Which is the bigger problem? Piracy or DRM?

[DarkhoIlow]

You won't get rid of piracy no matter what publishers do,it's the way it is.Blame the internet.

DRM was just something implemented to combat piracy and failed miserably which led to a war between the two which probably will never end.

 

[Gindil]

...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.

Steam. >_>;

DRM done right? They sure as hell give a lot of incentives to people to buy their stuff. But I'll never touch Activision, Ubisoft, Blizzard, or EA games until they stop the DRM so...

 

[incal11]

Fair Use is important but let's be honest here, a lot of what people are talking about in this thread does not come under Fair Use, which is a pretty well defined legal concept (and in danger of becoming defined out of existance from time to time).

I know that something being fair does not make it fair use. Still being able to share is fair use... or should be, seems to change depending on your country.
File sharing is something new, right in between sharing and copying. So it comes down to personal judgement, balancing the games' availability and your own income. I remain convinced that free (as in freer, not "always for free") access to all culture is good for everyone in the end.

So you're cool with the sharing of information? Any information regardless of the wishes of the person who's information it is?

Privacy or confidential informations does not answer to the same morals since, unlike what we usually talk about on this forum, it's not part of what makes culture.

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.

If the person did not intend to buy anyway, it does not matter if he is on the line or not. Zero day piracy of big titles is the only one that is harmfull in term of lost potential sells.

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

Sharing isn't bootlegging, and like I just said to others I don't care about permissions. You may keep saying otherwise, but I'm not just a purse to be emptied nor a muppet eternally at the mercy of over restrictive rules made by others.
In this case the rules are harmfull, if you don't see that you don't see the big picture.

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

Noone really owns an idea, or control what becomes of it perfectly anyway.

 

[cainstwin]

Piracy. Blaming someone else for your misbehavior is the hight of immaturity.

That statement applies to DRM more than it does piracy. While some people might get into piracy because they're sick of DRM, it's a small percentage of over-all piracy. Meanwhile 100% of DRM practices blames piracy for its existence.

Edit: Mind you, if you feel piracy is a bigger problem, then feel free. Just make sure you use a reason that isn't more applicable to the side you're supporting.

how is DRM misbehaviour? It's people trying to protect their incomes, which is fair enough as far as I'm concerned. Most people don't have a problem with the idea of DRM in my experience (although there are a scarily large number who do), they have a problem with its execution. That doesn't make it misbehaviour just badly designed. That's why I like steam, no hard copy CD keys (which I lose with worrying frequency), can download onto any computer with your account, games are often on offer (sometimes soon after release date) and you can talk in game. The latter needs to be done by more people its an excellent feature (could do with some messenger systems merging, why can't I talk to my MSN friends in game?)

 

[Nahhnbah]

I will crack a game if it requires internet because I DON'T HAVE A FUCKING HOME INTERNET CONNECTION and I SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO PLAY.

Therefore, I think DRM is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. I pay for a game, I should be able to install it without needing internet and without having to buy it again if I want to install it more than 3 times. Piracy offers solutions to DRM anyway so its becoming increasingly difficult to actually want to buy a game if I find out (like with spore) that I just wasted 35 quid because I can't play it because I can't afford internet at home. As I speak I'm at bloody college, the only time I ever have internet.

No thanks to DRM I say, its slowly killing the industry by being fucking annoying and ironically encouraging piracy to bypass its stupidity.

 

[Delusibeta]

snip

Digital distribution have made supply unlimited. Your arguement is invalid.

 

[cainstwin]

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.

I don't what you do for a living but I'd bet you'd be pissed if instead of paying you to do your job, I instead made you do it then ran away without paying.

 

[cainstwin]

snip

Digital distribution have made supply unlimited. Your arguement is invalid.

And that the supply curve (yes I know its not actually a curve, just what you call it) hardly features in the points made must have slipped your attention. the demand curve is the bit that interests us in this discussion.
Sorry double post, 2 points that needed making. should have combined into 1 really.

 

[Delusibeta]

snip

Digital distribution have made supply unlimited. Your arguement is invalid.

And that the supply curve (yes I know its not actually a curve, just what you call it) hardly features in the points made must have slipped your attention. the demand curve is the bit that interests us in this discussion.
Sorry double post, 2 points that needed making. should have combined into 1 really.

And for anything else, there's christmas sales. The arguement is still invalid.

 

[direkiller]

snip

Digital distribution have made supply unlimited. Your arguement is invalid.

I wasn't talking about the supply curve. So no my augment is not invalid.

