News - Game Pirates check your post! UK publishers sending out 25,000 letters demandi

[aidanjt]

If, therefore, they have strong evidence, and it's eminently clear from the High Court granting the orders that they at least have reasonable evidence

Well, reasonable evidence to secure a discovery of documentation from a High Court judge is a lot different from securing a prosecution, afterall an IP address can't defend itself against firvilous lawsuits. And one would wonder what is considered 'reliable evidence' when it comes to the internet, and peer to peer networks in particular, it is, afterall, the cloud of clouds, it was never designed with accountability in mind.

[Saracen]

Well, reasonable evidence to secure a discovery of documentation from a High Court judge is a lot different from securing a prosecution, afterall an IP address can't defend itself against firvilous lawsuits. And one would wonder what is considered 'reliable evidence' when it comes to the internet, and peer to peer networks in particular, it is, afterall, the cloud of clouds, it was never designed with accountability in mind.

Oh absolutely. I made that very point in my first post ...

But secondly, it also tells us that evidence has been gathered, and is sufficient for the high court to grant those orders for names and addresses. There is, therefore, at the very least sufficient evidence to convince the court that there's grounds for legal action. That's a long way from saying they'll win it, but I'd say there's certainly grounds for taking it to court.

But they have to start where the process starts.

It's logically inconsistent to condemn them at this stage, because we just don't know what level of evidence they have. We do now that they had enough to convince the High Court to order the release of names so that the process could start. And it has, with these letters. If they have enough evidence to get that far but not to win the cases, then either no cases will occur, or they'll occur and the games companies will lose. And if that happens, they will have shot themselves in the foot, won't they? So I think you can assume it's a safe bet that they don't expect to lose or they wouldn't have started down this road. Having said that, court cases are never an entirely safe bet. Anything could happen.

But it remains a FACT that there's a lot of piracy going on, and that these companies are quite entitled to tackle I because, after all, they're the victims. People moan like hell (quite rightly, in my view) if technical protection measures are put in place. I certainly do. As a legit user, I'll bitch like a good'un if they start using technology that screws with my PC. A certain large Japanese company's experiments with rootkits comes to mine. Cheeky .

Other people moan like mad when ISP's threaten to disconnect serial 'offenders'.

And now people are moaning because these companies are threatening legal action against people ripping them off. I mean, come on, what do you expect them to do? Lie back and just take it?

As a legit user, I'm being inconvenienced by copy protection technology, by intrusive measures, by all the crap that goes on just try to get people to pay for the stuff they want and not to expect it for free just because they've been able to get away with it for years.

A lot of people have no respect for whether something is legal or not, and no respect for whether it's right or not. They only respect whether they can get away with it or not.

So as long as these companies are going after the pirates, they get my blessing. If they cost pirates a fortune, and put them through a nightmare of worry over court cases, well great, IMHO. About time.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

target the hackers/uploaders not the downloaders

[Mblaster]

How can they deal with the situation of a shared internet connection? Surely it would be their responsability to prove which person was doing the downloading, and that's got to be near impossible from outside of their LAN.

[aidanjt]

As a legit user, I'm being inconvenienced by copy protection technology, by intrusive measures, by all the crap that goes on just try to get people to pay for the stuff they want and not to expect it for free just because they've been able to get away with it for years.

But that's the key, isn't it?.. Copy protection techniques (I wont even call them technologies) used by publishers are worse than useless, they provide no protection against piracy and they cripple ligitmate customers rights and often their machines. It also seems the increased agressiveness of the copy protection systems precurse increased rates of piracy.

A lot of people have no respect for whether something is legal or not, and no respect for whether it's right or not. They only respect whether they can get away with it or not.

So as long as these companies are going after the pirates, they get my blessing. If they cost pirates a fortune, and put them through a nightmare of worry over court cases, well great, IMHO. About time.

I completely agree, people need to have more respect for property rights, but that needs to happen both ways. And while I have no issue with companies persuing copyright infringement cases on an individual basis, I'd be wery of this kind of bulk-ligitation and strongarming.

[dangel]

No, it isn't extortion, and what you say there most certainly ISN'T what I pointed out.

I said I wouldn't pay it, if I got a letter like this, because I haven't downloaded illicit games. What I said was if I had and knew I was guilty, I'd pay it rather than risk court. That's not at all the same thing as saying people will pay up, " guilty or not".

My apologies - I was semi-agreeing with some of your post rather than putting words in your mouth (or at least that was my intent).
That aside, my point stands - I honestly believe that most people's reaction would be to avoid the courts and pay the 300 quid regardless of guilt. Hence, I think it's extortion because it'll scare people into paying up. The mere possibility (again) of weeks of stress, a court case and the potential for 5 figure fines would make me think twice. And no, I haven't pirated some crappy pinball game.

the size of that settlement says to me that they probably are serious about court action.

