LGJ: Revising Piracy Strategy
by Mark Methenitis 
{ Dec 19th 2008 at 8:55PM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
I've talked about piracy in a number of LGJ pieces over the course of 2008. In most of those, I've criticized many approaches to stemming the tide of piracy, not only in games but in other related media as well. I'm not sure if I have any readers at the RIAA, but it appears the music industry has decided to opt for a strategy more in line with what I've described, according to the Wall Street Journal (via GamePolitics). It's definately a move in the right direction for a number of reasons, but would the same apporach work for the game industry? And would it be the right approach?
Let's start by examining the reported new RIAA strategy, which really makes two key changes. First, it alters the strategy to request ISPs issue warnings to file sharers, and then those who continue stand to have their service cut off. The second change is that this strategy goes into action when the RIAA, to quote the article, 'finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.' In short, rather than focusing on the demand, they're focusing on the supply. The RIAA does reserve the right to sue repeat offenders, but by and large, they're using the threat of loss of internet as their main punishment rather than lawsuits.
Could the game industry do the same? Certainly. Is it a perfect strategy for the game industry? Not quite, but then again, the game industry also hasn't been as active in using lawsuits against the end consumer. Really, there are a few key differences between the means behind video game piracy and music piracy that will limit the success of this strategy in the US. First and foremost, while games are certainly pirated over BitTorrent and other peer to peer means, they are often seeded overseas. Game piracy, like software piracy, is a far more global issue. Music piracy, on the other hand, tends to be far more localized based on music availability and popularity. You're more likely to find a seed of a US album in the US than you are in some of the traditional foreign sources of piracy.
This differential roots itself back to the early days of online piracy. Software and game piracy has been far more consistent, dating back to the warez sites of the 1990s. Music piracy, on the other hand, exploded with the advent of peer to peer file sharing with Napster around the year 2000. Yes, software made its way into the peer to peer realm as well, but it was still a more global entity. What this means is that unless you have the cooperation of international ISPs, then you won't be able to get the same results from the ISP based approach.
Similarly, there's still significant game piracy internationally with hard copies, something that hasn't been nearly as popular in the music piracy circles. It's something that's received new life on eBay in recent years. The game industry, really, has a two front fight whereas the RIAA can largely focus on file sharing. This isn't to say the RIAA doesn't address hard copies of pirated material, just that piracy of that kind isn't as widespread in that medium.
Of course, none of this should suggest that the game industry take up the abandoned approach of the RIAA. In fact, they're by and large already employing a variant on the RIAA's new strategy. Specifically, go after the source of pirated material, not the people who end up with it. It's not even necessarily the most beneficial route to target those who are cracking the software. Cracking in and of itself isn't the primary problem, it's the distribution of the cracked copies. After all, the idea behind piracy prevention is to ensure the developer is compensated through sales for the work they put into the product. Where that is truly hampered is when illegal copies are distributed in the marketplace, and other points in the process, while certainly related and possibly a good source of information to get to the root of the problem, aren't the most efficient place to focus limited resources.
After all, piracy prevention is another business expense, and like any expense, it should be optimized as much as possible. The RIAA has certainly found a way to minimize costly litigation in favor of a new approach. It will be interesting to see if groups like the ESA continue to avoid the RIAA's previous enforcement mistakes in favor of more innovative means of piracy control.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.
I've talked about piracy in a number of LGJ pieces over the course of 2008. In most of those, I've criticized many approaches to stemming the tide of piracy, not only in games but in other related media as well. I'm not sure if I have any readers at the RIAA, but it appears the music industry has decided to opt for a strategy more in line with what I've described, according to the Wall Street Journal (via GamePolitics). It's definately a move in the right direction for a number of reasons, but would the same apporach work for the game industry? And would it be the right approach?
Let's start by examining the reported new RIAA strategy, which really makes two key changes. First, it alters the strategy to request ISPs issue warnings to file sharers, and then those who continue stand to have their service cut off. The second change is that this strategy goes into action when the RIAA, to quote the article, 'finds a provider's customers making music available online for others to take.' In short, rather than focusing on the demand, they're focusing on the supply. The RIAA does reserve the right to sue repeat offenders, but by and large, they're using the threat of loss of internet as their main punishment rather than lawsuits.
