DRM, Censorship, you brought it on yourselves.

[KeithA45]

I understand your plight and agree with you to some extent, but I have to say there's a few holes in your argument.

Now, if you had your car, computer, console etc. randomly stolen under a similar pretense, you would feel screwed over too. Idiot, I would just call the police, you say. Well, change the thief into a guy who steals your possession when no-one?s around, jumps the border so he won?t get caught, and a subsequent turn of events results in the lack of said item causing you to lose you job so you can?t buy a new one. Let?s say that that item was the game they are trying to sell, and no money means that they can?t create a new one. This is Piracy.

The thing is that piracy is NOT the same as stealing someone's possessions. Don't get me wrong, it's still stealing, but of a different kind. The worst part about thievery is the lack of possessions of the person who gets stolen from. If someone steals your car, you'll probably be upset because you're minus 1 car. However piracy thrives in the digital world, where copies of information can be formed almost instantaneously.

Sticking with an analogy, it's closer to a car company releasing a new model of a car intending to sell one to each customer. However, only one customer buys it and, using his magical duplicating machine (I didn't say it was a perfect analogy), makes copies of the car for all his friends to use. Yes, the car company planned to sell one to each person, but someone else figured out they could just make copies and give those copies to other people. The car company is out the money they expected to make, but no one had anything stolen. No one lost any possessions. I'm still not condoning piracy, but put in this context does piracy seem as wrong as it did 5 minutes ago?

And secondly, you can't put down a blanket argument that "we brought it on ourselves" because that's punishing everyone for piracy that not everyone did. Remember in Elementary School when all you wanted to do was go out to recess but some kid did something stupid like crapped in a urinal or wrote an obscenity on a wall, and because no one admitted to it, everyone had to stay inside instead of going out to recess? That's punishing many for the crimes of few, something that seemed stupid back then and is even more rediculous now. DRM means that if I legally buy my music but then decide to scrap my old computer and move from Mac to PC or PC to Mac, I need to re-buy my music. And what if I digitally purchased a movie on my computer, but I want to play it on my X-Box? It has DRM on it, so I can't. It's not my fault people pirate movies/music/software and I shouldn't be the one who gets caught in the cross-fire with restrictions on MY digital property. EDIT: Furthermore, I have a bad habit of managing to crash my computer an alarming amount of times per month and having to re-install all my games and programs and copy back over all my music and movies from my back-ups. I take full fault for my clumsiness with computer OS's, but my software/movies/music shouldn't be threatened. Limiting my re-installs or number of copies, hell even identifying my computer as the computer that software/movies/music can be installed on screws me over in the end, because each fresh install of Windows is recognized as a new computer, and dual-booting my Macbook Pro counts as two different computers.

The biggest problem is that there's no form of Digital Rights Management that is compatible with everything, knows entirely when it's ME making copies for MY personal use only, and yet can distinguish when copies are being made for other people and stop them. Now such measures I'm sure are ridiculously hard to make, but when they're ready I'll move to them. However in the mean-time, I refuse to buy software/movies/music that I know I'm going to have to RE-PURCHASE depending on what OS I settle on, or that may not be compatible with the form I want to play them in the first place.

 

[Rhayn]

I have yet to pirate a single game, but neither have I bought a game with the most ridiculous DRMs, like Spore. I like to see it as the 'passive' attack against the companies that come up with stupid DRMs.

I mean jesus christ, 3 installs and then you need to call up the company and get treated as a thief when you want to play the game you bought. I don't think so. They might aswell keep their game to themselves.

I know my 'method' of handling these things ins't the most effective, but it's the 'morally right' one. I find it easier to argue about these things when I'm not part of the problem on either side.

And doesn't Holland have somekind of tax that everyone pays so they can download stuff all they want?

 

[Alex_P]

So, to return to my title statement; DRM and Censorship, you brought it on yourselves.

"You"?

The people reaping the benefit aren't the ones suffering the consequences.

...

It's not just piracy that motivates DRM, either. Every big content producer in the world wants to rent stuff out to you instead of letting you actually buy it: "You can use this thing but I will mercilessly control how and how much -- oh, that means you have to forfeit your legally-protected rights as the first-sale owner of a copyrighted work, as well as any pretense of privacy or security on your own computer -- and I reserve the right to take this thing away from you if I decide to be a dick or get tired of keeping my old key server running. Oh, and it still costs just as much as it did back when I actually allowed you to own it."

