I was on my way out the door when I posted so I didn't do as good a job as I should have. Let me backpedal clarify what I meant (I will also add this to that post in an Edit).
Currently, game companies treat pirates like hardened criminals. While what they are doing is illegal, I do believe that a lot of them are either ignorant that what they're doing is wrong or don't care that what they're doing is wrong. While hilarious, gimping the game seems like it just puts the wrong foot forward. I believe that you want to convert these people into customers, gimping their ill-gotten goods, while hilarious, doesn't send the right message.
I certainly think it's the least harmless so if a developer REALLY wants to exact revenge on pirates without having to sue them for $20,000, I suppose they can go for this tactic. I just think you're going to piss off more potential customers than you are going to gain by doing this.
You're saying that either people don't know that illegal downloads are illegal or they don't care?
Given the very widespread advertising of "Piracy is stealing, stealing is against the law" I find it hard to believe that too many people aren't going to be aware of what piracy is. So for the most part it's going to be people who don't care, they will justify it as "a demo, until the can get the money" or as "not worth the retail price" or "a crap game" or maybe even as "I can get it free so suck it" it doesn't matter the reasoning they still know what they are doing is piracy and that the publishers aren't cool with that.
I can see your point about trying to convert pirates into paying customers and if there was an effective way to do that that didn't involve law suits, or internet restrictions or anything not "nice" then I would support that 100%... but be serious if you got a letter that said you got away with stealing even though you have been identified but the victim of the theft wanted you to change your ways if you felt like it, maybe, would that letter honestly make you see the error of your ways and pay for things you used to take for free? Or is the more likely outcome that you'd read it, say "meh, I'll think about it" and then see if your next movie has finished downloading?
Fucking with peoples games isn't nice, and it would piss people off but I expect the developer isn't really trying to convert thieves in the first place.
Well, last year there was a vaguely similar law being discussed in the UK. I don't know if it passed or not but you can find it here [http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/infringement-notice/]. And this is what I got from it back then.
DoPo said:
Right, I read the thing. Well, not all of it (it's 130 pages...OK, technically 40 with another 90 around it) but I think I got the gist of it. Someone should have really just laid it down simply, here's how it works.
1. The copyright owner[footnote]there is some criteria to meet to be qualify here[/footnote] does the monitoring themselves. I don't know exactly how they'll do that, but the idea is that they should be looking out for pirates.
2. Once they find somebody, they produce a Copyright Infringement Report (CIR) which they send to an ISP[footnote]There is also some criteria to meet to qualify here, foe example, the ISP should have more than 400 000 subscribers.[/footnote] and the ISP should then either say it's bollocks[footnote]criteria, you know[/footnote] or match the information to find the subscriber and send them a notification by mail.
3. The ISP would also keep records of all CIRs attached to each subscriber. They should also compile these into Copyright Infringement Lists (CIL) which contain any subscribers with too many CIRs[footnote]you shouldn't be surprised there is criteria here...but it's something like "more than 3 CIRs in a 12 month period".[/footnote].
4. Copyright owners can ask for relevant parts of these lists, but the information will remain anonymous.
5. The Copyright owners can then try to sue people in the lists. Actually, I sort didn't get that fully, but it's something like that. At this point, I was sick of reading and besides, I got the information I was looking for. But basically, they wouldn't be able to sue people with a low number of notifications, also the lists cover a limited period.
And before you ask, here is what the copyright owner should privide in a CIR
Content of copyright infringement report
5.?(1) A copyright infringement report must include?
(a) the name and address of the qualifying copyright owner;
(b) if the qualifying copyright owner is a person falling within the description in paragraph (b) in the definition of copyright owner in section 124N of the Act, the name and address of the person on whose behalf the qualifying copyright owner is authorised to act and evidence of authorisation;
(c) an identification of the copyright work(a) including the title of the work and a description of the nature of the work;
(d) a statement that there appears to have been an infringement of the copyright in the copyright work;
(e) a description of the apparent infringement(b) and the evidence gathered of that apparent infringement, including information which would enable the subscriber to identify the means used to obtain evidence of the infringement of the copyright work;
(f) a statement that no consent has been given by the owner of the copyright in the copyright work for the act giving rise to the apparent infringement;
(g) the start time and end time and date of the online session (using Coordinated Universal Time) during which evidence of the apparent infringement was gathered;
(h) the day on which the copyright owner believes the apparent infringement to have taken place;
(i) the IP address(c) associated with the apparent infringement;
(j) the relevant port numbers used to conduct the apparent infringement;
(k) the website, protocol, application, online location, internet-based service or internet-based system through which the apparent infringement occurred;
(l) a unique numerical identifier allocated to the copyright infringement report by the qualifying copyright owner;
(m) the date and time of issue of the copyright infringement report.
