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

[HSK]

what about people who download a game, try it...and end up buying the game? or if they don't like it, they delete it/don't play it.

I know you can say, would they actually even buy the product in the end, but a while back I have heard someone saying that - they download & try something, and in the end they end up buying it (if they like it)? same with music as well...

I wasn't sure what to think of that, whether it was slightly more acceptable. cause you can just download the demo...

what do you guys think of that....

[Saracen]

Whats worrying is for so long now this hole thing has gone on without anyone doing anything to stop it. No all of a sudden they are trying to go in with 2 feet with court orders and large fines for what people have done in the past where as what they should have done is said on the first day of the following month any illegal downloads will be be given a fine of X amount and anyone uploading will be given a fine of Y amount for each item.

Nobody has been fined. And, on the basis of the actions threatened here, nobody will be.

What is being threatened s a civil action, and you don't get fines in civil actions. If money is awarded, it will be compensation. That's compensation for losses suffered. The £300 so far mentioned is a settlement being offered to avoid being sued. |And it's an offer. Nobody has to take it. They can take their chances and have their day in court. It is not in any way, shape or sense a fine.

And they aren't suddenly going in with 2 feet (though it beats hopping in on one foot). This issue has been raised again and again and again. And it's been going on for, oh, to my personal knowledge, more than 25 years. Games companies, record companies and movie studios have tried all sorts of techniques. They've developed protection system after system, they've had CD detection, they've taken legal actions against the likes of Napster, they've sued people making copy cracking hardware and software, they've approached ISPs about warning and then disconnecting serial abusers and even that got moaned at. In fact, they've done everything short of show up on our doorsteps, knock on all our doors and beg on bended knee for people to kindly stop ripping them off.

As for saying it applies from next month, utter cobblers.

First, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you get caught speeding, try telling the police you didn't know it was illegal, so if they catch you from the start of next month, you'll pay the fine.

And lets face it the only reason people did this before is they knew no 0one would ever try and catch them.

How things have changed.


I expect most accused of downloading a game though will buy a copy if it looks like charges will be filled.

Oh well, obviously it's okay for people to break the law and rip people off as long as they don't expect to get caught. How many people do you think break the law knowing they'll get caught? Breaking the law is always about people thinking they won't get caught, or that if they do, the penalty won't matter.

And, of course, if you downloaded or uploaded illegal material, you've already committed the infringement. Going out and buying a copy now won't change that, and I can't see it changing whether you get sued or not.

[Saracen]

what about people who download a game, try it...and end up buying the game? or if they don't like it, they delete it/don't play it.

I know you can say, would they actually even buy the product in the end, but a while back I have heard someone saying that - they download & try something, and in the end they end up buying it (if they like it)? same with music as well...

I wasn't sure what to think of that, whether it was slightly more acceptable. cause you can just download the demo...

what do you guys think of that....

Morally, I don't see a problem with that sort of try-before-you-buy approach. Legally, if it's an infringing copy, it's an infringing copy.

Of course, it impacts on the damages the company has suffered. I rather suspect that if people could demonstrate that they had subsequently gone out and bought a copy, that might well end the lawsuit, providing there was no uploading element. But, as has been pointed out, P2P typically implies at least an element of uploading if you're downloading. And if that's the case, buying a copy isn't much of an answer, if you've been uploading.

[format]

One thing about anti-piracy advocates that annoy me is when they claim 'We lost millions of pounds to pirates!'

They assume that every person who bought the game would have forked out the full price for the game had there not been the option of a pirated copy.

[2Cold Scorpio]

Morally, I don't see a problem with that sort of try-before-you-buy approach. Legally, if it's an infringing copy, it's an infringing copy.

Of course, it impacts on the damages the company has suffered. I rather suspect that if people could demonstrate that they had subsequently gone out and bought a copy, that might well end the lawsuit, providing there was no uploading element. But, as has been pointed out, P2P typically implies at least an element of uploading if you're downloading. And if that's the case, buying a copy isn't much of an answer, if you've been uploading.

A try-before-you-buy...although I've never done this, I see no moral issue with it (it'd be akin to renting a console game before you buy, only cheaper). Personally, the only times I have ever downloaded a game was when the disk had become too badly damaged. This has only happened twice, and it was with games that were so old (like 10+ years) that they were near impossible to find (at least without paying an arm and a leg). Did I feel bad? A little, but at the same time, I'd already paid once, and its not like a recent release thats easily replaceable with another purchase (which I've done; I had to buy a second copy of Doom 3 a couple of months after my first purchase...a rare incident for me, as I usually take great care of my disks...). A gray area, to be sure.