I say quite the opposite - it's sized so it seems better than the alternative to most people IMHO.

What to stop this kind of thinking? "I think i'll knock up a game this afternoon, leak it on pirate bay and hire me some lawyers."

[Saracen]

target the hackers/uploaders not the downloaders

Target both, but proportionately.

There would be no uploaders if it weren't for demand from downloaders. They might bear less responsibility than large-scale uploaders, but they are, after all, why the large-scale uploaders are large-scale.

People know they're not entitled to just download games, especially brand new releases, and use them for free, but they do it anyway, because they've been able to, and with little chance of comeback. Well, now it looks like the comeback might have started.

If people don't want nasty letters or threats of court action, don't download illicit material. It's hardly rocket science.

[Saracen]

........ I say quite the opposite - it's sized so it seems better than the alternative to most people IMHO.

What to stop this kind of thinking? "I think i'll knock up a game this afternoon, leak it on pirate bay and hire me some lawyers."

The cost of the lawyers and court action for a start. And, of course, you then have to be able to demonstrate that YOUR game was pirated, and that YOU suffered a loss as a result, then you have to be able to quantify that loss.

If you can, if you can justify how you lost enough to warrant the level of damages you seek, then good luck to you. People that pirate your work will deserve what they get.

[aidanjt]

What to stop this kind of thinking? "I think i'll knock up a game this afternoon, leak it on pirate bay and hire me some lawyers."

++

The music industry has also done things just that. As well as hiring electronic mercinaries. Or using such puppet organisations as a legal buffer zone as to show that *they* didn't offer it. And this is the exact kind of behaviour I find completely unacceptable from companies.

[dangel]

The cost of the lawyers and court action for a start. And, of course, you then have to be able to demonstrate that YOUR game was pirated, and that YOU suffered a loss as a result, then you have to be able to quantify that loss.

If you can, if you can justify how you lost enough to warrant the level of damages you seek, then good luck to you. People that pirate your work will deserve what they get.

Well let's face it - at best the "evidence" is an ip address connected to a swarm. Easy enough.
All I have to do make my game available to buy online (paypal will do) for £30 quid, collect some IPs, and then as for £300 in compensation from each pirate, right? There's no way in hell they can prove an individual downloaded an item - not without access to physical evidence - so all we're left with is (what is to me) circumstancial evidence at best.

[Saracen]

But that's the key, isn't it?.. Copy protection techniques (I wont even call them technologies) used by publishers are worse than useless, they provide no protection against piracy and they cripple ligitmate customers rights and often their machines. It also seems the increased agressiveness of the copy protection systems precurse increased rates of piracy.

So you ought to support hits, then, if it implies that they're moving on from the intrusive and obnoxious technologies that affect legit buyers and users. They are, for instance, some games that I would like to play, but simply won't buy because of the copy protection measures that company (EA) has chosen to implement.

I guess they have a right to implement them, but I have a right to refuse to buy them, and I can and do exercise that right, even though I'd like the game.

I completely agree, people need to have more respect for property rights, but that needs to happen both ways. And while I have no issue with companies persuing copyright infringement cases on an individual basis, I'd be wery of this kind of bulk-ligitation and strongarming.

But when it takes months, probably a year or more, they can't really do one case, and wait for the result before moving on the next case. It pretty much has to be done en-masse. And if it wasn't a large-scale problem warranting large-scale action, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. I mean, if there were a few dozen people running pirate copies, I doubt these companies would know or much care, and they certainly wouldn't be going to these lengths. It's a large-scale problem and, to be effective either legally or PR-wise, they pretty much have to threaten, and perhaps take, legal action on an industrial scale.

Again, it's a practical implication if the situation they're in ..... which they wouldn't be in, of course, if people just bought the damn software if they want it. Or did without if they can't afford it.

It often astonishes me that people are prepared to spend £200, £300 or more, on a graphics card to play the latest games, and £300 to £500 on a monitor to play in on, not to mention state-of-the-art PC, but then seek to self-justify pirating the games on the grounds that they're "over-priced".

If they're over-priced, do without. But to use that to justify piracy, especially when people spend a fortune on the basic hardware, not to mention another fortune on gaming keyboards, gaming mice, controllers, headsets and even fancy painted cases, but then can't afford the games .... well, it's rank hypocrisy from those doing that.


And for the record, having quoted you in this post, I don't mean you, Aidan. It's a general observation.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Target both, but proportionately.

There would be no uploaders if it weren't for demand from downloaders. They might bear less responsibility than large-scale uploaders, but they are, after all, why the large-scale uploaders are large-scale.