"Game piracy, like software piracy, is a far more global issue." |
Could the game industry do the same? Certainly. Is it a perfect strategy for the game industry? Not quite, but then again, the game industry also hasn't been as active in using lawsuits against the end consumer. Really, there are a few key differences between the means behind video game piracy and music piracy that will limit the success of this strategy in the US. First and foremost, while games are certainly pirated over BitTorrent and other peer to peer means, they are often seeded overseas. Game piracy, like software piracy, is a far more global issue. Music piracy, on the other hand, tends to be far more localized based on music availability and popularity. You're more likely to find a seed of a US album in the US than you are in some of the traditional foreign sources of piracy.
This differential roots itself back to the early days of online piracy. Software and game piracy has been far more consistent, dating back to the warez sites of the 1990s. Music piracy, on the other hand, exploded with the advent of peer to peer file sharing with Napster around the year 2000. Yes, software made its way into the peer to peer realm as well, but it was still a more global entity. What this means is that unless you have the cooperation of international ISPs, then you won't be able to get the same results from the ISP based approach.
Similarly, there's still significant game piracy internationally with hard copies, something that hasn't been nearly as popular in the music piracy circles. It's something that's received new life on eBay in recent years. The game industry, really, has a two front fight whereas the RIAA can largely focus on file sharing. This isn't to say the RIAA doesn't address hard copies of pirated material, just that piracy of that kind isn't as widespread in that medium.
"Cracking in and of itself isn't the primary problem, it's the distribution of the cracked copies." |
Of course, none of this should suggest that the game industry take up the abandoned approach of the RIAA. In fact, they're by and large already employing a variant on the RIAA's new strategy. Specifically, go after the source of pirated material, not the people who end up with it. It's not even necessarily the most beneficial route to target those who are cracking the software. Cracking in and of itself isn't the primary problem, it's the distribution of the cracked copies. After all, the idea behind piracy prevention is to ensure the developer is compensated through sales for the work they put into the product. Where that is truly hampered is when illegal copies are distributed in the marketplace, and other points in the process, while certainly related and possibly a good source of information to get to the root of the problem, aren't the most efficient place to focus limited resources.
After all, piracy prevention is another business expense, and like any expense, it should be optimized as much as possible. The RIAA has certainly found a way to minimize costly litigation in favor of a new approach. It will be interesting to see if groups like the ESA continue to avoid the RIAA's previous enforcement mistakes in favor of more innovative means of piracy control.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc., where he is a board member of the Dallas chapter. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ghede @ Dec 19th 2008 9:03PM
You fail to mention that there is no way for the RIAA or the ISP's to find out if there is even TORRENTING going on without invading your privacy, let alone whether those torrents contain music.
It's not a solution. It's just another strategic retreat in a losing battle. They can't defend the walls, so they go to the castle.
Ghen @ Dec 19th 2008 10:33PM
Peerguardian 2 keeps them from knowing what I torrent because all connections from bad sources are discarded.
t_m @ Dec 20th 2008 2:45AM
Many people, including the makers of uTorrent, think that peerguardian is essentially worthless.
I have no idea, but i wouldn't put TOO much faith in it.
devian @ Dec 21st 2008 10:12AM
@t_m: uTorrent also was bought out by BitTorrent who is ironically owned by Time Warner now. I'd take peerguardian's word over whatever uTorrent says.
slycooper_rocker (lorddshadow the amazing) [anti-panda death squadron force five] @ Dec 19th 2008 9:22PM
interesting approach. but it makes me wonder to what extent will they go to in order to find out if you're actually torrenting files? it seems like there might be a lot of a lot of false alarms going off, thus more money going down the drain. is it worth it?
Josh @ Dec 19th 2008 9:27PM
Agreed. To combat piracy, (1) go after the biggest distributors and (2) companies must avoid showing distrust to their paying customers (i.e. do not force DRM onto their paying customers). Forcing DRM onto paying customers only drives them to seek out pirated DRM-free alternatives, furthering the cycle of increased piracy and increased DRM.