-- Alex

 

[Wyatt]

i dont pirate anything, ever ......... period.


i am however seriously pissed off at DRM, no not really ive no trouble with some kinds of it. punching in a CD key doesnt bother me a bit, but when a DRM puts stealth programs on my computer, limits my ability to install, tracks ANY information about me or my computer i dont care if its so much as a time stamp of when i start to play than i wont be buying any game that does this. i wont pirate it either but they wont be getting my cash.

as i look at the situation it boils down to this for me, wal-mart has millions of dollers in shop lifters every year, if i go to a wal-mart store and have a security guard follow me around while i shop, limit the number of items i can put in my cart, take notes about everything i look at, follow me into the bathroom and count the number of toilet paper sheets i use to wipe my ass and then follow me home to make sure i put my grocerys in the right cabnet or my cloths in the right draw in my dresser then descide to take them all way from me with NO REFUND if i dont, than i wont be shoping at wal-mart again ..... ever.

piracy is the cost of doing business, and the SOULTION is to go after the PIRATS not ever single God damn fucking CUSTOMER who will BUY the game.

and with respect to the OP, its a moronic argument in the extream to think for one second that DRM that ONLY applys or effects people that actualy BUY the game is a way to stop people who steal it. its like saying that we will stop speeders by issuing parking tickets at the local mall. and the fact that the DRM limits installs and will also under ANY conditions cause you too NOT be able to put your disk you PAID for into your computer, load the game and PLAY it is not stoping pirats its a blatiant and not well disguised money grab to force the people who BUY the games to have to buy ANOTHER copy when their install limit runs out. they get to milk the BUYING public by forcing repeat purchases and at the same time stand there with a 'sad face' saying that they were forced into screwing their REAL customers because of theives when the truth is the DRM isnt even a speed bump to the real theives.

anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. and if you dont agree well that cant be helped but atleast the FTC agress with me.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/01/sony.shtm

For Release: January 30, 2007
Sony BMG Settles FTC Charges
CDs? Embedded Content Protection Software Posed Security Risks, Limited CD Use, and Monitored Users? Listening Habits on their Computers, Without Consumer Consent

Sony BMG Music Entertainment has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law when it sold CDs without telling consumers that they contained software that limited the devices on which the music could be played, restricted the number of copies that could be made, and contained technology that monitored their listening habits to send them marketing messages. According to the FTC, the software also exposed consumers to significant security risks and was unreasonably difficult to uninstall. The proposed settlement requires Sony BMG to clearly disclose limitations on consumers? use of music CDs, bars it from using collected information for marketing, prohibits it from installing software without consumer consent, and requires it to provide a reasonable means of uninstalling that software. The settlement also requires that Sony BMG allow consumers to exchange the CDs through June 31, 2007, and reimburse consumers for up to $150 to repair damage to their computers that they may have suffered in trying to remove the software.

?Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful,? said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. ?Consumers? computers belong to them, and companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customary use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content.?

According to the complaint detailing the charges, Sony BMG embedded in its music CDs content protection software, also known as Digital Rights Management software, which installed itself on consumers? computers to restrict the number of times the audio files could be copied. It also prevented the music from being played on certain portable digital devices. The music could not be transferred directly to iPods, for example. In addition to restricting the use of the CDs on computers using the Windows Operating System, the software, which was concealed from consumers, created security vulnerabilities that could allow hackers and other third parties to gain access to consumers? computers.

The FTC alleges that the installation of software without consumer consent that exposed consumers? computers to security risks was unfair and violated federal law. In addition, the complaint alleges that hiding the software from consumers and failing to provide a means to uninstall it also were unfair practices in violation of federal law.

The agency charged that it was deceptive for Sony BMG to fail to disclose adequately that software would be installed on consumers? computers, and that the software would limit consumers? copying and use of the CDs on their computers. The FTC also alleged that it was deceptive, in violation of federal law, to fail to disclose that Sony BMG?s monitoring technology, included on many of its CDs, monitored consumers? music listening preferences and sent targeted marketing ads to their computers.

The settlement requires clear and prominent disclosure on the packaging of Sony BMG?s future CDs of any limits on copying or restrictions on the use of playback devices. It bars the company from installing content protection software without obtaining consumers? authorization, and, if Sony BMG conditions consumers? use of its CDs on installation of the content protection software, it must disclose that requirement on the product packaging.

