DRM/Copy-Protection/Anti-Piracy measures

[Nymphs]

No, it's a legitimate question. People who've never had to run a business, regardless of age, oftentimes have no idea how it works. "Making money" isn't really accurate to keeping a business going, since it implies just people "getting" money; balancing revenue and profit is more accurately what's going on. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the distinction.

I've ran my own business as well as helping others run their small businesses. I'm quite aware of the distinction. I tend to use slang and simpler words when describing things (i.e. 'making money') instead of 'balancing revenue and profit'. I'm so sorry that my vocabulary isn't up to snuff. :cover:

 

[HonestJoe]

Pardon?

And as a side note, I do share things with family and friends.

I was being a little flippant but with some point behind it. You said you supported the free sharing of data so I was wondering if you freely share data you own with anyone who wants it. I actually sympathise regarding some of the DRM measures out there but as someone who is both a producer are consumer, I find some of this free sharing of data concept is a little one-sided and short sighted.

 

[Nymphs]

I was being a little flippant but with some point behind it. You said you supported the free sharing of data so I was wondering if you freely share data you own with anyone who wants it.

As much as I can without inviting privacy issues (where I live, details about myself) and virus issues.

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't see it as stealing. If I was 'stealing' I wouldn't be bragging about it.

Of course you don, but you are... and you are bragging about how you believe you should be able to choose whether or not to pay for intellectual goods.

I can't gush about things I have no clue about, and that is what I want to do, I want to be able to fall in love with new things and then be able to tell other people about it.

Your recommendation/gushing isn't an accepted form of compensation... just because you recommend things to people doesn't mean you haven't stolen when you illegally download.

 

[Nymphs]

Of course you don, but you are... and you are bragging about how you believe you should be able to choose whether or not to pay for intellectual goods.

I'm not bragging about anything. I'm simply stating that I believe that we should share content in the above ways that I've stated. Nothing more, nothing less. Your attempts to emotionalize my statement don't work here. Please stick to facts. TYVM.

Your recommendation/gushing isn't an accepted form of compensation... just because you recommend things to people doesn't mean you haven't stolen when you illegally download.

Public relations and word-of-mouth is absolutely golden in today's social media word. A brand, game or product can go viral if enough people hear about it. It is a significant gain to that developer or artist and can change their business dramatically. Whether you consider it an accepted form of compensation is up to you. How about we let the artists speak for themselves? And, with this idea, I'd suggest reading up more on Alternative Economies (here is a link), because this idea of free-sharing, bartering, etc. is promoted heavily within and is where my ideas on this stem from.

 

[Riverwolf]

Pardon?

Basically, don't do that because you'll open your computer to hacker attacks, meaning a flood of viruses, stolen passwords, potentially have your identity stolen...

Unless you're using Linux. ^_^

I've ran my own business as well as helping others run their small businesses. I'm quite aware of the distinction. I tend to use slang and simpler words when describing things (i.e. 'making money') instead of 'balancing revenue and profit'. I'm so sorry that my vocabulary isn't up to snuff. :cover:

It's okay. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page as well as the same side. :yes:

 

[Riverwolf]

By the way, and this is half a MOD NOTE: Don't say whether or not you, yourself, engage in illegal software downloading/sharing. Remember Rule 6. I want to debate the pros and cons of DRM, and illegal software sharing is part of that discussion. Whether you think that downloading software should be free, or at least far cheaper than it is (the nonlinear movie editor Sony Vegas is 400 USD), don't say, implicitly or otherwise, if you download illegally. Ethical or not, it's still illegal.



More on topic, I also want to point out that I've heard of some studies that demonstrate companies actually grossly exaggerate the negative effects that software piracy have on their profit-margin. Makes sense; Game of Thrones has been listed as one of the most pirated shows right now, but HBO still has the budget to produce more.

The Free Software Foundation (with whom I agree on some issues and disagree on others) has also denounced the term "software piracy", because of its insensitivity. Their argument is that it basically equates a crime (regardless of the ethics, it's illegal and so a crime) that's on the same severity as petty theft, to the likes of Blackbeard, Henry Morgan, or Francis Drake; murderers as well as thieves. They're also the ones who regard DRM as standing for Digital Restrictions Management. They do believe in accurate terminology, and in these cases, I agree with them. (Not so much on the whole naming of Linux as a whole, whether Linux is fine or if it should always be GNU/Linux.)

They prefer the admittedly more cumbersome phrase of "illegal software sharing", and I generally agree that that would be a better term. (Much like how the hacker community hates how the term for themselves is commonly equated to computer criminals, when the term is supposed to refer to anyone who can take something apart, figure out how it works, put it back together, and make something new from it; they prefer to call criminal hackers one of two things: black-hat hackers, or the more derogatory crackers. ^_^)

 

[Nymphs]

Basically, don't do that because you'll open your computer to hacker attacks, meaning a flood of viruses, stolen passwords, potentially have your identity stolen...