And similar to what you said, only those who distribute *actual pirated material* should be prosecuted/sent cease-and-desist letters.
In contrast, the simple act of cracking, or homebrew, or distributing flash carts *without* pirated software, etc. is not copyright or trademark infringement and therefore should *not* be prosecuted/sent cease-and-desist letters.
SlyBeast @ Dec 19th 2008 9:50PM
I'll say this: You can't count money you never had as money lost. Much of the software acquired wouldn't be purchased by the people that get it anyway. They just get it because it's easy and free.
Premature ejaculation man @ Dec 19th 2008 10:32PM
So? Unjustifiable.
Premature ejaculation man @ Dec 19th 2008 10:42PM
But yeah I see your point. Checking a site just then showed how easy it would be for me to get a whole bunch of stuff.
aristokrat @ Dec 19th 2008 10:13PM
I heard someone bring up the DMCA "Safe Harbor" clause in regard to this, stating that if the ISPs start monitoring their content for music they are then liable for all information that flows through their servers. This obvious internet ramifications for this are stuff like child porn, but in this time of terrorists (I know they aren't everywhere, but it would take only one in this situation), they could hit with charges of treason (a capital offense). I'm sure the ISPs wouldn't want to open themselves up to such liability, for it is far worse than anything the RIAA could even think of doing to them (the "Safe Harbor" clause also protects the ISPs from the RIAA itself).
I think it's funny that the RIAA is changing tactics now, given that Harvard Law School has just recently taken on a case against them and their strong-arm tactics (meaning that their legal campaign is close to an end anyway).
Nadril @ Dec 19th 2008 10:19PM
I've been known to pirate games, for various reasons.
1) It has some method of DRM on it. I'm not going to "reward" a company for putting such stuff on their software. The only DRM I accept is steam.
2) It only would be worth a rental at best. If a game only has 8-10 hours worth of gameplay there is no way I'm paying $50 for it. And since there is no way to rent a PC game I may pirate it.
All these things I pirate I would never spend money on otherwise. Sadly, I'll probably get voted down for admiting this even though I still do my fair share of buying a lot of games. I have a few hundred dollars of software on steam that I bought through them alone.
The best "anti piracy" measures is to make sure your game is worth it to buy. Give meaningful online options that extends the games life or just make it last more than 10 hours. Sure we will always have piracy, but one would be surprised to see that a GOOD game will sell more.
And now for the barrage of replies stating "well you don't deserve it in the first place, ect. ect.". Trust me, I've heard them all. I just wish there was a way one could "rent" a PC game.
Premature ejaculation man @ Dec 19th 2008 10:35PM
Demos?
And if you did pirate because you wished to rent it, did you allow yourself a limited timeframe like rentals do to play it? Or are they still on your harddrive?
As I said above, I can't find it justifiable.
Nadril @ Dec 19th 2008 10:46PM
Some might be because I'm too lazy to get rid of them, sure. It's not like I still play them.
And in reality I don't need a reason. I have my own justified means as to why I do it and it doesn't really need to be justified to anyone else. It's not an excuse for saying it is ok, it's an excuse for saying why.
WiredKnight @ Dec 19th 2008 10:46PM
I feel you on that, but I think that if you like a game enough to want to finish it, it's worth paying for.
$50 is steep for 8-10 hours, I agree. But you're only fooling yourself if you think it's any less of a crime to play the whole thing without paying for it.
t_m @ Dec 19th 2008 10:47PM
While i don't feel that you are justified in downloading games just because they have DRM*, i do think that you point out an important difference between console and PC games
(the latter having much more piracy).
There is an established system for console games to be easily rented out, meaning that customers can buy the games they REALLY want, and they can also try out other games that they aren't sure about for much less outlay.
It would be interesting to see the results of a similar system for the PC (i guess gametap is the closest now). If steam rented games for $2 a week, what would be the impact?
Right now, i imagine that say 70% of piracy doesn't result in lost sales, so if they could get $2 off each of those then it'd cover the 30% that DOES result in lost sales.
