DRM is a *circumvention* of copyright law, not a way to enforce it.

I fully respect copyright law, but when I buy something, it becomes mine.

The law states that I cannot republish it unless that right is explicitely granted (like in the GPL or BSD licenses for software), and therefore I don't.

But the law also states that I should be able to resell it to someone else, or make backup copies. Or play it on several of my many computers. Or play it in ten years time when the service that it connects to has long gone out of business.

I'm a writer and one time software developer.

Piracy is Theft. DRM is infringment of rights. So both sides are wrong.

Until there is a legal way to protect work on the internet its just like all the people stealing paperclips from their office. They will do it, and you can't stop them.

They may be YOUR paperclips and you may have a huge chain on your desk to stop them, but someone's always going to have a pair of wire cutters and you're going to struggle to use them.

Anyway, our old friend Bill Gates actually likes Piracy
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece

What the software manufacturers need to do is adjust to the market. Popcap still make millions, Microsoft still make millions. Both are pirated frequently.

EA, however, are getting bad PR, which is far more damning than Piracy.

If only I didn't need to spend P5000 on plane tickets, and if only games didn't cost P2500
I'd also be against piracy.

Sayvara and others on the 'piracy is always bad' end of things, I have a question:

would you rather:

--the world be made up of honest consumers that pirate none of your products, but only buy one of them?

Because to me, this whole discussion is flawed. The world is not divided into 'pirates' and 'honest customers' anymore than the world is divided into 'jaywalkers' and 'honest pedestrians': my intuition is that most people fall somewhere in the middle, where at times they act like one OR the other. The flaw is that you have to take your customers as they come, and some of your legitimate customers have engaged in piracy to some extent.

That is why I think people who defend to some extent the use of pirated software "have the gall to claim that they have some kind of right to screw [your] rights over." It's not because they are "pimply snot-nosed kids" who "don't have the manners or good graces to actually respect other people's property." It's because they are often just as valuable a customer as any 'honest customer', and maybe even a *more* valuable customer.

So honestly, are your rights so important to you that you'd rather the kind of consumer that will only buy one of your products, or the kind of customer that will buy two of them and pirate a third?

I think most people would agree that the act of video game piracy is wrong. However that does not mean the industry imposing such restrictive ideas such as DRM is right either.

If you value your work and want people to enjoy it, then don't tell them how to enjoy it, especially when they are paying for it.

I see it like this...
You Mr software developer make a game, I buy that game. That copy of the game is MINE. I do whatever i like with it. Including copying it, modifying it, baking it in the microwave or using it as a frisbee. Its mine.

Same goes for say, a chair. If you build a chair and sell it to me. It's no longer yours, IT'S MINE. You made it for sure, but now you sold it. No longer yours. I can sit on it, let others sit on it, add parts to it, and if i want to i can build a chair just like it and give it to someone else. you don't have the right to tell me how to use it, when to use it or who can sit on it.

I don't believe in paying good money to "Borrow" someones non tangeble software and pay 50 to 70€ to own a piece of plastic. If thats the way you want it then you should cut the price by 90% of all games and movies. If anything, what you have accomplished here is make more peeople want to pirate. Why even bother buying a game at all if all you own is a piece of plastic which contains something thats not yours? And if you dare use it you get treated like a criminal.

You developers should be ashamed. If piracy is so terrible, stop selling your games then.