Oh, I know. It's a big hell no. I only share with people I trust. That's it.

 

[dust1n]

As far as I'm concerned, anything digitized is essentially fair game. Otherwise, I wouldn't run a computer on the internet or release digital content.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm not bragging about anything. I'm simply stating that I believe that we should share content in the above ways that I've stated. Nothing more, nothing less. Your attempts to emotionalize my statement don't work here. Please stick to facts. TYVM.

You, not I, are the one who first used the word bragging to describe your behavior.

Public relations and word-of-mouth is absolutely golden in today's social media word. A brand, game or product can go viral if enough people hear about it. It is a significant gain to that developer or artist and can change their business dramatically. Whether you consider it an accepted form of compensation is up to you. How about we let the artists speak for themselves?

Whether it is considered an accepted form of compensation is not up to me or you. It is up to the person(s)/company who own it, and if one does not give them the compensation they ask, it is theft. There are plenty of intellectual creators who share their works for free, and you can go download those all day long... but the ones who do charge, you don't have the right to say "No, I'm not going to pay you for your work".

As for alternative economies, all well and good(though bartering is more suited to a less specialized society), but we don't operate on that and even in such a system the producer still gets to set what they believe is a fair value on their work.

The Free Software Foundation (with whom I agree on some issues and disagree on others) has also denounced the term "software piracy", because of its insensitivity. Their argument is that it basically equates a crime (regardless of the ethics, it's illegal and so a crime) that's on the same severity as petty theft, to the likes of Blackbeard, Henry Morgan, or Francis Drake; murderers as well as thieves.

I always liked the term because it terms a petty crime in something that sounds cool... Really, it is a petty theft like nicking chips out from a convenient store, but you get to call yourself a pirate...

As far as I'm concerned, anything digitized is essentially fair game. Otherwise, I wouldn't run a computer on the internet or release digital content.

Yup, and the guy who nicks shirts from the retail store sees those as fair game; its the same thing.

 

[Nymphs]

You, not I, are the one who first used the word bragging to describe your behavior.


Whether it is considered an accepted form of compensation is not up to me or you. It is up to the person(s)/company who own it, and if one does not give them the compensation they ask, it is theft. There are plenty of intellectual creators who share their works for free, and you can go download those all day long... but the ones who do charge, you don't have the right to say "No, I'm not going to pay you for your work".

As for alternative economies, all well and good(though bartering is more suited to a less specialized society), but we don't operate on that and even in such a system the producer still gets to set what they believe is a fair value on their work.


I always liked the term because it terms a petty crime in something that sounds cool... Really, it is a petty theft like nicking chips out from a convenient store, but you get to call yourself a pirate...


Yup, and the guy who nicks shirts from the retail store sees those as fair game; its the same thing.

I assume you feel similarly about libraries then....:areyoucra

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm befuddled by the lack of connection between libraries and theft.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yup, and the guy who nicks shirts from the retail store sees those as fair game; its the same thing.

Not really. Those shirts are one-of-a-kind; downloaded software are copies.

There's only three (possible four) English NES cartridges of the game Mother in existence. But there's thousands of copies of the ROM; each time it gets downloaded, one more copy is created.

For a pre-computer analogy, software sharing is more akin to, say, using cardboard, paper, tape, and playing cards to create your own monopoly board, cards, and pieces.

 

[Mister Emu]

Not really. Those shirts are one-of-a-kind; downloaded software are copies.

Of course the items aren't the same. Its the mentality, viewing something as fair game because you want it and can get away with it.

There's only three (possible four) English NES cartridges of the game Mother in existence. But there's thousands of copies of the ROM; each time it gets downloaded, one more copy is created.

I agree with the principle here, if something is unavailable for the purchasing consumer intellectual rights should be partially abrogated, one should be able to provide, free, and procure from providers.

I also tend to believe that one purchase should be enough cross platform(though I understand some ports can be alot of hard work there is no reason a game shouldn't come Xbox/PC bundled for instance.)

I understand that there is a right to monetize investments, and no contradictory right to free things just because you want them, even if you can't afford them and even if you tell your friends how awesome things you find awesome are.

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course the items aren't the same. Its the mentality, viewing something as fair game because you want it and can get away with it.

While those aren't incorrect, they are an incomplete assessment. It's also the fact that the items aren't the same that makes it more prevalent.

Besides, you can be tracked if you use a torrent.

I agree with the principle here, if something is unavailable for the purchasing consumer intellectual rights should be partially abrogated, one should be able to provide, free, and procure from providers.