NB// The games industry's revenue model is totally broken. They rely on essentially a one month sales window to recoup all their expenses and make a profit. that would never work in any other industry. Movies, books, music, they all have decades to sell and bring in income... (plus rentals, etc..)
*(you are justified in not buying them, but have no right to play them).
Nadril @ Dec 19th 2008 11:04PM
Let me do say that I'm not justifying this in a legal sense. It is still illegal and, to a point, it's still "wrong".
I do think that if steam were to do game rentals there would be a huge boost. I would love to pay just $6 or $7 for a week rental of a PC game, it would work wonderfully with the steam service I think.
And I have bought some "short" games in the past. Some are from companies I really care about (valve, for example.) although a lot of times I tend to just avoid most short games. If I really feel like it I'll download it and play it. Sometimes it makes me glad I didn't go out and spend $50 (Fallout 3 I am looking at you).
But yeah, I'll just clarify again that I'm not saying I'm in the right for doing this. I'm just trying to give my perspective as to WHY someone would do it beyond "lololol free stuff". Honest to god I don't think I'd pirate another game if PC gaming came out with some sort of "rental" system.
Foetoid @ Dec 19th 2008 11:40PM
Ouch. You guys can't rent PC games? I know of 2 places, one in a city i used to live in and another about 10km drive down the road that both rent out PC games. It's a great way to test out a game before i buy it. If i hire it out and finish it before i take it back, then obviously i wont buy it unless it has amazing replay value or multiplayer features.
Alien Lord @ Dec 20th 2008 11:06AM
When I pirate a game it's only the PC version (if there are even other versions) and only when I can't afford to buy legit ones cause I'm in school and can't swing the extra hours to afford games. This doesn't happen too often and PC controls suck so that's another deterrent.
ducttapeBigSexy @ Dec 20th 2008 11:37AM
I used to justify my pirating with the argument that $50 was too much for a 10 hour game. Honestly, though, I haven't pirated a game in quite a while; thanks to sites like CheapAssGamer.com and SlickDeals.net, I'm able to get those games on the cheap.
Same thing with games with a lot of DRM - I'm not about to pay $50 for a rental, but $10 is a different story.
Courtney @ Dec 20th 2008 1:36PM
Don't know where you live, but you might visit your local library. Several in my area check out PC games. They may not be the newest releases, but it is a legal avenue to play a short game or test drive the full version of a game.
Also, some of my local independent video stores used to rent PC games. Haven't checked in a while, but it used to be the case. The one that I used the most unfortunately shut down a couple of years ago.
thebigL @ Dec 19th 2008 10:24PM
Information can be copied without limit with very little energy input. Therefore it is worth nothing.
t_m @ Dec 19th 2008 10:48PM
Information can't be created without work and input, therefore its worth something.
thebigL @ Dec 20th 2008 2:29AM
That could be said, but not when someone else is willing to put that work and effort in for free just to help out the community.
When it isn't worth doing for free, that is when you ask the community that wants the product to donate or pay for what the actual work and effort are worth.
t_m @ Dec 20th 2008 2:50AM
Well, i'd be willing to do my job and make cars for free, but i'd need my landlord to be willing to rent me my apartment for free, and my supermarket to give me my food for free. And i guess they'd need their builders and suppliers and workers to work for free. And i guess they'd need their supermarkets to give them their food for free, etc..
If it takes a team of 30 people working 10 hour days for 2 years to make a game... should they be willing to do that for free?
Fulano @ Dec 20th 2008 2:59AM
There is a massive falacy in that argument.
Just because someone is willing to do something for free does not indicate that it is worth nothing. At standard rates it would cost $10.8 Billion to recreate Fedora Linux (http://tiny.cc/6hWFo).
Also: good luck telling a volunteer down at the soup kitchen that their labor is worth nothing because it is given freely ;)
thebigL @ Dec 20th 2008 3:39AM
The first examples you gave are all examples from the physical world. They don't really apply.