If it's less work to make it work pirated than it is to buy it, expect me to pirate it.
I'll suggest an example: Company of heroes:opposing fronts.
Brilliant game, the multiplayer is fantastic fun and I really enjoy playing it with my friends over hamachi. Playing over relic online is somewhat less fun.
The forced system (in this case relic online) is laggy and based on offshore servers, which means that to play online via the internet, I need to modify it so relic online is bypassed (hamachi being the easiest way).
Now this isn't so bad straight up, some basic softmodding and it works fine, However without relic online you need to insert the disk everytime and bypass the secuROM protection, this is where the problem begins...secuROM HATES my dvd player and refuses to work, meaning that if I don't have an online accound, which is blocked if I intend to play online without latency, I need to remove the secuROM protection to play the game online. (Also I had to register my account on my brothers computer , which is annoying but not relevant to my rant).
The point I'm making is its a fair amount of work the make the game work due to the DRM and poor online capabilities of the game. It is MUCH easier to just download a pre-modded game from the local torrent site than it is to code it all on a legal copy myself, especially knowing that as soon as I create a crack or whatever I refute any tech support I would otherwise be entitled too.
Long rant short, when theres that much work involved and the guys I play it with need to change it anyway, its pointless for us ALL to buy it (unless we happen to have more money than we can otherwise spend) as we are going to download it anyway.

The bottom line is: pirates do not care and they will try (and most likely succeed) at cracking whatever protection you put on your products. Therefor it becomes nothing but a hindrance to legitimate users who paid money for the thing and ultimately fails at its original goal. Users have no beef against developers, or wish to see developers compromise their work. Users have a beef against being treated like criminals due to the actions of pirates for very little effect upon the problem itself.

I just realised something, isn't software really a public good?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
It could most certainly be called non-rival as software can be copied in infinite numbers for an infinite number of consumers. Whether it's non-excludable is another issue, as most anti-piracy effort seem to strive to make it impossible to use a "non-authorised" copy of the software, thus making it excludable.
I doubt that any such effort hasn't yet been cracked, however. I don't really think this means that the software market is doomed to market failure, but it might be something to keep in mind.

poleboy:
Taking your business elsewhere is the most sensible choice, but it's not always an option.

It is always an option. There are other things you can do to than playing games.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
In other words, why is piracy like having something stolen from you? When something is stolen from you, not only does someone enjoy your property without permission, but you are also deprived of the ability to enjoy it yourself.

Isn't software piracy more like a trespass if the pirate just uses the software without the developer's permission? And doesn't that change the issues involved in this debate significantly?

I don't kow about other contries, but here in Sweden it is not concidered theft, but another crime to use people's property without permission.

For example: My car is parked on the street. Having access to various non-destructive methods of opening and starting my car, you take it for a spin. Afterwards, you return it, refueled and you even gave it a wash and a little makeover, checking the tires, topping off oil and other fluids.

Do you concider this a crime or not?

I most certainly do. The car is mine, not yours. Using my property without asking my permission first is a crime. It is stomping on my rights as the owner. And it doesn't matter that the car is returned in its original state, or that I wasn't using it in the mean time. The car was not yours.

So yes, a trespass it is... and trespassing is wrong. To return to my original post: it's a matter of the very basic and commonly accepted principle of Mine & Yours. You don't use other people's property withpout permission... it's that simple.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

would you rather

--the world be made up of pirates who buy two of your products and pirate one of them;

or

--the world be made up of honest consumers that pirate none of your products, but only buy one of them?

That's a false dilemma. I'm not going to answer such a question because the choices do not reflect reality. You have selected choices that fit your point of view rather than looking at what the choices in reality are.

I have fielded the issue of exposure vs revenue protection in an earlier reply.

The most burning issue here is: what do I as a producer tell the customers that did pay for the software?

"WTF mate, I paid 60 bucks for the software and you're giving it to him for free?!"

"Yeah, well, I have to concider the marketing ya know... this gives me more money".

"Yeah... my money!"

"Uhm..."

It's unfair to not offer it to everyone under the same conditions. It would be utterly dishonest and unfair of me to offer the same product for different prices to different customers just to increase my revenue.

Mr_G:
I see it like this...
You Mr software developer make a game, I buy that game. That copy of the game is MINE. I do whatever i like with it. Including copying it, modifying it, baking it in the microwave or using it as a frisbee. Its mine.

Let's clarify a few things here. You have not "bought the game". You have bought a plastic disk that contains a copy the game, and a license to use it in a certain manner consistent with reasonable consuming of an entertainment product. You did not buy the full ownership and rights to the game.