Procedures
Which is a lot to do, really. Also, not hard to avoid, too... I mean, from what I read so far, it seems that this law would work against obvious pirates, but also they will be the stupider ones. Most people with a technical knowledge, would be able to avoid notifications.
Overall, the code sounds somewhat reasonable. But also I didn't read it in very much detail.
You're saying that either people don't know that illegal downloads are illegal or they don't care?
Given the very widespread advertising of "Piracy is stealing, stealing is against the law" I find it hard to believe that too many people aren't going to be aware of what piracy is. So for the most part it's going to be people who don't care, they will justify it as "a demo, until the can get the money" or as "not worth the retail price" or "a crap game" or maybe even as "I can get it free so suck it" it doesn't matter the reasoning they still know what they are doing is piracy and that the publishers aren't cool with that.
I can see your point about trying to convert pirates into paying customers and if there was an effective way to do that that didn't involve law suits, or internet restrictions or anything not "nice" then I would support that 100%... but be serious if you got a letter that said you got away with stealing even though you have been identified but the victim of the theft wanted you to change your ways if you felt like it, maybe, would that letter honestly make you see the error of your ways and pay for things you used to take for free? Or is the more likely outcome that you'd read it, say "meh, I'll think about it" and then see if your next movie has finished downloading?
Fucking with peoples games isn't nice, and it would piss people off but I expect the developer isn't really trying to convert thieves in the first place.
Both groups exist (those who don't know and those who don't care).
The group that doesn't know is going to be a ten year old who sees all of his favorite stuff without having to beg Mom to buy it for him. When I was ten, I used Napster a ton because I had no clue what I was actually doing. I wanted to listen to some music and Napster gave me a way to listen to everything I wanted to. Sending these kids letters might help educate them.
As to the second point, right now, game publishers are in a big PR battle and they are getting their asses handed to them (especially the younger generation who have grown up with piracy). People are seeing these companies are giant machines who are doing nothing but stomping on the little guy for hundreds of thousands of dollars. They need good PR and they need it something bad. Instead of sending someone a threat, send them a request. Show them that you are a person and not a mind-less machine whose only mission is to make money.
Now this idea could fail miserably of course but using vinegar is failing; why not try some honey and see what happens?
To go to VPNs, the pirates shall. Do the ISPs really think that this is going to stop pirates? If anything, I think it will get them an Anonymous to the server.
As for me, I give no fucks. I torrent, just not illegal media. Torrents are so useful as a download method as I can grab so many Linux ISOs off the web in minutes if I'm lucky. I'm more worried about the shafting the ISPs are doing to us price wise.
hmm... well, it's actually not that bad a plan. in fact it's the best one so far. This way they don't have to get the courts involved and they don't have to sue individuals for huge amounts of money or put them in jail for simply sharing computer files.
Piracy is wrong, and i would like it to stop, but the previous methods were too aggressive. I think this system is more appropriate then charging pirates for criminal activity. Hopefully this will at the very least encourage people to not pirate as much but at the same time, not scare them to death or financially rape them.
I'm surprised it's 6 strikes and not a lot less. I wonder how this is going to work out though, i'd like to see the results for this. my current ISP doesn't seem to be listed there though so it doesn't really effect me.. yet.
Both groups exist (those who don't know and those who don't care).
The group that doesn't know is going to be a ten year old who sees all of his favorite stuff without having to beg Mom to buy it for him. When I was ten, I used Napster a ton because I had no clue what I was actually doing. I wanted to listen to some music and Napster gave me a way to listen to everything I wanted to. Sending these kids letters might help educate them.
As to the second point, right now, game publishers are in a big PR battle and they are getting their asses handed to them (especially the younger generation who have grown up with piracy). People are seeing these companies are giant machines who are doing nothing but stomping on the little guy for hundreds of thousands of dollars. They need good PR and they need it something bad. Instead of sending someone a threat, send them a request. Show them that you are a person and not a mind-less machine whose only mission is to make money.