People making games in a "free information" world is something I haven't quite figured out yet. Musicians could still survive because people will always want to go to concerts. But you are right in saying it takes a good amount of work to design a modern video game and that it might be hard to make games if they were made to be given out for free. I think what I want to say to this though is that what really matters in a game is "the game", the set of rules which the game is based on and the artistic themes. The snazzy graphics and such are nice but I think some low budget donation funded games could still be on par, in a free info world , with games of today. At least when it comes to their actual game-play and themes.
I feel that a lot of companies, Activision Blizzard, and EA being two of them are giving us products that haven't had enough input and thought put into them to be worth anything at all. They are just taking they same old ideas that seem to always sell and continuously feeding it to us.
It would be hard to accept all information being free but I think it is just as hard and not necessarily right to keep people copying and using something that, so easily can be copied and used. Obviously we do have a conundrum on our hands with this but it's only going to get harder to stop people from "Pirating" as more and more people are doing so.
ThebigL @ Dec 20th 2008 3:50AM
@Fulano
You are right.
Though I did not mean that acts of selflessness such as working in a soup kitchen or coding your brains out for an open source project are worthless. I just mean that information/wisdom/knowledge whatever you want to call it, is monetarily worthless.
Magetto @ Dec 20th 2008 5:48AM
I think you just want free games ignoring that it costs time and money to produce, and that you actually get something of worth out of them (lol entertainment, and if not why bother pirating it in the first place?). Really, just accept that what you do is bad, and stop trying to justify it.
t_m @ Dec 20th 2008 6:42AM
There is a difference between Information and Products. The sum of 2 + 2 equalling 4 is information, and it should be freely available.
Something that people have worked on, created, and which provides you with value is inherently valuable. Whether it is composed of physical matter or zeros and ones, the same amount of work and investment went into making it.
Physical products can also be given freely, but that doesn't make them worthless. If i give you a ferrari, that doesn't make it suddenly worthless.
Alternatively, many people charge for things which aren't physical. To take your concert example, if i pay to go to a concert i'm not GETTING anything. And i could record the concert on an ipod and then copy it infinitely. Does that mean that paying to go to a concert is also wrong?
Personally, I get a lot of value from games, concerts, albums, music etc.. in terms of enjoyment. People worked to provide that enjoyment. I'm happy to pay them for that enjoyment.
Try inviting a clown to your kid's birthday, and then after telling them that they didn't provide any phsical goods, and you recorded their performance and will send it to all your friends... so you won't pay them.
No offence, but you sound like a teenager who's been reading too many books with complex ideas they half grasped...
ThebigL @ Dec 20th 2008 2:52PM
There is a difference between a concert and a recording in that recordings are mass produced a concert or a clown show is a one of a kind thing.
Like I said I'm still not sure how if at all video games would be able to survive in such a world. I don't really appreciate the personal attack but you would be right in saying that I'm a little too into cyberpunk media and I got a little worked up writing my philosophy of art final. If it sounds like I only half understand some of these concepts maybe I do, but it may also be that I am trying to keep these responses short. I'll just say it again it's near impossible to stop people from pirating games. The only thing stopping a good amount of people today is the fact that consoles have so much protection built into their hardware.
Thank you for the debate, I would have like to have had it in a "faster" environment, but I have to go.
Josh @ Dec 21st 2008 8:56PM
thebigL, you're so shortsighted and unable to think one step beyond what's right in front of you, you can't understand the concept that when you're buying any media, you're not actually paying for the physical media itself; you're actually paying for the content that's on/in it, and all the hard work and time and sacrifice that went into making it.
And unfortunately I feel that there are many others who think just like you, based on the fact that you actually somehow gained 3 stars.
KingTorres @ Dec 19th 2008 10:25PM
You make some good points, but to expand on your point about hard copies, i believe this is mainly because of console games, the increasing popularity of consoles, and the increasing availaility of modchips/flashing etc.
In comparison to music piracy, It's much easier to download the music to your pc and play it there, than to download a game and play it , as fo many users the technical reqs. are just too high, and most users opt for the graphical advantage on the consoles. There then comes into it the cost and difficulty of burning games onto hard media, such as the media itself(dual-layers for the 360 aren't anywhere as cheap as dvds, trust me), and the burning itself which can be tedious nand take long lengths of time, so the buying of piracy on eg ebay has a larger market because its as easy as pay for it and play it.Good article though.