People know they're not entitled to just download games, especially brand new releases, and use them for free, but they do it anyway, because they've been able to, and with little chance of comeback. Well, now it looks like the comeback might have started.

If people don't want nasty letters or threats of court action, don't download illicit material. It's hardly rocket science.

there are special programs that hide teh stuff you are downloading ie peerguardian.

hackers will find a way to distrubute there cracked games one way or the otehr without getting detected. piracy will always win mate. take for example rapidshare. there are TONS of illegal content in rapidshare links. just type in crysis rapidhsare in google and you will see loads of links for teh ful game JUST like that.

i believe that downloading from such host websites is NOT illegal no matter whats inside the content has its up to the host website to make sure its legit stuff contained in the file.

If all goes well and they somehow stopped people downloading illegal files. that said person can always pop down to there local market and just buy cracked game for £5. there is always a way and the only thing u can do is slow it down A BIT.

[Steven W]

I'd like to hear how some of these people respond to these letters. Will they just pay it to get them off their backs or will they take a stand.

[kalniel]

there are special programs that hide teh stuff you are downloading ie peerguardian.

Useless.

hackers will find a way to distrubute there cracked games one way or the otehr without getting detected.

The hard core will always be able to, yes.

piracy will always win mate.

Mass piracy can't be allowed to win. If it does then we can say goodbye to PC games with non-instrusive DRM. Publishers aren't interested in stamping out the hard core few though.

take for example rapidshare. there are TONS of illegal content in rapidshare links. just type in crysis rapidhsare in google and you will see loads of links for teh ful game JUST like that.

i believe that downloading from such host websites is NOT illegal no matter whats inside the content has its up to the host website to make sure its legit stuff contained in the file.

Nope - if you typed in Crysis and downloaded an illegal copy you are certainly commiting an illegal act.

If all goes well and they somehow stopped people downloading illegal files. that said person can always pop down to there local market and just buy cracked game for £5. there is always a way and the only thing u can do is slow it down A BIT.

Again they'd be fine with that - that implies some kind of effort (and incidentally is far easier to target in that case). It's the casual downloaders that show absolutely no intelligence or thought at what they're doing that they're trying to tackle here.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

what about private news groups i keep hearing about? well i suppose if they can track exactly what your downloading it wont matter whether your downloading off your friend or from a private torrent site. still the same

[aidanjt]

So you ought to support hits, then, if it implies that they're moving on from the intrusive and obnoxious technologies that affect legit buyers and users. They are, for instance, some games that I would like to play, but simply won't buy because of the copy protection measures that company (EA) has chosen to implement.

I guess they have a right to implement them, but I have a right to refuse to buy them, and I can and do exercise that right, even though I'd like the game.

Indeed, in fact I think many see this as justifiation enough (or significantly moreso than affordability) to download such games without license. Personally, if I can't 'live' without the game, I'd rather buy it and download the appropiate modifictions to make it useable. But then, in a way, I'd be advocating the use of such viral protection measures as far as it looks with sales figures. This complicates matters, but at the end of the day if you want to stand on principle you vote with your feet, and not buy it.

But when it takes months, probably a year or more, they can't really do one case, and wait for the result before moving on the next case. It pretty much has to be done en-masse. And if it wasn't a large-scale problem warranting large-scale action, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. I mean, if there were a few dozen people running pirate copies, I doubt these companies would know or much care, and they certainly wouldn't be going to these lengths. It's a large-scale problem and, to be effective either legally or PR-wise, they pretty much have to threaten, and perhaps take, legal action on an industrial scale.

Of course there's a practicality issue here. But therein lay the danger, if you industrialise legal procedures you're in danger of cutting corners, and looking at those 25,000 people as products to liquidate, rather than individuals with their own story to tell. Even if one person out of the 25,000 is wrongly convicted as a result, it is wrong, IMHO.

It often astonishes me that people are prepared to spend £200, £300 or more, on a graphics card to play the latest games, and £300 to £500 on a monitor to play in on, not to mention state-of-the-art PC, but then seek to self-justify pirating the games on the grounds that they're "over-priced".

If they;re over-priced, do without. But to use that to justify piracy, especially when people spend a fortune on the basic hardware, not to mention another fortune on gaming keyboards, gaming mice, controllers, headsets and even fancy painted cases, but then can't afford the games .... well, it's rank hypocrisy from those doing that.

Absolutely, this completely confounds me. If you consider that the average PC game is a good £10-15 cheaper than those developed for gaming console platforms, this is a poor argument at best. This has always been the case, in fact this is why I took up PC gaming some 10 years ago. It actually saved me money which allowed me to save up for mid/high-end GPU cards and other components which improved my overall computing experience, and now in the present with GPGPU computation, this is especially the case.

And for the record, having quoted you in this post, I don't mean you, Aidan. It's a general observation.

Of course.