Now this idea could fail miserably of course but using vinegar is failing; why not try some honey and see what happens?
Assuming the only people who don't know are the Little Janey 10 year olds out there, the flaw in your educational plan is that the letter will go to their parents, so the quality of the education will depend on if the parents a) know wtf it means, or b) are able to actually communicate that not only can't you nag mum and dad to buy "insert media here" you also can't get it for free.
As for the PR battle again I can't fault your logic, big business is getting hammered because no one likes to be told they have to spend money on things they really want but don't really need. Getting some good will would be awesome for them. (please note no condescention is intended, if you read it in that tone, I'm sorry thats my default, please re-read in serious voice) The only problem is that by saying "you know, we don't really care if you pirate our stuff just maybe think about throwing us some change or maybe buying the sequel to this game (if we decide the original was profitable enough to justify a sequel)" is very specifically sending the message that if you do get caught pirating nothing will happen. In which case I bet your house that it will do more to encourage piracy then it would do to stop it.
A better option then giving up on piracy, or sueing anyone who tries to steal your IP might be, for games and expensive stuff, to have online sale days... maybe once a month/quarter a selection of games released could be put on sale for 24 or 48 hours. That way you'd still get your Day 1 fans forking out and making everyone lots of money, but people who hold out for the sale would be able to get recently released games and the publisher would still get their cut.
Nothing is as cheap as free, and you will always have those pirates who refuse to pay a cent, but compromise is a better way to go then just giving up on piracy.
Captcha: Taken aback
Well yes we are having a rational discussion but give it time captcha, give it time...
Sucks to be the US I guess that is all their is to say. The US needs to be careful if they try policing the internet to much companies will just move away it isn't like it is hard in this day and age and the US really can't afford to have companies leaving with their unstable economy.
Mwhaha. Mwhaha. My ISP isn't on the list. Though Charter has been known to send "please stop" notices before, and sometimes they decide to slow down my connection if I'm downloading too much, doesn't matter to them if it's illegal or legal. My internet was snail paced for awhile after I downloaded Skyrim from Steam and promptly downloaded a bunch of mods. Not that this would really mean much to me anyway these days. I can get so much with streaming or downloading games over the internet with Steam and XBL I pretty much don't have a reason to pirate.
Only way to reduce Piracy (no matter what you do it'll always happen), is to make it easier to legally purchase something than pirate it.
Now, I'm disinclined to back this up with facts right now, so please correct me if I'm wrong - but it is my understanding that iTunes has been a strong influence on why music piracy amongst those with iPods(and other apple based products) is quite low.
Now, personally I fucking hate iTunes, because I'm a dinosaur and I can't work out how to get stuff off my iPod with any level of reliability once it's on there, however buying new music/apps/whatever off iTunes is so fucking easy that pirating it seems like a horribly inconvenient and pointless endeavour.
So yeah, that'd be my solution - appeal to peoples sense of laziness.
As for the PR battle again I can't fault your logic, big business is getting hammered because no one likes to be told they have to spend money on things they really want but don't really need. Getting some good will would be awesome for them. (please note no condescention is intended, if you read it in that tone, I'm sorry thats my default, please re-read in serious voice) The only problem is that by saying "you know, we don't really care if you pirate our stuff just maybe think about throwing us some change or maybe buying the sequel to this game (if we decide the original was profitable enough to justify a sequel)" is very specifically sending the message that if you do get caught pirating nothing will happen. In which case I bet your house that it will do more to encourage piracy then it would do to stop it.
A better option then giving up on piracy, or sueing anyone who tries to steal your IP might be, for games and expensive stuff, to have online sale days... maybe once a month/quarter a selection of games released could be put on sale for 24 or 48 hours. That way you'd still get your Day 1 fans forking out and making everyone lots of money, but people who hold out for the sale would be able to get recently released games and the publisher would still get their cut.
Nothing is as cheap as free, and you will always have those pirates who refuse to pay a cent, but compromise is a better way to go then just giving up on piracy.
Captcha: Taken aback
Well yes we are having a rational discussion but give it time captcha, give it time...