However incase your wondering:
The curve i gave you the supply is unlimited to it just has increasing opportunity cost per unit. So with Digital distribution the line is still there it just has no slope(there is still cost per unit because of the cost of website,server, the digital retailer still takes a cut)

It still doesn't change what i said before

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Currently I'd say piracy is the bigger bad guy. That's only because EA has stepped off slightly, but you can guarantee that they or some other publisher will rush forth another draconian measure to stop pirates that will mess with their customers more than pirates, so there's a broken ebb and flow here.

DRM is important, but these companies need to find a way that can slow piracy without hurting their consumer base.

 

[Delusibeta]

snip

Digital distribution have made supply unlimited. Your arguement is invalid.

I wasn't talking about the supply curve. So no my augment is not invalid.

However incase your wondering:
The curve i gave you the supply is unlimited to it just has increasing opportunity cost per unit. So with Digital distribution the line is still there it just has no slope(there is still cost per unit because of the cost of website,server, the digital retailer still takes a cut)

It still doesn't change what i said before

Not really. As I said, sales, especially Christmas sales, regularly make this arguement invalid.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

Piracy;

DRM can be a pain.

Piracy can bankrupt a company.

Except DRM causes people to pirate games.

*Looks at Spore*

Pain in the ass DRM does.
A friend bought Assassin's Creed 2, then used the patch to get rid of DRM.

I think intrusive DRM is bad, although there is DRM that isn't very intrusive (Digital distribution like Steam is DRM in a sense, you have to buy it to play it LEGALLY)

 

[direkiller]

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.

If the person did not intend to buy anyway, it does not matter if he is on the line or not. Zero day piracy of big titles is the only one that is harmfull in term of lost potential sells.

If they fall on that line they did intend to buy it at some price(just not at full price).

 

[Croix Sinistre]

Its like the gun control/gun rights argument. DRM can prevent piracy on paper, but in reality it only serves to annoy and aggravate the law-abiding consumer. Pirates will find ways to get around DRM, just like criminals will get guns regardless of the laws.

That said, I'm all for no-cd patches on PC games, and the like. Being able to alter some part of the software to serve your needs is all good to me because it can help circumvent steps and processes in the software that you personally might not like, for instance mods to skip over intro levels, or allow skipping of cutscenes.

Piracy is downright wrong to me. Some part of the argument i agree with, like how companies do not actually lose out on profit from someone who wasn't going to buy it anyway. But still, the act of stealing something, digital, physical or not, is wrong.

However, I can't stand that when i purchase a game, i have to have an active internet connection to play it, or create an account here or there. These things arent necessary to run the game, games have been without this stuff since they were invented. CD keys? sure fine, but don't go asking me to confirm it every single time.

Even in XBL this is annoying, I don't have a LAN in my house, i have to connect everything physically to the router and only one thing at a time. If I'm downloading something from the internet and want to play a XBLA game, i can't because my xbox can't connect to the server to see if i've actually purchased the games. Even movies and videos you download can't be watched without an active connection.

All in all, I'm for combating piracy, just not in ways that cause inconveniences and aggravation to the actual paying customers.

 

[Delusibeta]

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.

If the person did not intend to buy anyway, it does not matter if he is on the line or not. Zero day piracy of big titles is the only one that is harmfull in term of lost potential sells.

If they fall on that line they did intend to buy it at some price(just not at full price).

Sales.

 

[direkiller]

snip

Digital distribution have made supply unlimited. Your arguement is invalid.

I wasn't talking about the supply curve. So no my augment is not invalid.

However incase your wondering:
The curve i gave you the supply is unlimited to it just has increasing opportunity cost per unit. So with Digital distribution the line is still there it just has no slope(there is still cost per unit because of the cost of website,server, the digital retailer still takes a cut)

It still doesn't change what i said before

Not really. As I said, sales, especially Christmas sales, regularly make this arguement invalid.

Sales only effect the price so more people will demand the product. you merely just move down the demand curve to the right (as price goes down quantity demand goes up).

Its a basic law of microeconomics

direkiller:
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.

If the person did not intend to buy anyway, it does not matter if he is on the line or not. Zero day piracy of big titles is the only one that is harmfull in term of lost potential sells.

If they fall on that line they did intend to buy it at some price(just not at full price).

Sales.

so you agree then
the longer they can keep a game from being crack the more money they can make(my original point in the graph you didn't understand)

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

DRM is the bigger problem, because(for some weird reason) companies don't want to join up with steam in order to stop delaying pc versions of a game.

Besides, Steam games have very good anti-piracy software.
(and yes, I was talking about ubisoft)

 

[Wintermoot]

YES it justify,s piracy its like a punishment for using retarded piracy protection Steam is the best solution you buy it once and connect it to a account and install it infinite times