CD Projekt Shakes Down Suspected File Sharers
from the good-guys-dumb-move dept
Earlier in the month, we shared a bit about CD Projekt and how, despite its game, The Witcher 2, being pirated more than 4.5 million times (its back of the envelope calculation), it still stands by its decision to never put DRM on its games. CD Projekt is one of those few rare major developers that understand PC gamers and what they want in gaming. With this philosophy in mind, it really boggled my mind when I learned of what it has done next. CD Projekt is following in the footsteps of Righthaven and other copyright trolls and is suing individual file sharers.I really can't figure out what is running through the minds of those in charge. These are the guys who have built up tremendous goodwill with PC gamers through Good Old Games and games like The Witcher. It knows that if it provides quality games that work and don't harm legitimate customers, people will pay. So why would they go through the trouble of suing file sharers? We all know how that is working out for other copyright trolls. CD Projekt only seems to be targeting European file sharers, where these kinds of shakedown attempts have flopped even worse than in the US. Either way, you would think that CD Projekt would at least learn from the mistakes of others pulling the same stunt.
Not only is this move baffling for such a company, it still has the same flaws that other mass infringement lawsuits hold, that of sending shake down letters to innocent parties. The letters are being sent based on information gleaned from an IP address. This is an extremely flawed method of identifying an infringer as IP addresses can be spoofed, network connections can be "borrowed" and even innocent people's computers can be hijacked by bot networks. With all these flaws in the method and the danger of losing goodwill with and respect from gamers, what is there to be gained? I guess when there is money on the table, even the most gamer-friendly developers can succumb to temptation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, good old games, shakedowns, witcher 2
Companies: cd projekt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bad joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
The fact is that for all of the flaws with IP addresses, they're still much more accurate than any of the evidence we use to enforce murder, rape, robbery and most other crimes. I wish we didn't need to enforce anything, but that's called life on earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
IP addresses identify you more accurately than DNA evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
Sadly, the author is not Mike. But if you took the 5 seconds it took to make an intelligent argument like Zack you would have respected comments like Mike.
Look down, back up. What is that? It's a highly effective counter-troll. Look again, MY COMMENT IS NOW DIAMONDS.
Anything is possible when you think before you post.
I'm on a PC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
Good work for someone sitting on a horse backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
So IP addresses are more accurate in identifying an individual than the following: DNA, Fingerprints, and Video Surveillance? Are you honestly this nuts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
"Scrap it, Louie! He logged in to facebook at the starbucks across the street! WE HAVE HIS IP ADDRESS!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
Mike doesn't have a problem with copyright in general, he does have a problem (I do too) with the way they enforce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
Facepalm. Epic fuckin' facepalm.
Also, your wording is just as terrible. "We use to enforce murder, rape, robber and most other crimes". The way that sentence is worded, it means you WANT murder, rape etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Welcome to reality, CD Projekt
I want your IP address so I can see if you pirate anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another fun analogy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another fun analogy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another fun analogy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That was close...
I buy a ton of e-books from oreilly.com, I buy my mp3s (not books) from Amazon, I bought the Louis CK video, I probably will buy the Humble Indie bundle when I get home, I don't buy from EA I probably will never buy another Sony product.
I intended to buy The Witcher when the first post came out, fortunately I saw something shiny and was distracted for a bit.
No Sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't feel that it was worth the $50 to me with all the other games I have to play so I was waiting until it hit $30 or $40 before I picked it up on Steam.
I think now, I'll just pass on it all together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This goes to show you that no one (even those that respect their customers enough to forego DRM) wants their work taken without compensation. If this site is truely anti-piracy as it claims, it should stop bitching everytime a company fights to defend its rights. These people aren't being CONVICTED are they? These are threatening letters, if someone is innocent they should be able to prove that their IP address was spoofed. If they never downloaded the game their will be no fingerprints left on their hard drive when the forensics team looks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Note it says EUROPE, note that Europe is not the United States. Note this this is, even there, a civil case. Note that public defenders US style don't work on civil cases.
Note that someone here is and idiot.
Note that said idiot (this time anyway) isn't me.
Thank you for your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You have obviously never stood in front of a judge for a crime you didn't commit with a public defender. For what it's worth, I have. And I can tell you that they are worse than useless.
Here's a little clue for you: look up where the money comes from that pays a PD's salary. Their checks are signed by ... (wait for it!) the DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, no. You're talking about stuff you don't understand. Spoofing an ip address means the traffic never got to the accused's house. How would they prove it? Hack the local backbone routers to go over packet logs?
