Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[Antari]

Legally and morally niether side is on solid ground. Its Robin Hood against the Sheriff. Pick your sides the arguement will last well past our lifetime.

Actually, the Industry side is on much firmer ground legally, as you'd expect with all the money they've shovelled into making it so that they would have things that way.

Thats ONLY because they have spent many millions of dollars to "give incentives" to politicians to make those laws.

 

[Popido]

Chicken and egg situation here. DRM causes more piracy which causes people to protect their product with more bs like DRM which makes people who want to get around it figure out a way to get around it then more bs then cracks bs cracks ...................

Which hopefully ends soon. Probably my biggest problem with this is that there are people who keep feeding this chaos to make profit from it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Actually, Im starting to forget what it was for... <.<;

DRM is for whatever the publishers/IP owners want it to be for.

DRM is any set up/scheme where artificial restrictions are placed on a digital enviroment/product, purportedly 'protecting' the right of the publisher/IP owner... and the consumers' rights can just fuck right off where there is any conflict. In fact most DRM schemes 'protect' the rights of the IP holder/etc by directly restricting the ability to exercise the rights of the consumer.

Various Industry bodies have always shopped DRM as 'anti-copying' tech but that's just the tip of the DRM iceberg. DRM exists to enforce content and service control when and as the IP holder feels the need and the ability to impliment it (both technologically and without sustained consumer backlash).

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Legally and morally niether side is on solid ground. Its Robin Hood against the Sheriff. Pick your sides the arguement will last well past our lifetime.

Actually, the Industry side is on much firmer ground legally, as you'd expect with all the money they've shovelled into making it so that they would have things that way.

Thats ONLY because they have spent many millions of dollars to "give incentives" to politicians to make those laws.

Naturally. Why the hell would anyone pour millions of dollars into politicians who aren't going to scratch their backs in turn? That would be stupid.

 

[Dastardly]

If you buy a crappy car, you can do something about it. If you buy a crappy game, your stuck with it no matter what.

Well, then it's a good thing it costs a bajillion times less than a car. See, you can't "copy" a car and bring it back. You can do that with software. So there's no reason a smart company would allow people to return stuff like that without strict guidelines. Otherwise, all you have to do is take it home, burn off a copy, and then simply say it was awful and you hated it.

That's like those dickfaces at McDonald's that eat the ENTIRE BURGER AND FRIES before claiming the meal was awful and they should get a refund.

And car manufacturers don't outright lie about the developments they've put into their products because they have groups that monitor what they say. Game developers have no such watch-dog group, and likely never will, unless you can afford to put more money into that politician than EA can.

Let's have an example of where a company really, truly, demonstrably lied about what was in the game. Here are the guidelines for providing this:

1) The lie must appear on the box.
2) The lie must be regarding game facts (like a playable character not being playble) and not opinion statements (like "this game is awesome!" which can neither be proved nor disproved, and thus cannot constitute a lie).
3) The lie must have been perpetrated by the developers or publishers, not fans or media outlets.
4) The lie must be proven false.

The only real way to get a proper idea of what your buying is to try it out, test drive it yes? ... You can do that with a car. When you test drive a car, do they take the doors and wheels and mirrors off and then have you drive it around? Then why are demo's like they are? I'm sorry but the game industry has no excuses. They are as much thieves as the pirates. I'm just more enclined to support the underdog.

If a company DID that, what could you do? Not a damn thing except NOT BUY FROM THEM. You don't go steal the fucking car because you don't like how the test drive went. That's just stupidity. Demos don't give you ALL of the features, just like test drives don't let you go wherever you want and at whatever speed you want and for however long you want--that's called giving you the full product for free.

The game industry has one big, huge, glaring excuse here: IT'S THEIR STUFF. It's not yours, so you're not entitled to anything. If they wanted to charge by the minute they could, because they created the game. You don't have to buy from them, but nothing they do in any way justifies taking what they made and using it without payment or permission. You aren't entitled to shit.

 

[direkiller]

i never said he wasn't biast biased he did(like with fox news)

Fixed it for you. I roll my eyes at every time that Tweak article is linked, since, frankly, he's hung up on the "Downloads are high, thus inevitably lost sales are high" theory with zero proof to back it up other than download numbers which are a) unreliable and b) not proof of lost sales.

Its worth something to them else they would not have gone looking for it(the opportunity cost of there time). That time is not easy quantified but is worth some amount of $(take a basic econ class you will have an entire section on it)

here is the basic idea. The point were they cross is the launch day price. There is a certain demand for that game at that price. As the price drops(follow the demand curve to the right) the quantity demanded goes up. The price will drop until the profits equals zero.

So if a person still will not buy the game at cost then yes they do not count as a lost sale.
If the person fall somewhere on the demand line(and a lot of people who torrent the games do) then it results in some lost money.

