it. You took something that doesn't and shouldn't belong to you.

 

Basically they want to compromise people's privacy in order to find out who's illicitly copying their games. They also want to fine anyone who does so. They're using a position of power to harrass individuals who do not have similar resources to defend themselves. To me, that's bullying.

If they want to ensure their livelihood, they should continue making games that people will want to buy. They should get over the notion that every copy is a lost sale, since many people who download a game illicitly have no intention of buying it otherwise. If someone who in _any case_ would not have given money to anyone for a game downloads said game, has anybody lost anything? No.

I know you think I'm splitting hairs or trying to justify piracy, but I'm just trying to get across the fact that simply copying imaginary property does not make anybody a criminal. I would urge everybody to reward developers who make great software, but arguing that not doing so ought to be a punishable crime is really excessive.

 

Greetings!

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

 

Can you read?

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

 

-1

+1

 

Don't copy that Floppy! (Someone needed to say it)

 

Exactly! Just like Fraud or Joyriding can be different types of Theft. That's why I posted the following:

"copyright infringement is indeed the most accurate Legal term.

The type of "Copyright Infringement", in this particular case, is the act of taking (stealing) a copy of a game that does not belong to you. It describes a form of theft. If you have a copy of a full video game installed on your PC that you did not pay for, win in a prize or something, and fair usage rights don't apply in your situation, and you did not get the copyright owner's permission to take that copy, then you stole it. It doesn't matter whether or not you took the copy from a high street shop or you took it from cyberspace, you stole it. You took something that doesn't and shouldn't belong to you."

 

Actually, that is my BIOS boot screen, I changed it


It makes a good laugh with friend

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

OK smart guy, what is the definition of "Acquiring a Copy"? "ACQUIRE = get or take something: to get or obtain possession of something".

Should I also post the definition of "get" or "obtain" for you as well?

Read your post again and tell me if it makes sense. According to you, you are not "taking" something, you are "acquiring" it. It's the same thing.

According to the Copyright Infringement law, that "copy" of a game you have politely "taken" actually belongs to the game publisher who has not given you permission to take it. What's the definition of steal? It means to take something that belongs to somebody else. And, that copy of a pirated game that is installed on your home PC is property that belongs to the game publisher.

 

Oh, come off it. I'm not disagreeing with you because I think piracy is fine. I'm disagreeing with you because I hate misapplied sensationalist, emotionally charged ******** terms being bandied about.

For the record, I do not pirate, and I don't appreciate your insinuating that I do.

The term "copyright infringement" was coined precisely because "theft" did not appropriately describe what was happening. Just like the "motorcycle" was coined because the term "bicycle" did not appropriately describe what had been created. They have huge similarities, but the differences between them are significant enough to make them two different things.

I agree that copyright infringement can be just as bad as theft and even worse, but that does not mean it is theft.

 

I am aware of why the specific law regarding copyright infringement was needed. I just don't understand how you can think that a particular type of copyright infringement is not Theft, when the pirate has blatantly acquired (downloaded) a copy of a game that legally belongs to the game publisher. He has stolen it from the copyright owner.

According to the English dictionary (and me), stealing is clearly defined as: to take something that belongs to somebody else. The copy of that game belongs to the publisher. I am not just saying that for the sake of saying it. It is a fact of law. The very same copyright law says that the downloaded copy belongs to the copyright owner, so it is stealing. He has something on his PC that does not belong to him, but belongs to the copyright owner who has not given him permission to take a copy for himself.

Anyway, I suppose we're just going to have to accept that we will continue to disagree on this subject.

 

Exactly,

I would have no problem/won't have a problem spending my £24.99 at Amazon for the Witcher 2 Premium Edition, but I will say this I don't justify spending almost £50 on a game (in my case Fallout: New Vegas) and it being bugged to hell and back! NO game I've ever played is as bugged as that one and I really wish I'd downloaded it instead of spending that amount of money on the collector's edition of the game which constantly crashes and which still hasn't had a comprehensive patch since it's release date a month ago...

People will say no doubt that my reason still doesn't justify piracy, well in a way it does as I'd rather spend that £50 (that in my opinion was wasted money) on clothes/nappies/food for my 2 young children than line the pockets of a game company that just don't give a **** even a month after the game has been released! And the reason it's a waste of money even though it's a fantastic game is because if it had said when I bought it that it would crash a shitload of times and generally be unplayable 60-70% of the time I'd have saved my money...

And a lot of people haven't experienced bugs with New Vegas (apparently...) but I and millions of others have and come on having to save the game a shitload of times just in case the game crashes is no way to play/enjoy any game, and it doesn't fail to crash at least 5 times minimum every bloody day because of the piss poor state of the game when it was released.

So sorry for the off topic but just mentioned it to TRY and get my point across..

 

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)...

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?

 

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!