" If they never downloaded the game their will be no fingerprints left on their hard drive when the forensics team looks."
If they have nothing to hide, then they won't mind some random company examining every detail of their hd, eh? And, since they're being so reasonable, why not go through the person's house, financial history, interrogate them about the details of their sexual proclivities, and subject them to a colonoscopy. Maybe the game data is hidden up there, after all, and unless we check we can't be sure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, I have a VERY strong understanding. I have extensive experience reviewing network traffic. Their proof will be in the fact that the game was never on their hard drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I doubt it, since you've resorted to "they should prove they have nothing to hide by submitting to an invasive search".
Funny though, usually, in court, it's up to the plaintiff to offer proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is still a civil case and in no way shape or form ought I to be forced to prove anything. The Plantiff must prove their case that it is well within the balance of probability that I did, in fact, download their precious game. Until that moment I have no obligation to allow any search of my hard drive.
You're review of networks is LANs or Internet? They are, in case you've not figured it out, two different things.
And the fact that a download was attached to an IP at a given moment in time doesn't prove much of anything as most people attach with renewable IP addresses which can change from moment to moment rather than a nailed down IP address.
You are still plasing the burden of proof on the defendant and not he plaintiff. Try again, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if you have the forensic experience, this would mean you would understand the evidentiary process involved in first obtaining a courts approval to forensically examine ALL networks and then forensically examine the devices allegedly involved in the retention of any digital 'footprint'.
You would also understand having engaged in chain of evidence procedures the costs involved in this process both obtaining court approval, and then collecting, storing, analysing, & reporting on any evidence found, not to mention the costs involved of actually presenting that evidence in a manner that the court approves (and understands) of at any trial and these are just the plaintiff's costs BEFORE any judgement is made.
Though saying all that this whole article was on shakedown letters where the burden of proof under EU law is on the plaintiff to prove all elements (including harm) and that the plaintiff has most likely no thought to spend exorbitant fees on any evidence collecting and only on sending psychologically scary letters of duress.
But of course you would know all of this if you actually had read the article, and had done any network/digital forensic work ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the "we condone piracy" department...
Now that they are going after the ACTUAL criminals, you have a problem with that?
I actually agree with your point that IP addresses is NOT the way to go about this, but you make it clear that you have a problem with that what they are doing in principle which completely baffles me.
If this is unacceptable to you, please explain precisely HOW you propose to deter and/or punish piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
If you can link me to one i'd be more than happy to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
What I do have issue with is a company sending what amounts to little more than a shakedown letter to people who are merely suspected of infringement. Additionally, that suspected infringement is not even for personal gain. It is private use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
If and when a company does reasonably defend their rights it will be applauded. Reasonably defending their rights would be taking action against a person or entity who is profiting from the copyrighted work without permission. Copyright is a social contract which grants exclusive control as to who can profit from the protected work.
In this case a company is sending shakedown letters to possibly innocent people based on so called "evidence" which has been shown unreliable on multiple occasions. The no DRM move is the correct approach. Extortion letters to private users and innocent people is the wrong approach and deserving of criticism. Does that help clear things up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
When they learn to do it intelligently, ethically, effectively, realistically, and constitutionally, we will support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
No, just those attempts that violate free speech, due process, have wildly inappropriate implications on innocent parties and/or have results that could just as easily be achieved with better business models or practices.
Any attempt to fight piracy backed with real data and that will not do any of the above will be applauded and supported. That fact that your beloved industry is yet to present such a thing is not the fault of anyone writing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
How is getting to play a game that everyone else has to pay $50 not "personal gain"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
As to the question I posed earlier; how do you propose companies deter and/or punish piracy?
And no, "make content that people want to pay for" is in no way a suitable answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
CDP are not going after pirates. They are going after people who they believe are tied to IP addresses, which they believe may have been used to commit an act of copyright infringement.
The IP address does not identify a person, and the burden of proof should not be on the person defending themselves against an allegation. Given that IPs can be spoofed, wireless is easily hacked, mistakes have happened which have fingered innocent parties and so on, there's a good chance that many of those being sued are innocent parties. Hence the problem with the flimsy evidence and the "sue first, ask questions later" style of attack.
"As to the question I posed earlier; how do you propose companies deter and/or punish piracy?"
Punish piracy for commercial use, using the laws that already exist. You will NEVER stop piracy for non-profit uses, as this has been going on for decades and would never stop even if the internet itself were somehow shut down.