But for the true pirates, the ones who download without ever intending to pay and keeping the game...I say string 'em up at the gallows; they're the ones that are making devs look less and less at the PC platform, especially for exclusives.

[aidanjt]

One thing about anti-piracy advocates that annoy me is when they claim 'We lost millions of pounds to pirates!'

++

Making copies of written works has existed since there's been paper to write it on. It's nothing new really, it's just more noticeable, thanks to the internet.

[kalniel]

why dont they start issuing demo's for pc games?

Games with demos don't seem to be pirated any less than games without. Comment from pirates has simply been that demos aren't representative of the full game, even if they're very long and feature filled.

for instance i just found out that the pc has the beijing olympcs. now im hapy to pay for it but i dont know it i will like it because there is NO DEMO for me to try which is a load of bollox. having demo's and even trials for mmo type games is a must imo and could help cut down on piracy too. maybe not much but still would help. pc needs demo's more then console users has we get the chance to actualy test the game out to see if it will run well on our systems too.

I can see the merit of a technical demo, but then system requirements information should be all you need to accurately judge that. As for liking the game, well that's why you read review sites like Hexus. Once you read reviews and pick a game to try, you should be able to match your own tastes with game reviews and be able to tell if you're likely to agree with a site or not. For example I know that I share broadly similar tastes with Steven W, however if I read a review by Nick I just invert the opinion and it's closer to my own

what about people who download a game, try it...and end up buying the game? or if they don't like it, they delete it/don't play it.

I know you can say, would they actually even buy the product in the end, but a while back I have heard someone saying that - they download & try something, and in the end they end up buying it (if they like it)? same with music as well...

If that were the case then publishers wouldn't be concerned, because the final sales figures would look better. But they don't - the people who illegally download and then go and buy the game are in a very small minority, and they often get a far worse game experience as well. Just speaking from experience related to the Atari forums, a *huge* number of complaints about quality/bugs are actually because they are playing an illegal copy when the retail game doesn't have those problems. I'm not saying retail games are perfect (far from), but they're often a lot better than the illegal ones.

One thing about anti-piracy advocates that annoy me is when they claim 'We lost millions of pounds to pirates!'

They assume that every person who bought the game would have forked out the full price for the game had there not been the option of a pirated copy.

I don't think they're making that assumption at all - instead it's an assumption being made of them that they're making that assumption, which is just as bad. However what is fact is that piracy is having some kind of effect on the market and as a result legitimate gamers are missing out, both due to the inconvienience of DRM measures, lack of independants, and increased need for publishers to make broad platform games to guarentee return on investment.

++

Making copies of written works has existed since there's been paper to write it on. It's nothing new really, it's just more noticeable, thanks to the internet.

And more easy, and more casually done by people without a second thought, and therefore has more effect on the market.

[Jay]

Which ISPs have done that?

According to that Times article, the companies went to the High Court and got court orders for the names and addresses. If so, the ISPs had no choice.

Hmmm.... it was late, I missed that.

I hate the downloader's myself, they force the DRM on us by doing what they are doing and are the ones I blame for giving ISPs a good excuse for capping and throttling bandwidth. The issue I have with this is that innocent people are going to be sent letters and that goes against innocent until proven guilty. The evidence collected is not enough to warrant that data being given out. I wonder how much the High Court really understand about this subject? Did the person who gave the OK have enough personal knowledge to be able to make this decision? If you can prove you didn't download the game can you take anyone to court?

[Mblaster]

The issue I have with this is that innocent people are going to be sent letters and that goes against innocent until proven guilty. The evidence collected is not enough to warrant that data being given out. I wonder how much the High Court really understand about this subject? Did the person who gave the OK have enough personal knowledge to be able to make this decision? If you can prove you didn't download the game can you take anyone to court?

Yes, unless they have a similar system to speeding fines in cars, where the registered owner of the car must specify who was driving at the time of the offence then you can't link the IP to the person of the offence, and also it's much more likely that the car owner would know who's driving their car 2 weeks ago, that the account holder for the internet connection would know who was downloading X file a couple months ago.

Basically, I don't think they'll be able to get conpensation out of anyone where the internet connection is shared.

[Jay]

plus its not 100% conclusive that that IP was even being used by that account holder. Other modems may have the same MAC and the IP is spoofed.

[Rob_B]

- M'lord, at the time this so called 'illegal download' was taking place I foolishly had no security activated on my router and therefore anyone in the vicinity could have used my connection.. (The same (kinda) as someone stealing you car & running someone over with it, are you responsible?)