In addition, the settlement bars Sony BMG from using the information on consumers? listening preferences that it has already gathered through the monitoring technology it installed and bars them from using the information to deliver ads to those consumers. For future CDs containing such technology, the agreement requires that, before transmitting information about consumers, their computers or their use of the CD, Sony BMG must clearly disclose on consumers? computer screens what the technology will do, and obtain consumers? consent. If it conditions consumers? use of its CDs on their agreement to have information collected, Sony BMG must disclose that condition clearly on the CDs? packaging.

The settlement bars Sony BMG from installing or hiding content protection software that prevents consumers from finding or removing the software, and requires that it provide a reasonable and effective way to uninstall any content protection software. It requires that for two years, Sony BMG provide an uninstall tool and patches to repair the security vulnerabilities created on consumers? computers by previously installed software. The company is required to advertise these free fixes on its Web site.

As part of the settlement, Sony BMG will allow consumers to exchange CDs containing the concealed software purchased before December 31, 2006 for new CDs that are not content-protected, and will be required to reimburse consumers up to $150 to repair damage that resulted directly from consumers? attempts to remove the software installed without their consent. Sony BMG is required to publish notices on its Web site describing the exchange and repair reimbursement programs.

Sony BMG also is required to provide financial inducements to retailers to return the CDs that create security problems for consumers? computers. For CDs already in its stock that are sold to retailers, Sony BMG is required to disclose on the product packaging the restrictions on use and the security vulnerabilities.

Finally, the settlement contains record-keeping and reporting provisions designed to allow the agency to monitor compliance with its order.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was 5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through March 1, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: This consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent of a law violation.

Copies of the complaint, proposed consent agreement and an analysis to aid public comment are available from the FTC?s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC?s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,600 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Claudia Bourne Farrell,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2181

STAFF CONTACT:

Matthew Daynard, Tracy Shapiro or Stacey Ferguson
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3291 or 202-326-2343 or 202-326-2361

sony-BMG tryed the DRM shit before and got slaped down hard for it. it wotn be long and EA and others will face this same thing.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

DRM is pointless. I shall tell you why.
My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that DRM is meant to cut back on piracy. But surely if someone has the ability to get this from the disk onto the torrent websites then they could just as easily crack the DRM system right? I don't really know how the whole thing works that's just me using logic.

Your mention of censorship doesn't really have anything to do with anything though. The BBFC is generally fine at the whole thing, bar some dramatically delayed releases, and I don't see how we could bring that on ourselves. Crazy school shooting people not withstanding.

 

[Sgt Doom]

Although I am far from a supporter of piracy, developers can fuck right off with the limited installs bullshit. It only ever affects the customers, since that's the first thing to get ripped out by pirates. It's sort of like an informant giving the Israeli army the coordinates to a Hamas rocket factory. They act too late, Hamas has since abandoned the location and it's now a home for orphans, yet the army decides to go ahead and bomb it anyway.

 

[Chadling]

I am not pro-piracy. I am anti-DRM.

Considering the fact that EA basically conned me out of $50 through their DRM when I bought Spore (I bought a legitimate copy of the game that had somehow already had its verification code used), I reserve the right to ***** out EA at every opportunity and to refuse to shop at the electronics store that sold me the worthless ****.

There, example of a legitimate customer being screwed over. I still have a receipt to prove my purchase, but that hardly mattered to EA, did it?

 

[Neesa]

Well, why do most people pirate? Simply because it's not a dime out of their pocket. Hell, some people can't afford high priced games. Charging $69.99 for like Mirror's Edge on the 360 is robbery in my opinion. Yeah, I have the right to buy it and the right not to, but if I want to buy something for $70, make it worth my $70. Something I'll play for a few hours and then put it away? Screw that. I'd rather go clothes shopping with that $70. At least I'd make more use of it. No one gives anything good anymore in games unless it's the collector's edition or something.

What if they started making more demos that lasted more than a level to give the actual player a taste of the game? Even though demos can be misleading, nevertheless it might give more people an incentive to buy it. But so many games are expensive and if you're a 15yr old that doesn't get enough allowance or a job until a year later, what would be your option? Oh look, the internet. I can get it for free. But if you want to call one person a thief, you have to let everyone be called a thief (since many people on the forums love to make blanket statements). How many times have we let our friends barrow our books or borrow our homework because they forgot to do it? In some degree, we are condoning piracy amongst each other because he is taking YOUR information to use for himself for his personal use. Where's the harm? There is nothing major. You still had your homework to hand in, now your friend won't get chewed out by the teacher. You didn't lose anything, did you? No.