His proof is a basic principle of micro economics(and he doesn't explain it very well to people who never had a econ class)

 

[Antari]

Legally and morally niether side is on solid ground. Its Robin Hood against the Sheriff. Pick your sides the arguement will last well past our lifetime.

Actually, the Industry side is on much firmer ground legally, as you'd expect with all the money they've shovelled into making it so that they would have things that way.

Thats ONLY because they have spent many millions of dollars to "give incentives" to politicians to make those laws.

Naturally. Why the hell would anyone pour millions of dollars into politicians who aren't going to scratch their backs in turn? That would be stupid.

And the consumer will never have that for this industry. Therefore when I buy a game and don't get what I paid for, I call that theft. A lawyer might call it something else. But I like to keep it simple. So both sides are doing the same thing. Niether side is in the right. But I do see one side still surviving just fine with massive profits every year. Where as mother's of 4 get sued into oblivion for a few songs, or a game or two that the child was downloading. And since the child is too young to sue the company takes aim at whoever else is in the general area.

If a pirate stops one developer from getting his Ferrari that one week sooner ... I'm sorry but I'm not about to shed any tears.

 

[Dastardly]

Actually, Im starting to forget what it was for... <.<;

DRM is for whatever the publishers/IP owners want it to be for.

DRM is any set up/scheme where artificial restrictions are placed on a digital enviroment/product, purportedly 'protecting' the right of the publisher/IP owner... and the consumers' rights can just fuck right off where there is any conflict. In fact most DRM schemes 'protect' the rights of the IP holder/etc by directly restricting the ability to exercise the rights of the consumer.

Various Industry bodies have always shopped DRM as 'anti-copying' tech but that's just the tip of the DRM iceberg. DRM exists to enforce content and service control when and as the IP holder feels the need and the ability to impliment it (both technologically and without sustained consumer backlash).

But as long as they're up-front about what the consumer is buying (in this case, a license to use this single copy of software, but not to duplicated and/or distribute it), then is this practice really immoral?

I mean, if I sell you a silk bag full of squirrel shit, but I tell you upfront that it is a silk bag full of squirrel shit, and you pay me $50 for it, can you then come back and say, "What the hell, man, this is squirrel shit?" Nope. Now, what if it was written on the bag, and you chose not to read it? Same story. What if it was written on the tag that was attached to the bag at the time of purchase, but you chose to cut the tag off without reading it? Same story.

The "rights" of the consumer are important, but very few. Consumers have the right to:

1) Receive adequate and accurate information about what they're buying.
2) Know the exact price of what they are buying.
3) Choose whether or not they want to buy this product.
4) File grievance for reimbursement of money or product if the consumer has been misled (not the same as "dissatisfied")

And that's it. Consumers often have a few privileges, too:

1) Ability to test a product before buying.
2) Ability to return a product if dissatisfied.

Now, some of the other rights you seem to be leaning toward are the rights of owners, not consumers. And in some cases, the two are not the same person. So it is with software. As the owner, you've got the right to do whatever the hell you want with something--and that's why, if you own a game cartridge, you can do what you want with the cartridge. You can smash it, smoke out of it, dip it in ranch, or sell it to your friend.

But you do not own the software on the cartridge. That is being licensed. Otherwise, if you truly "owned" it, you could just make a thousand copies, sell it for $10 less than the makers, and enjoy pure profit because you don't have production costs to earn back. Because software can be copied with 100% fidelity, it is far more susceptible to this kind of black market distribution, so special protections for the owners of the software are warranted.

But in this, the "owner" is not the "consumer."

 

[Antari]

If you buy a crappy car, you can do something about it. If you buy a crappy game, your stuck with it no matter what.

Well, then it's a good thing it costs a bajillion times less than a car. See, you can't "copy" a car and bring it back. You can do that with software. So there's no reason a smart company would allow people to return stuff like that without strict guidelines. Otherwise, all you have to do is take it home, burn off a copy, and then simply say it was awful and you hated it.

That's like those dickfaces at McDonald's that eat the ENTIRE BURGER AND FRIES before claiming the meal was awful and they should get a refund.

And car manufacturers don't outright lie about the developments they've put into their products because they have groups that monitor what they say. Game developers have no such watch-dog group, and likely never will, unless you can afford to put more money into that politician than EA can.

Let's have an example of where a company really, truly, demonstrably lied about what was in the game. Here are the guidelines for providing this:

1) The lie must appear on the box.
2) The lie must be regarding game facts (like a playable character not being playble) and not opinion statements (like "this game is awesome!" which can neither be proved nor disproved, and thus cannot constitute a lie).
3) The lie must have been perpetrated by the developers or publishers, not fans or media outlets.
4) The lie must be proven false.