Deterring piracy is easy and has been discussed for a decade at least, although the industries always seem to ignore the suggestions. Stop pretending that the regional models work - nothing will encourage piracy more than people in country X reading about an awesome new product in country Y that they can access *now*, but will be released in 2 years in country X, if it's ever released. Stop treating customers like criminals - DRM doesn't work so remove it. Offer services that are as easy to use and delivers goods to at least the same quality as the pirates. Allow choice and a free market, and stop trying to impose what's best for you instead of what the customer demands.
In short: service customer demand, and then they're less likely to go to sources that offer them what they want illegally. Then, people will have far less objections to attempts to shut down persistent offenders.
Have you seen many speakeasy joints and whisky runners since prohibition was lifted? I'm sure there's a few still around somewhere, but you're likely to have less popular objection to shutting them down in places where people can go to a bar or liquor store to get their drinks than you would have when these were the only sources...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
objections to attempts to shut down persistent offenders.
Are you thereby implying that the law forbidding non-commercial copying is justified?
Copyright is unjustified when applied to non-commercial sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
So you're OK with suing grannies with no computers and laser printers, because derp IP address derp?
Do you just like extortion, or do you also want to enforce murder, rape, robbery and most other crimes, like bob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
I made it very clear that I don't agree with the methodology through which CDP is identifying pirates.
My point is that Techdirt CONSTANTLY posts articles criticising companies for protecting their rights while excusing the actions of pirates whilst providing ZERO constructive alternatives other than "derp people will pay for quality content".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
That is a crock. Techdirt and people commenting provide plenty of constructive alternatives. They tell you to connect with fans, offer additional content, remove DRM, offer content in multiple formats, release in timely fashions, make available everywhere at once, make prices reasonable, etc.
Those are plenty of constructive alternatives. All of which will work, given the opportunity.
Just because you don't like those ideas, or the industries don't, DOES NOT make them failures or mean they won't work. It just means you aren't willing to change your method of doing things.
I mean how many times do we have to say, "Give the people what they want, how they want it, when they want it, at a reasonable price" before you actually get it?
That is a reasonable alternative that will net you a bunch of new customers or get you back plenty you've lost. It's a proven method. Netflix and iTunes are testament to that. If you're not willing to try though, don't blame anyone but yourself and don't be upset that others are profiting because they're willing to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
Your comment is basically exactly what I was going to respond. As Netflix, itunes, and Steam have proven, the way to compete with piracy is to "Give the people what they want, how they want it, when they want it, at a reasonable price." If this is your business model, then anyone who still downloads the content wasn't going to buy it anyway and it wasn't a lost sale that you should feel the need to recoup through extortion or litigation.
Suing your potential customers is always wrong. Period. The RIAA learned this painfully, but apparently other industries aren't paying attention. The results of these pay-up-or-else schemes has always ended the same way... a possible recoup of short-term profits with a massive loss of goodwill alienating what could have been a long term fanbase of people willing to pay.
I honestly wanted to play Witcher 2 and was waiting for Steam to put it on sale. Went on sale 2 days ago but the sale came and went with no money from me. I commend CDP for releasing games without DRM, but this next lesson they are going to have to learn the hard way. They will never get a dime of my money until they recognize that this move was a mistake. I wouldn't even take the time to download the game and play it for free. It's sad that they can get it so right on one side and so wrong on the other. Hopefully they realize quickly that the loss of goodwill wasn't worth whatever they bring in from the extortion letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
CDP ticked EVERY ONE OF THESE BOXES with The Witcher 2. Explain that.
I ask again for the THIRD time. How is a company supposed to prevent/deter/punish piracy when no matter how many of your "criteria" content producers meet, people will still feel entitled to download their copyrighted material for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
One company doing exactly that is nothing. ALL companies doing those things would be a big difference. If more companies did exactly that, it would be a plus for them and the customers.
As for how to stop people from feeling entitled and whatnot, wtf? There's no way you can eradicate that completely. So better to focus on satisfying your paying customers.
I mean geez. You want everything done for you or what? The only way to eradicate piracy completely would be to do one of the following. Quit producing content. Chip everyone and be able to control their minds and force them to do or not do as you please. Both are unrealistic and not going to happen ever. So move the f*ck on. You don't need to be asking a third time, you won't get an answer. And any you get is more than likely not going to be satisfactory to your obviously stringent and insane standards, so why keep asking?
As for The Witcher 2, all they're doing is alienating customers. Accusing people of doing something that you may or may not have proof for, and I mean actual evidence, not just an IP address (which can be spoofed and/or incorrect in general), is going to cost you more customers in the long run. Demanding people pay money for something they may not have done is definitely not the correct way to go about things.