Agreed. I think sitting on an unused IP should be grounds for losing the IP and everything it entails to the public domain, even if "using it" just means porting old software to new platforms so people can play it without the need of outdated hardware.

I also tend to believe that one purchase should be enough cross platform(though I understand some ports can be alot of hard work there is no reason a game shouldn't come Xbox/PC bundled for instance.)

Software development is hard work. It's more licensing that keeps cross-development from being feasible than the work load. One reason my early games won't quickly see non-PC ports is because I can't, at this point, afford the licenses required to make such ports. Otherwise, I'd just put my games on whatever platform I could get through the respective Quality Assurance (assuming there is any...)

My big argument in favor of open source is the two words: Brutal Doom. ^_^

I understand that there is a right to monetize investments, and no contradictory right to free things just because you want them, even if you can't afford them and even if you tell your friends how awesome things you find awesome are.

We all gotta eat, and software developers are no different. If a company/creator comes out and SAYS that they're okay with people downloading their for-profit software product, then it's free game. (Team Meat, for example, is on record for saying that they're okay with people freely downloading Super Meat Boy, even though the game is for-profit.)

'Course, I'm not really arguing the ethics of illegal software sharing; I'm arguing the ethics and practicality of the methods companies always use to combat it.

 

[Mister Emu]

I doubt we have any substantial disagreement on this issue.

It's also the fact that the items aren't the same that makes it more prevalent.

I think it is the ease with which it is accomplished and the relatively minor chance for reprisal. You lose both major deterrents. You sit at home, don't feel like a skulking thief or sneaking shoplifter, you lose the emotional response(the shame). You also aren't going to have anyone bust down your door when you click to download.

Besides, you can be tracked if you use a torrent.

Can be, yes, but will they put in the effort? No, not likely.

Software development is hard work. It's more licensing that keeps cross-development from being feasible than the work load.

Oh I know about licensing... I'm just suggesting that for a company with that issue already settled, a game made for both should come bundled, for me the consumer As opposed to say the difference in coding for a Wii and the XBox 360.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't see any difference between downloading something online and taping movies and shows from your TV, or CD burning, making mix tapes, recording something from the radio, etc.

If you've done those things, then quit whining.

 

[Riverwolf]

I doubt we have any substantial disagreement on this issue.

Same here; just in the minor details and specifics.

Can be, yes, but will they put in the effort? No, not likely.

Most likely just get a call from an angry ISP telling you to knock it off.

Oh I know about licensing... I'm just suggesting that for a company with that issue already settled, a game made for both should come bundled, for me the consumer As opposed to say the difference in coding for a Wii and the XBox 360.

Personally, I don't think ports with no substantial difference should cost the exact same amount. Games I bought on the Wii Virtual Console can be re-bought on the WiiU's Virtual Console at a massive discount; that's how I think ports should be done, and in this coming age of mass digital distribution and accounts, I think that's likely to become mainstream.

 

[DreadFish]

I dont like most of the DRM stuff I've read about, especially the idea that we are only paying for a license to use something, rather than the thing itself.

As far as basic stuff like requiring a specific key to install a particular copy of a game, I dont mind so much. You can install the same game on multiple machines, as long as you have the proper key to go along with it.

One the other hand, I still can't really wrap my head around the idea that digital copies of anything are the same as material objects. Pirating digital content is nothing like actually taking something from someone, stealing; it's simply making a copy of something. It's like Frank said, its the same thing as using your VCR to record something on TV, which is technically illegal in the same way. No body really cares about that, however. Like seriously, you download a copy of a game, you have an entirely new copy, it resembles the original in almost every way, but it is entirely fresh and unique to your copy. It is not the original, you have taken nothing from anyone, you have just made a copy. Digital stuff is tricky in this regard.

I can't find any reason against copying digital content besides the idea of respecting the creator of the content and therefore respecting their wish to make money in exchange for what they created. The idea is supposed to be an equivalent exchange (really not trying to reference FMA). Some of the types of DRM implemented now is nowhere near equal and the seller gets away with giving people a limited product for their money.

When you think of the way many big companies are dishonest with their business dealings, how are we supposed to be held to a higher standard when it comes to copying their digital "property"? I think DRMs are mainly an effort to enforce the ownership of things to the greater benefit of companies, not to protect any person's creative rights. If they could get away with just taking your money without giving you any rights in return, many companies would.

 

[Riverwolf]

If they could get away with just taking your money without giving you any rights in return, many companies would.

The whole "games as service"/"software as service", if I remember those terms correctly, are essentially them trying to justify exactly that when they implement things like always-online DRM, like in Sim City 5 (I don't care if they pretend the "5" doesn't exist) or Diablo III.