Did an anti-piracy guy go nuts and start murdering people who disagreed with them (or did I black out again and do that myself!)? This is the second time I've had someone apologize for being condescending or attacking me when they've done no such thing
So fear not citizen, I completely get where you're coming from and see no anger/rage/hatred toward me by the tone of your post. If you (or anyone) got that from any of my posts, I will preemptively apologize now.
Now to the point at hand:
I think ultimately we both agree on this: The system is broken. I would have liked to think that the gaming industry learned something from this same fight that the Music industry went through a decade ago but they seem to just keep making the same mistakes. I suppose they are two very different mediums in terms of finances so maybe gaming CAN'T afford to change but they'll have to either find a way to do so or they're going to crash the industry. Whether that be through awesome sales like you (and I would guess everyone) would like or whether they try to do it through good-will gestures (like not suing the shit out of Grandma because her fifteen year old really wanted Call of Duty), something needs to give. The game industry needs to get some honey out and stop using vinegar to change the minds of the people.
Or maybe a crash is the answer. Maybe the current system just plain has to burn down so that they can try to build again. I really hope that's not the answer but it's the path I feel they're on now...
How is it their game if they pirated it? I don't think those were attempts to win anyone over, just frustrated devs giving the finger to those who've pirated their wares.
It's the difference between treating pirates as a potential sale versus a failed sale. For example, someone who pirates let's say... Fallout 3 on a whim and liked it, might then go on to buy other Fallout titles because they liked 3 so much. A pirate playing a game where the dev fucked with it leads to the pirate either just dumping the game or finding a workaround. Neither of those things benefit game sales whatsoever.
The time and money spent on combatting pirates would be better spent on game development. Creating a brand recognition and consumer confidence does wonders for sales. Sure you are going to get the group of pirate diehards who pirate no matter what, but they are also the ones that find workarounds to the DRM that targets them in the first place.
Well that sound like a huge waste of everyone's time. This sounds hilariously easy to beat first of all, secondly, I doubt any of them have any concert way of nailing down who actually pirated anything.
I mean I can thing of several ways this won't work with out ever needing a proxy of any flavor
*Sigh...
TLDR; The major ISP's in 'Merica are implementing a six strike rule but have not (or will not) tell us what action they will take at if you hit six strikes (angry letter for strikes one through five). However, they have warned that it may include slowing down your services or blocking websites for those who hit strike six.
What does Tippy2k2 think?
This will do dick to stop piracy except for those who are so unfamiliar with the internet that they have no idea that Google exists to tell them how to get around this (not to mention false flags from someone using a neighbors wi-fi). I'm all for combating piracy but this just seems like a really silly and terribly ineffective way to do it.
That's for copying the article, Tippy. That was rather impolite of the OP.
OT: Meh. As long as I don't get false strikes for my use of Hulu Plus, a legal and paid streaming service that uses up bandwidth in a similar fashion to p2p downloading. I say again, meh.
They blocked all the major torrent and pirate sites, replacing them with a warning banner of some kind. They also monitor downloads coming from those sites and a few others that aren't blocked outright. I am not sure about the criteria that they search for, but my friend who works in tech support here says he has gotten a calls related to it. Apparently there is also an appeals process in place, but it isn't exactly made with the computer owner in mind.
My college does something similar with a one strike rule although it's a bit more severe. People that are caught using any form a torrenting are basically good as kicked off of campus. The rule is also highly enforced and since most students aren't too bothered by it (please as if using torrents was the only way of accessing stuff ;P) it doesn't happen too often unless someone really is that stupid.
As a disclaimer my college is a huge tech school based on personal creativity so torrenting other peoples work has happened and is highly frowned upon.
So I guess they've never heard of encryption or proxies huh? And considering its the USA, won't this just create other ISP's who won't restrict them? Competition is king after all.
ISPs here exercise extraordinary monopoly power because they are not required to share/sell access to their infrastructure. This creates an enormous (almost insurmountable) hurdle for any new ISP looking to enter the market. The established ones typically have gentlemen's agreements within their own industries not to encroach on each other's territory. To wit, I live in New York. In the largest and densest city in the country, every apartment I've ever had, I had a choice between the one cable provider or the one DSL provider that my building happened to be wired for.
The reason that the MPAA/RIAA see dealing with the dominant ISPs directly as viable is because it's virtually impossible for new ISPs to supplant them.
So it would cost a bit more on the initial point because they would have to build infrastructure. If the other option is to be monitored up the ***, I could see more than a few people paying the extra buck.