- My IP must have been spoofed.

- I already own the game, look. No receipt showing the date as I got it second hand.

- Prove I downloaded/uploaded anything. Being connected to a tracker/etc does NOT prove I actually did this.

The list of excuses is endless, I imagine they'd struggle to provide solid evidence to the contrary for ALL of them?

[Jay]

I think there needs to be a better way to do this, I would 100% back a local exchange system that would check what IP is being used where. This would also stop the chipped cable modems etc.

Also, if you provide your own wireless router and don't lock it down then that is your own fault and so maybe you should have to take the responsibility. If the ISP provide a wireless router and don't lock it down that is there fault and you should have no responsibility. If some one hacks your wireless network then that also means that you have tried your best

There are just so many different variables.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

I think there needs to be a better way to do this, I would 100% back a local exchange system that would check what IP is being used where. This would also stop the chipped cable modems etc.

Also, if you provide your own wireless router and don't lock it down then that is your own fault and so maybe you should have to take the responsibility. If the ISP provide a wireless router and don't lock it down that is there fault and you should have no responsibility. If some one hacks your wireless network then that also means that you have tried your best

There are just so many different variables.

exatcyly. say if they hack into your internet and you get teh letter sent to you. your gunna feel pissed off aint ya. whoever supports this sort of idea needs to read this statement mate

[shaithis]

The problem is that wireless is so prevalent these days, just about EVERY ISP offers a free wireless router.

I am no hacker, it's something I have never bothered with but with a £40 PCMCIA card, my laptop, goggle and 24 hours I was able to connect to - and use - 6 networks in reach of my front room. 5 of which were protected (a mac network was unprotected, 3 BT homehubs were dead easy to hack and the other 2 were Sky boxes that took the vast majority of the time).

So, with absolutely no prior knowledge of hacking I was able to join 5 secured networks. That leaves me in very little doubt that wireless is extremely unsecure. If these letters keep going out, we might have to see an end to wireless.

[Saracen]

- M'lord, at the time this so called 'illegal download' was taking place I foolishly had no security activated on my router and therefore anyone in the vicinity could have used my connection.. (The same (kinda) as someone stealing you car & running someone over with it, are you responsible?)

- My IP must have been spoofed.

- I already own the game, look. No receipt showing the date as I got it second hand.

- Prove I downloaded/uploaded anything. Being connected to a tracker/etc does NOT prove I actually did this.

The list of excuses is endless, I imagine they'd struggle to provide solid evidence to the contrary for ALL of them?

Tell Isabela Barwinska that. It might make her feel better about the £16,000 she's been ordered to pay by the court.

You may be right, Rob. There are some good points there, and who knows, those arguments may win. But, if you're the lucky recipient of one of these letters, by the time you get to have won you case with those arguments, you'll have had the 'fun' of worrying about the impending court case for a few months, and going through the hassle and trauma of preparing for and fighting it and, right up to the point the decision is announced by the Court, you'll be wondering if you're going to have to find £16,000, or perhaps more, yourself.

I'm sure people are going to point out that having to go through that if you're 'innocent' is wrong. Well, yup. But welcome to the real world. Innocent people do go to jail. Courts aren't perfect, and it may be that some genuinely innocent people get dragged through the courts. It may be that some lose their case and end up with a large award to pay, just like some that were genuinely downloading and/or uploading manage to slime out from under the case. That's life.

Will the courts accept "my router security wasn't god enough"? I don't know. Maybe. But if they don't? If they see through that? If there is a level of evidence showing a pattern of activity that points at you?

Bear in mind, this is a civil court. This is not a case of having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. It's a case of two sides not agreeing on liability, and the court having to decide on the balance of probability who is in the right. The burden of proof is much lower, because there is no prosecution side, merely two sides saying "he did it" and "no I didn't"..

So if you get one of these letters, good luck making those arguments in court. I know I wouldn't want to have to.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

The problem is that wireless is so prevalent these days, just about EVERY ISP offers a free wireless router.

I am no hacker, it's something I have never bothered with but with a £40 PCMCIA card, my laptop, goggle and 24 hours I was able to connect to - and use - 6 networks in reach of my front room. 5 of which were protected (a mac network was unprotected, 3 BT homehubs were dead easy to hack and the other 2 were Sky boxes that took the vast majority of the time).

So, with absolutely no prior knowledge of hacking I was able to join 5 secured networks. That leaves me in very little doubt that wireless is extremely unsecure. If these letters keep going out, we might have to see an end to wireless.

exactly...when i move house i will not use a single wireless connection on my setup. all wires for me