Either you have definitive proof of wrongdoing and that a crime has been committed, in which case you take them to court, where they can be properly tried and sentenced accordingly (if found guilty). Or you pull a stunt like this (because you don't have definitive proof) and piss people off. Just because it's essentially legal extortion DOES NOT make it okay.
If I got a letter like that, I'd just throw it away. Then tell my friends about the incident and get them to avoid buying the game from the company. What's better, one possible lost sale (from someone who was never going to buy your product anyway)? Or several ACTUAL lost sales (from people who do not approve of your actions)?
I planned on buying the game myself. It's on sale right now on Steam. Now... ha! I'd much rather go buy a nice meal for the family. That's a lost sale just as much as a download. Perhaps I'm a criminal just like those people who may or may not have even downloaded the file. We have no proof, so obviously we can't say for certainty that they did or did not do what they're accused of having done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
The goal should be to make enough money that no amount of piracy will hurt you. Did CD Projekt do that? Yes. They sold over a million copies. That made them a profit. They can continue making games.
Would it be nice to eliminate piracy? Sure. It would also be nice to have world peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
Piracy is unstoppable that is a simple fact that anybody can check by just copying something, specially in the gaming industry that have been dealing with it for over 40 years or more and it didn't stop them from growing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
As for GoG, like you said, they already done what's on TD's checklist. I admit that. What still can be improved upon is their download model after purchase. Before, the provide only downloads chunked at 2gb, depending on the actual size of the game data. If it's less than 2gb, then the game is available as 1 download. If it's more, then it's chunked.
For the rest of the world which inet is stable, it works fine. The problem is when a user is on unstable inet connection, 2gb chunked is too much for a failed download. The immediate "solution" for us on that situation is to find somewhere where the inet is stable enough to download it, or to get it from someone who have successfully download it. With the 2nd alternative, one can argue that it's "profiting from piracy" when the said party ask for "reimbursement" for their efforts.
But I hear GoG is addressing the download problems with a client, or so I hear. I haven't on GoG for sometimes now.
For Witcher, I have to rely on my friend's experience and whining, as I haven't played it.
He is a huge fan of the series and bought advance copy when it's offered. Then he hit the download problem described before and finally "bought" again from someone who have downloaded it. He spent a total of $50 for the advance copy and $10 for reimbursement.
Then the trials for running the game begins. As he told me, Witcher 2 is not meant to be played out-of-the-box. You must do some tinkering to get it run at a decent frame rate. Last time I saw him play it is in a windowed mode cos according to him patch 1.4 (or is it 1.3, don't exactly remember) screw up the FOV.
Mind you the "tinkering" is done with manually editing the INI files, cos with the supplied setup tools it either don't give you the flexibility, or screw up the config entirely. And he's running a Core2Duo 3GHz box with 4GB RAM, Asus EN9400S card, Win7 SP1 x32. He said there are reports that it's the same whether you use a gaming monster i7 based setup.
What infuriate him (and other fans) the most is the lack of user forum at CDP site when the game was launched. What forum available then was the fans based forum made guerrilla style, with CDP promising to made an official one but never went through (at that time) without any explanation given. Several fans even volunteered to help creating Witcher 2 official site plus forum but never got answers from CDP.
Regarding CDP cracking down individual file sharers, I think a more productive way is to find out why even after what is done people still "pirate" their product. Is it a force of nature, like some noted here, or are there something can be improved. According to my friend's Witcher 2 experience, "something" definitely can be improved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
There's a difference between requesting information and randomly sending letters - it's similar to the difference between a Magnum six-shooter and an M16: one of them targets one thing, whereas the other can get many in one go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
No such thing. Impossible.
Corporations have been usurping the public's rights.
Copyright is NOT an inherent right but something GRANTED by the Constitution, for a limited time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From the "we condone piracy" department...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is old news. As shameful (not to mention wasteful) as these lawsuits are, at least you can trust that they'll stick to their word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-trolls-auction-off-e90-million-in-file-sharing-set tlements-111208/
Mind you these aren't people who have admitted guilt, they just happen to have an IP address on a list. They get the benefit of debt collectors harassing them for something they might have no knowledge of...
Waiting for the new business model to wash up on the US shores soon enough, there are many shakedown firms with long lists of names of people who refused to settle the claims... we can sell their "debt" off and recoup more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CD Projekt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CD Projekt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CD Projekt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CD Projekt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]