Also, like people said, while attempting to stop or limit privacy with silly DRM, businesses such as Game Stop, Blockbuster, any local video/gaming store that takes previous viewed movies and games would lose so much business. Especially with their limit re-installs. Most of these stores look for 2nd hand games/movies to re-sell to the public at a cheaper price. If I can get a used copy for $20-30 less than the actual game, I'm all for it. But forcing everyone to buy a new game because you're bitching that you're losing money is ridiculous. Music companies started the bitching with Napster and now look what we have here. Music businesses are complaining, when they're not so much concerned with the artist, but the money that they're losing cause no one wants to buy their shitty artist's CD. Some bands that I've gone to see live condone that you pirate their music and hand it out amongst your friends to get your name out there. If anything, piracy make the game as well as the developers popular because it's a household name. Yeah, some people might be like "Well is EA can produce this many good games, maybe the next one they release'll be just as good. Maybe I should buy it." Okay, that was simply theoretical but, someone might think that.

Then again, I have a strong distaste for people that ride so high up on their moral self-righteous high horses that they refuse to look as they aren't humans. That they're so justly and haven't done anything wrong in life. EVER. Hmph, spare me. Someone stated earlier, stop producing mediocre games/movies/music so more people would be willing to pay for it. Yeah, you won't know if the game/movie/music is bad until you get it, so please don't even state "YOU WON'T KNOW IT TIL YOU BUY IT." If something looks too good to be true, most of the times it is. Showing trailers and cut scenes of probably the only good part of it is misleading. Just like iTunes, you can preview the smallest amount to the song/video/movie, but you're about to gamble with your money. Thus, being stuck with the dilemma "Do I waste $9.99 on this album or not?" Yeah, it comes down to your wallet and time wasted listening/watching.

Tsk. Whatever. Feel free to 'rip apart my argument', even if it's a matter of opinion.

 

[Kooper113]

I just find DRM hilarious because of how useless it is to make a difference in piracy. Why don't companies just admit the true purpose of DRM- or do they really think they're making a difference? It's honestly such a big joke that the only people they hurt in the end are their loyal customers.

On the topic of piracy, I pirate games to understand if they're worth buying or not. For example, I downloaded Spore and after making it through the game with a single race in about 30 minutes, I realized it wasn't worth the price tag. Not only did I not have to put up with the DRM bull, I got to experience this "amazing game of the year material" and find out it really wasn't all that amazing, so I didn't buy it.

On the same token, I also downloaded Fallout 3 to see what all the rave was about, and found a game I actually really enjoyed. I promptly purchased the limited edition of the game for the sweet bobblehead and called it a day. If I had never downloaded this game I would've never purchased, as I had almost no exposure to the game otherwise.

For myself and most pirates, we download games we honestly would not have paid the money for anyway, or to simply demo games. If I find a game turns out to be worth the money they're charging me for it, I'll consider buying it. But for the most part I have played some pathetic games that simply aren't worth their price tag. Mirror's Edge? The demo was great, but the full game- All I'd have to do is play the demo about ten times and I'd get the same experience, NOT worth my money or time.

Sure, you can say my argument is invalid because I'm breaking the law, but you'll never be able to effectively stop piracy, nor will they be able to stop Torrents of any pirated media, it's just technologically impossible right now, especially with how stupid ISPs are.

 

[Neesa]

Why the hell would pirates bash DRM? Pirated games are DRM-free.

DRM stops people from lending games to their friends, and that is just fucking greedy and lame.

Exactly. Apparently the gaming industry wasn't taught how to share when they were younger.

 

[Flour]

Piracy harms the gaming industry, and in turn harms anything related to the gaming industry, such as The Escapist. So why is it so accepted on these forums nowadays?

And yet, while Piracy causes such harm, I know for a fact that there are many people on the Escapist in support (and partake in) it, and heartily condone it. Whether this is open or not depends on the user, but the fact is that it shouldn?t be.

How exactly does piracy harm the game industry? Is it because pirates were never going to buy that game, or because they have a chance to test a game before deciding it's shit.

The latter is a worthless argument because you're saying "developers and publishers are allowed to rip you off with shit games"
The former is usually the group that does not want to pay for games.