The only real way to get a proper idea of what your buying is to try it out, test drive it yes? ... You can do that with a car. When you test drive a car, do they take the doors and wheels and mirrors off and then have you drive it around? Then why are demo's like they are? I'm sorry but the game industry has no excuses. They are as much thieves as the pirates. I'm just more enclined to support the underdog.

If a company DID that, what could you do? Not a damn thing except NOT BUY FROM THEM. You don't go steal the fucking car because you don't like how the test drive went. That's just stupidity. Demos don't give you ALL of the features, just like test drives don't let you go wherever you want and at whatever speed you want and for however long you want--that's called giving you the full product for free.

The game industry has one big, huge, glaring excuse here: IT'S THEIR STUFF. It's not yours, so you're not entitled to anything. If they wanted to charge by the minute they could, because they created the game. You don't have to buy from them, but nothing they do in any way justifies taking what they made and using it without payment or permission. You aren't entitled to shit.

Whatever, I'm not wasting any more time on this thread. The problems of the game industry are there because of the nature of it. If the businesses can't deal with it, they should find a new line of work.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

until the prophet equals zero.

There's no need to bring religion into this!

 

[Dastardly]

If you buy a crappy car, you can do something about it. If you buy a crappy game, your stuck with it no matter what.

Well, then it's a good thing it costs a bajillion times less than a car. See, you can't "copy" a car and bring it back. You can do that with software. So there's no reason a smart company would allow people to return stuff like that without strict guidelines. Otherwise, all you have to do is take it home, burn off a copy, and then simply say it was awful and you hated it.

That's like those dickfaces at McDonald's that eat the ENTIRE BURGER AND FRIES before claiming the meal was awful and they should get a refund.

And car manufacturers don't outright lie about the developments they've put into their products because they have groups that monitor what they say. Game developers have no such watch-dog group, and likely never will, unless you can afford to put more money into that politician than EA can.

Let's have an example of where a company really, truly, demonstrably lied about what was in the game. Here are the guidelines for providing this:

1) The lie must appear on the box.
2) The lie must be regarding game facts (like a playable character not being playble) and not opinion statements (like "this game is awesome!" which can neither be proved nor disproved, and thus cannot constitute a lie).
3) The lie must have been perpetrated by the developers or publishers, not fans or media outlets.
4) The lie must be proven false.

The only real way to get a proper idea of what your buying is to try it out, test drive it yes? ... You can do that with a car. When you test drive a car, do they take the doors and wheels and mirrors off and then have you drive it around? Then why are demo's like they are? I'm sorry but the game industry has no excuses. They are as much thieves as the pirates. I'm just more enclined to support the underdog.

If a company DID that, what could you do? Not a damn thing except NOT BUY FROM THEM. You don't go steal the fucking car because you don't like how the test drive went. That's just stupidity. Demos don't give you ALL of the features, just like test drives don't let you go wherever you want and at whatever speed you want and for however long you want--that's called giving you the full product for free.

The game industry has one big, huge, glaring excuse here: IT'S THEIR STUFF. It's not yours, so you're not entitled to anything. If they wanted to charge by the minute they could, because they created the game. You don't have to buy from them, but nothing they do in any way justifies taking what they made and using it without payment or permission. You aren't entitled to shit.

Whatever, I'm not wasting any more time on this thread. The problems of the game industry are there because of the nature of it. If the businesses can't deal with it, they should find a new line of work.

Yeah, if you can't hack the discussion, it's a good idea to bow out. You've not done so gracefully, but you've at least admitted the problem is beyond your ability to handle in an effective and mature manner.

The businesses can deal with it, and they are dealing with it. And that's why the pirates are yelling and throwing tantrums and trying to make the companies look 'evil'--because the companies are, in fact, getting better at fighting piracy by delaying it long enough to make adequate sales.

I think your logic is so backwards I'm amazed you function in the world. The problem isn't the businesses. If the pirates can't deal with the prices, they should find a new hobby... or a better-paying job.

 

[Something Amyss]

In regards to my quote I was being a little sarcastic, and I don't really have a side in the argument as I'm not really sure what the solution is (I dont agree with priacy though )

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the problem is that there's no real solution.

There's certainly no easy solution.

The thing is, no matter how hardcore they make DRM, they're not stopping pirates. Even Ubi's Assassin's Creed 2 measure was bypassed, meaning the pirates could play it and we (hypothetically, as I have the game for the 360 instead) would be booted back to the main menu or whatever if there was an internet hiccup.

I'm not really pro-piracy, but the responses of tighter legislation and more punishment towards the actual consumers isn't helping, and I'm guessing it's hurting matters. I don't want to pay to be treated like a criminal. I'm not going to start downloading stuff because of that, but it does make me less likely to buy a product.

It's especially bad for PC, since there's already the question as to whether or not your PC will run it and frequently no easy answer. But music companies have put out some pretty harsh DRM that will mess with your computer or won't play on certain players, and that's with CDs. One of the beautiful things about CD Audio is it's supposed to be universal. Xbox's DRM is especially silly, though not as problematic as its PC brethren.