The problem is that "building infrastructure" would cost tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention all the red tape in dealing with govts for permits etc, and the challenge of convincing enough people to switch. I could see some people being willing to pay more for privacy, but the incredible startup costs before you can even hope of turning a profit makes it nearly impossible to enter the market. It's like trying to start a new railroad or phone company: good luck finding the money to lay track or build towers when you have no income.
Internet in places like Canada and the UK is generally faster and cheaper than the US because they force the infrastructure owners to sell access. Internet in places like Japan and South Korea is generally incredibly fast and cheap because the government funds infrastructure buildout itself. This is just not something the free market can handle.
Stu35 said:
Only way to reduce Piracy (no matter what you do it'll always happen), is to make it easier to legally purchase something than pirate it.
Now, I'm disinclined to back this up with facts right now, so please correct me if I'm wrong - but it is my understanding that iTunes has been a strong influence on why music piracy amongst those with iPods(and other apple based products) is quite low.
Now, personally I fucking hate iTunes, because I'm a dinosaur and I can't work out how to get stuff off my iPod with any level of reliability once it's on there, however buying new music/apps/whatever off iTunes is so fucking easy that pirating it seems like a horribly inconvenient and pointless endeavour.
So yeah, that'd be my solution - appeal to peoples sense of laziness.
Basically this. The best way to combat piracy is to provide a better service than pirates can. Whether businesses like it or are willing to admit it or not, people who upload stuff to P2P networks are their competition. They are competing with organizations that can provide the same product for free. It doesn't matter that it's illegal. That's just how the market works.
This is why Steam is so successful. It's about as fast as and much easier and more convenient than piracy. Achievements, social features, automatic patching, and the unified library add value that pirates can't provide. DRM is there, but it's generally invisible and unobtrusive. Frequent sales slashing prices in half or down to a quarter help poorer gamers legally acquire titles they want and provide a healthy psychological kick for frugal gamers who love feeling like they got a great deal.
The worst thing publishers can do is add cumbersome DRM to titles. Crackers will inevitably strip it out, and then guess what? The version of the game they offer is now not only free but objectively superior.
Though I'm sure part of the reason Apple customers tend to pirate less is that Apple products are really expensive. Their customers tend to be either affluent or aspirational--they either have enough money that they don't need to pirate to get everything they want, or they place high social value on acquiring and spending money.
tippy2k2 said:
SecondPrize said:
tippy2k2 said:
I know you're not getting money from them right now game industry but fucking someone's game up is not a great way to try to win them over...
How is it their game if they pirated it? I don't think those were attempts to win anyone over, just frustrated devs giving the finger to those who've pirated their wares.
I was on my way out the door when I posted so I didn't do as good a job as I should have. Let me backpedal clarify what I meant (I will also add this to that post in an Edit).
Currently, game companies treat pirates like hardened criminals. While what they are doing is illegal, I do believe that a lot of them are either ignorant that what they're doing is wrong or don't care that what they're doing is wrong. While hilarious, gimping the game seems like it just puts the wrong foot forward. I believe that you want to convert these people into customers, gimping their ill-gotten goods, while hilarious, doesn't send the right message.
I certainly think it's the least harmless so if a developer REALLY wants to exact revenge on pirates without having to sue them for $20,000, I suppose they can go for this tactic. I just think you're going to piss off more potential customers than you are going to gain by doing this.
I just wanted to point out that "illegal" and "wrong" are not the same thing. Whether piracy is morally wrong is debatable. There are tons of little points one could quibble over. But, eh. It's well-trod ground.
Essentially it comes down to this: do artists have a moral right to receive money from every single person who consumes what they create, or do people have a moral right to experience culture regardless of their economic status?
(The following isn't based on anything you've said and is in no way directed at you, just a general rant.) There are plenty of anti-piracy arguments I understand and sympathize with, particularly the notion that copyright law is meant to ensure artists' incomes scale with their popularity, enabling them to devote more time to producing more art. But one argument I have nothing but scorn for is this: "People don't *need* games. If you can't afford a game, too bad."
Fuck that. It's on the same level as arguing that libraries should be closed because poor people don't *need* to read.
So, are they sending warnings if you use a torrent client at all? Do they send warnings if you go to a site that hosts torrents? Or do they only send warnings if you download an actual bootlegged file?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