To close this post, the only law broken by downloading games, is copyright and a comparable crime would be to exactly replicate that mercedes you want, copying pages from a book, and copying movies or music.

And all of those other examples are also illegal.

Yes, a developer is allowed to rip you off with shit games. You have a right not to buy them.

It hurts the gaming industry because people would have bought the games if they couldn't download them for free, because if they didn't they wouldn't have any games.

Seriously, it's people with attitudes like yours that is what's wrong with this whole business. The pirates aren't hurting anyone? So why are they a problem? Why should they get the product of people's hard work for free?

I also have a right to expect some quality in games, and if I don't get that quality then the games industry can die a slow death for all I care.

IT DOES NOT HURT THE GAMES INDUSTRY. What point of "never going to buy the game" includes that those people were going to buy that game if it wasn't available as torrent?

The problem here are the developers and publishers who are trying too hard to stop piracy, they claimed StarForce was against piracy and those SF destroyed computers, now they're trying the same with SecuRom which can make your dvd drive stop working.
Sure, there will always be people that want everything for free, but that group is probably less than 20% of all pirates in the world. The other group is filled with people that want to test a game because demo's and reviews can not be trusted, and people that download their games and buy them because SecuRom(and other copy protection programs) ruin their computers.

How exactly does piracy harm the game industry? Is it because pirates were never going to buy that game, or because they have a chance to test a game before deciding it's shit.

The latter is a worthless argument because you're saying "developers and publishers are allowed to rip you off with shit games"
The former is usually the group that does not want to pay for games.

I'm going to kick this off with: I am completely against pirating and consider it straight up theft.

I hear this 'there is no loss, because pirates were never would have bought the game' argument frequently, but I can't get around that people have this crazy, stupid sense of entitlement about a game. If they aren't going to pay for it, as the law requires, then they don't get to have it. They have no right to have it. And if they don't have the money to get it, but want it...too freaking bad. Suck it up! I want a new car without a shitty transmission, but I'd got to live within my means. And that goes for everyone. someone 'wanting' something isn't grounds for theft or illegal activity. That's simply called 'motive'.

And if you're 'just going to test it to see if you like it', then get the demo. What? No demo? Then too freaking bad. Read the game reviews. No demo isn't a justification for theft. You aren't entitled to 'test' the game. It is what it is. 'Buyer Beware'. I'm not going to steal a loaf of bread to see if I like the brand. Does it suck? Sure, when you get a shitty game. That's why you do your freaking research. Read reviews. Heck, read many reviews. Everyone says it sucks? Don't get it. Everyone says it's awesome? I'd say take a chance.

Seriously, this sense of entitlement needs to go.

Where did I say that it wasn't stealing? All I said was that the "it costs developers/publishers/retailers money" argument is worthless. You can't lose what you never had.

No demo, no sale. It's that simple. Stopping this kind of piracy will do the industry more harm than it does now. Heck, I bought Fallout 3, Jericho and Call of Duty 4 because I enjoyed them after downloading.
Why should I listen what the majority has to say about a game? I haven't read anything good about Jericho, and I loved the game. There were very few good reviews for Painkiller, and I enjoyed it months before Yahtzee's review.
If I had listened to others, I would have bought Bioshock which bored me enough to stop halfway through the demo and Halo 3, I borrowed that game from a friend(omg I'm not paying to play, I'm a horrible pirate) and I had to prevent myself from destroying the game, I hate it more than I've hated any other game in my 15~ years of gaming.

I'll finish this post by saying that those cracking teams love the challenge, trying to finish their copy protection cracks before the other teams do and showing they're the best.
If things like SecuRom were removed from all games tomorrow, games got some actual quality and only required a cd-key or cd/dvd in the drive, most pirates would stop downloading and actually buy the games.

 

[GreenDevilJF]

I agree that pirates are ruining things, even though I stick with console gaming, but I don't get the censorship part of the title.

 

[SirSchmoopy]

The industry won't stop but quality will tumble. There will always be someone ready to take the place but they simply won't be as good.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Why the hell would pirates bash DRM? Pirated games are DRM-free.

Not only that, but pirates get a real kick out of cracking those games. The more invasive and difficult-to-crack the DRM, the more the pirates see it as a challenge.

If the gaming industry is really serious about combatting piracy then their first step should be to stop treating legitimate customers as criminals.