So anyway, yeah. I'm certainly not pro-piracy, either. The problem is: What to do?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Actually, Im starting to forget what it was for... <.<;

DRM is for whatever the publishers/IP owners want it to be for.

DRM is any set up/scheme where artificial restrictions are placed on a digital enviroment/product, purportedly 'protecting' the right of the publisher/IP owner... and the consumers' rights can just fuck right off where there is any conflict. In fact most DRM schemes 'protect' the rights of the IP holder/etc by directly restricting the ability to exercise the rights of the consumer.

Various Industry bodies have always shopped DRM as 'anti-copying' tech but that's just the tip of the DRM iceberg. DRM exists to enforce content and service control when and as the IP holder feels the need and the ability to impliment it (both technologically and without sustained consumer backlash).

But as long as they're up-front about what the consumer is buying (in this case, a license to use this single copy of software, but not to duplicated and/or distribute it), then is this practice really immoral?

Well, when DRM is used to prevent a consumer exercising their right of, say... well, for example in Australia it's perfectly legal to make an archival/back-up copy of any media you've purchased then it does become an issue of conflicting rights. It's not a question of moral or immoral.

Now, some of the other rights you seem to be leaning toward are the rights of owners, not consumers.

Yeah, I'd veered off purely software and gone into digital devices, which is were some of the worst DRM is encountered (glares at a certain company with the piece of fruit logo).

But you do not own the software on the cartridge. That is being licensed. Otherwise, if you truly "owned" it, you could just make a thousand copies, sell it for $10 less than the makers, and enjoy pure profit because you don't have production costs to earn back. Because software can be copied with 100% fidelity, it is far more susceptible to this kind of black market distribution, so special protections for the owners of the software are warranted.

Ah, but see, this is the problem where games publishers play silly buggers. If I've paid for a license to access software then if the physical media gets damaged I should still be fully able to access a copy of the software - bastards already have my money and a new digital version won't cost them a bloody cent but would most publishers say "oh hey, the disk is buggered? well, hey, here's a download code (or whatever) to get you back up and running!" No, they'd want you to pony up full cash again. Steam enabled titles are the most obvious exception to this, of course but for much of the rest of the industry they make it up as they go along as to whether the license to the software or ownership of the physical media the software is on is more important (ie, they choose based on which is to their advantage).

Which is to say that if publishers are going to insist that the software is entirely license based then they should always act that way instead of only when it's to their advantage.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The problem is: What to do?

Take up a new hobby. That'll learn 'em all!

 

[direkiller]

until the prophet equals zero.

There's no need to bring religion into this!

but religion is the key to stop piracy

fixed in the original thank you

 

[stabnex]

Let's see.

Piracy has never actually physically DESTROYED part of my computer.

DRM in theory should make the products cheaper because of less piracy.

I stopped buying things new when I stopped being able to put my music from my purchased CD's onto my computer when DRM permanently disabled my drives ability to register the existance of the discs. So you could say that DRM is the bigger evil because I've had no choice but to pirate the albums I've purchased over the years every time I reformatted.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

until the prophet equals zero.

There's no need to bring religion into this!

but religion is the key to stop piracy

Why... THAT'S JUST CRAZY ENOUGH TO WORK!

 

[Popido]

until the prophet equals zero.

There's no need to bring religion into this!

but religion is the key to stop piracy

Why... THAT'S JUST CRAZY ENOUGH TO WORK!

Your both crazy.

...Cant we just agree that DRM is being abused to make profit out of this unending conflict.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

Trying to install and play DoW 2 was such a *****, it made me want to just find a cracked version of it so i wouldn't have to log into steam all the time just to play the game i paid a rediculous amount of money (compared to other countries pricings) to play it, and then i have to go online just to play it single player, it's just a dick move.

I may have a friend that got a cracked version of R.U.S.E for the same reasons >.> The DRM isn't going to stop a determined hackers, just slow them down; My friend still had the game before it was released here.

 

[Lance Arrow]

...Can't we just agree that DRM is being abused to make profit out of this unending conflict?

Yes! Thank you endlessly. May I please have your babies? etc.

DRM on games has long since stopped being about combating piracy, now it's all about making sure the devs get as much money as possible(which, if the game is an absolute gem, i can totally agree with, mind you). Even if it was intended to combat piracy at first, it's not working, is it? Anything the devs cook up will be cracked within days and be left to sit there eff-ing honest, paying customers in the ass until they get fed up and just crack the damn thing. I have yet to see DRM done right, and I've been around town, believe me.

So, piracy fired the first shot, DRM was introduced, publishers took it WAY out of proportions and are outright abusing it, and the honest joe ends up being dragged into the crossfire. Both sides effed up, the end.