PoSSeSSeDCoW: I wouldn't have minded them going after pirates if two criteria were met:
1) They had a foolproof method of determining who pirated it (which they don't)
and
2) A reasonable fine was levied (I'm talking something about 3x the price of the game, which I doubt would have happened)
hedwards: 1) How could you possibly know that? The only reports of wrong information have been made in pro-piracy blogs and even then without having a quote from anybody that's actually been effected. A supposition here is just not good enough. We don't know what method they were using or even which firm was sending out the notices so we still don't know what the accuracy rate was or what measures they had in place to ensure that people didn't get extorted. Ultimately it looks like you've bought into the pro-piracy FUD.
2) The actual letters were asking for a lot less than $750, unfortunately, since the only information out there comes from pirates we don't really know what the real amounts demanded were, but they were a lot less than $750 a person. Plus, they do have the right to get repaid for the cost of enforcement. It wouldn't surprise me if those costs went beyond that, you know since we expect that letters will only go out to violators, doing it properly costs money.
1. Just because mainly only pro-piracy sites posted info about it doesn't make the info any less valid.....a bit more suspect perhaps but it doesn't automatically invalidate the information given.
And no foolproof method for litigating such individuals who download IP off the net exists so far or everyone would be using it(to avoid bad PR and also to target the right individuals to sue), and we wouldn't be seeing all these people sued in other cases by other law firms using crap methods.
Also btw the lawfirm sending out the letters has been mentioned on this board several times, and others have speculated the reasons why no one came forward regarding the letters or their contents.
You say Cow has bought into the pro-piracy speil? Well we could easily say you've bought into the opposing extreme and it's spiel.
2. You say the amount was less than 750 then say we can't know the exact amount because we have no credible information...which one is it then?
pH7: I don't think it's splendid at all as this is mostly a consequence of people spreading false information and utilizing scare tactics.
hedwards: Precisely, just because they've bowed to the pressure of a large number of pirates doesn't make this a good thing. Ultimately it means that they'll be making less money on the game than they should and that next time they do a game that they'll likely have less money on hand to work with, meaning either higher prices, larger loans or smaller scope of game.
This isn't any sort of win for anybody other than the sorts of assholes that pirate indie games.
It's a win for those that sell such games on the PR front. And for those who might be incorrectly targeted with such letters.
Also bringing that old myth about lost sales up again? Really? dohoho......
hedwards: Honestly, there isn't really any difference there. It reminds me of a sketch from The State where the guys are in prison and asked by the warden not to walk through that large open gate and to consider it "off limits." Well one of the guys does walk out because there's nothing to stop him from doing it.
This is really the same thing, giving lip service to not being pro-piracy, but arguing against the only enforcement possible is really a matter of semantics. At this point we have no reason to believe that CDPR was going beyond reasonable means to enforce its rights and that the list wasn't cleaned of people that hadn't done anything wrong.
If you are honestly saying everyone who voiced their concerns against the CDPR tactics to be pro-piracy and you don't see what a gross and misleading generalization that is then I don't know what to tell you.
Also, while we have little evidence to show that no one was falsely targeted by the letters we also have little evidence that they didn't target such people.
paralipsis: There is a clear and unequivocal distinction between disapproving of enforcement methods and tacit approval of the illegal action. It is absolutely not "semantic bullshit". To equate the two as the same muddies the debate in an immature way.
Wishbone: Precisely. "I don't condone piracy" and "I don't condone blackmail" are
not mutually exclusive statements. It's perfectly possible to be against both. Personally, I'm a little worried about all the people here who
do seem to condone blackmail.
The end doesn't justify the means.
This.......+1