 

[Jimmyjames]

The real hypocrites are the toerags that say "I don't like DRM so I'm going to stick it to them by pirating their software." In that case, you're not doing anything but justifying copy protection. If you want to send a message, DON'T EVEN PLAY IT, at all.

Also, there's the old, "When I have the money to buy it, I will. Until then, I will download it." BULLSHIT. You're getting it for free because you can. That is all.

The last one that gets me is the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway." OK, so you don't believe in giving the creators payment for something they worked hard on and you are enjoying because you wouldn't have bought it anyway. This rationale makes possibly the LEAST sense. You want to "have your cake and eat it too"?

I really don't think its too big a deal if someone downloads it and plays it for a night before deleting it, but it's a douchebag thing to download it, put it out via torrent, play it and enjoy it as long as you like, etc.

That kind of behavior hurts the game industry. It's having a tough time as it is, why help kill it even more?

 

[Jimmyjames]

If the gaming industry is really serious about combatting piracy then their first step should be to stop treating legitimate customers as criminals.

I agree with this. DRM is a misstep, but I don't think it's a quarter as bad as people make it out to be.

 

[Haliwali]

I'll never pirate a new game... but abandonware, well as long as the developer or publisher no longer sells the game, or even exists, what's the problem?
I guess I'm a grave robber.

 

[Jimmyjames]

If things like SecuRom were removed from all games tomorrow, games got some actual quality and only required a cd-key or cd/dvd in the drive, most pirates would stop downloading and actually buy the games.

This made me laugh heartily. Right dude, because NO ONE pirated games before DRM/SecuRom.

 

[Baby Tea]

Where did I say that it wasn't stealing? All I said was that the "it costs developers/publishers/retailers money" argument is worthless. You can't lose what you never had.

They WOULD have had profits. What piracy does is it cuts into the potential profits for a product. It isn't theft in the sense that it is taking money directly from the developers, but it is stopping potential money from reaching the developers. They lose potential, and probable, profit.

No demo, no sale. It's that simple. Stopping this kind of piracy will do the industry more harm than it does now. Heck, I bought Fallout 3, Jericho and Call of Duty 4 because I enjoyed them after downloading.
Why should I listen what the majority has to say about a game? I haven't read anything good about Jericho, and I loved the game. There were very few good reviews for Painkiller, and I enjoyed it months before Yahtzee's review.
If I had listened to others, I would have bought Bioshock which bored me enough to stop halfway through the demo and Halo 3, I borrowed that game from a friend(omg I'm not paying to play, I'm a horrible pirate) and I had to prevent myself from destroying the game, I hate it more than I've hated any other game in my 15~ years of gaming.

Again, no demo is not an excuse for theft. It isn't the responsibility of the developer to take the extra time to make a demo. Some do, some don't. Don't like it? Too bad! It isn't your call to make! You don't have the right or authority to demand it.
And I can't STAND it when people try to make legitimate their theft by saying they buy the game 'if they like it' after downloading it. What a crock. Even IF you actually do that, I'm not so naive as to think that even close to a quarter of pirates would do something like that. After all, you've got the game and are enjoying it now, why pay for it? To support the developers? Something tells me trying to find noble action within pirating is like trying to find a porn star in a convent.

And as for reviews, it isn't the developers fault that you have different tastes then many reviewers. Find a reviewer who shares your tastes. Can't find one? Oh well! Again, the responsibility isn't on the developer in this case. Many people loved the games you hated, many people hated Jericho. It's called different opinions. Rent the game, watch someone else play, whatever. None of this is an even remotely good excuse for theft.

I'll finish this post by saying that those cracking teams love the challenge, trying to finish their copy protection cracks before the other teams do and showing they're the best.
If things like SecuRom were removed from all games tomorrow, games got some actual quality and only required a cd-key or cd/dvd in the drive, most pirates would stop downloading and actually buy the games.

Bull-flying in the sky-shit. Pirating wouldn't stop if cracking got easier. It would continue just as strong as it does now (If not stronger). Pirating is about selfish theft, not industry protests. And anyone who says differently is only trying to justify their own theft.

And I bolded that part about game quality because that is coming from the guy who liked Jericho. What's that? You enjoyed it? That's perfectly ok! The point is that 'quality' is very much based on an individual's opinion! So tell me, how are games suddenly going to 'get actual quality' when the idea of a 'good game' is as diverse as every person playing?

Where is this idea of entitlement coming from?