Premature ejaculation man @ Dec 19th 2008 10:40PM
I remember someone bringing home a Ninja Gaiden copy from overseas. It was designed to play on an "Xgame"...
My xbox didn't read it anyway.
t_m @ Dec 19th 2008 10:58PM
To many extents i feel that ENFORCEMENT is irrelevant to the topic of piracy.
Its expensive, its a waste of resources, its almost always ineffective, it victimises your potential customers/fans, and its impossible to keep up.
To use your example of the music industry, they've tried to criminalise almost every development of the last few decades (home recording, mp3 players, etc..)
So, if enforcement isn't the answer, what is?
FIRST, they need to do some actual studies to find out motivation for piracy, and how much of it actually results in lost sales. Without this info we are all blind.
Next, they need to revise their business model so it doesn't involve getting 99% of their profits in the first month or two after launch. Books, music, Movies, etc.. all have revenue models which last for decades. they also have mulitple income streams like Radio play revenues, rentals, etc..
We should be able to buy and play ANY game ever released, without hassle. If we could all still buy and play Grim Fandango in the stores/without hassle then it'd still be bringing in income.
We should be able to rent games from services like Steam.
Finally, they need to decide what to do about the piracy that doesn't result in lost sales. (bearing in mind that in other industries, those that download the most also tend to buy the most - they are the hardcore fans/collectors).
They could write it off as potential future customers/advertising.
They could target it with easy/cheap rental services.
they could release the torrents themselves, with advertising to get additional revenue.
they could make tech support and forums require a product key, so they aren't supporting and paying for those that didn't support and pay them.
--
Or they could continue wasting money and resources fighting something they can't beat and don't even understand.
Evan @ Dec 20th 2008 10:10AM
Why don't they address one of the most major causes of piracy: lack of availability.
One of the main reasons I see people modding their consoles and pirating games is:
- It's a Japanese-exclusive game, or
- It's already released elsewhere and people don't want to wait for it to be released where they live.
The solutions are simple:
- Make all consoles and games REGION-FREE,
- Release Japanese-exclusive games to the rest of the world,
- Release games in all regions ON THE SAME DATE (developers: localize games during development, instead of afterwards)
Lack of availability is also the main reason people pirate television shows and movies where I live (Canada). Specifically:
- The show is not broadcast in our country (e.g. BBC's TopGear, also most Anime)
- The show is broadcast on a later date in our country, but we don't want to wait (e.g. SouthPark)
- The show is only broadcast in SD, but we want to see it in HD (e.g. just about any show from the American Sci-Fi network, and a growing amount of Anime)
(Also, Canadian HD cable and satellite television is a complete rip-off compared to American services - we pay the same for half the content! Some people pirate just to avoid being ass-raped by Rogers.)
And it's not just anecdotal evidence - one of the big torrent sites released a study where they said the majority of people bittorrenting American television shows, such as "Lost", were in foreign countries.
So, again, some simple measures could significantly reduce television and movie piracy around the globe:
- Release content in more countries, ON THE SAME DATE.
Tom @ Dec 20th 2008 10:20PM
The idea that record companies should have any right to control your right to internet access is absurd. Same goes for game companies.
Good luck recording industry! Every piracy solution has been a complete and utter failure; I'm sure this one will work!
Graeme Q @ Dec 22nd 2008 12:30PM
The fact that torrents are mainly targetted is the fact they are easy to track. By watching who's connected where and what they are downloading, its not a breach of your rights. They are allowed to do it (at least in UK and US). Same policy as you surfing for kiddie porn.
Notice how newsgroups are never targetted. There is a reason for this. Servers are seeded which should mean that they are easier to track, but its not the case as servers seed each other. This makes it a nightmare to track and add in SSL downloads (secure downloads) then its a can of worms that no one has yet to open.
Torrent users deserve what they get IMO. Its slow and full of junk. Newsgroups FTW.
As for piracey, unless they hit the sources, they'll never stop it.