Mr_G:
Same goes for say, a chair. If you build a chair and sell it to me. It's no longer yours, IT'S MINE. You made it for sure, but now you sold it. No longer yours. I can sit on it, let others sit on it, add parts to it, and if i want to i can build a chair just like it and give it to someone else. you don't have the right to tell me how to use it, when to use it or who can sit on it.

But that is not the same kind of purchase. You bought the chair and the full rights to it. You can buy my software that way too if you like. But then I'm not going to charge you 50 USD for it. Then I'm going to charge you 500 000 USD for it. Buy it from me for that sum and I'll grant you full rights to do whatever the heck you want with it.

Compare it to renting. Just because you gave the car rental 50 USD to use the car over the weekend, doesn't give you the rights to use it in a demolition derby. You bought the right to use the car under certain conditions. You did not buy the car itself.

The same goes for software. You did not buy the software itself. You bought the right to use it in a specific and limited manner.

/S

Developers and producers, both in the gaming industry and in the music industry (because let's face it, they both suffer from the same problem. An antiquated business model incapable of keeping up with reality) need to realize that when it's EASIER to use a product by pirating because of restrictive DRM, all they're serving to do is shoot themselves in the foot and only make piracy more rampant.

Have I pirated games? Yep, granted it's been quite a while since I last did (snagged GRAW2, realized my beloved Ghost Recon was never coming back and deleted it :( ). Usually only when a demo isn't available, or if the demo was just too damn short (seriously, devs need to take a page from ARMA: Armed Assault and put out more demos as comprehensive as that one). I don't like buying a game only to find out it was total wank. Usually that'll be because all my gaming buddies are just e-creaming their jeans about it and they've very rarely steered me wrong.
I don't like buying games that are total wank or won't run due to crashing.

Now with the more and more restrictive DRM coming out, some of it requiring an internet connection to let you play, I'm really starting to have to contemplate getting the cracked and fixed versions. I'm a sailor (marine engineering ftw) and often don't have internet access when I'm out at sea for a couple months at a time. When I DO have it out on the water, it's slow as fuck and basically only good for email/forum checking. I refuse to buy a game that I can't play just because I can't access some retarded authentication site while I'm out at my job.

DeadlyFred:
The bottom line is: pirates do not care and they will try (and most likely succeed) at cracking whatever protection you put on your products. Therefor it becomes nothing but a hindrance to legitimate users who paid money for the thing and ultimately fails at its original goal. Users have no beef against developers, or wish to see developers compromise their work. Users have a beef against being treated like criminals due to the actions of pirates for very little effect upon the problem itself.

I agree. DRM that hinders ligitimate usage of the software is bad. It's a violation of customer rights.

anti_strunt:
I just realised something, isn't software really a public good?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

The article itself fields many questions on the subject and rather than just quoting from it I'll just recommend everyone to read it in full and form their own opinion.

/S

Unfortunately I think if customers continue to abuse their rights, then they are going to have rights taken away, simple as. Which sucks for everyone.

Sayvara:

poleboy:
Taking your business elsewhere is the most sensible choice, but it's not always an option.

It is always an option. There are other things you can do to than playing games.

The end result of that would be the same obtaining an illegal copy, maybe even worse. I realize that you are pissed off at people pirating your product, but that argument is flawed at best. Would you rather have everyone completely ignore the existence of the product you create than pirate it? Pirating shows an interest, at least.

Anyway, "taking your business elsewhere" usually implies buying from the competition, not turn your back on the entire industry that produces the products.

poleboy:
The end result of that would be the same obtaining an illegal copy, maybe even worse. I realize that you are pissed off at people pirating your product, but that argument is flawed at best. Would you rather have everyone completely ignore the existence of the product you create than pirate it? Pirating shows an interest, at least.

Mm hm, just like car thieves are showing an interrest in the products that the car industry produces?

It's up to me to create interrest in my product, on my own terms. If I didn't ask Pee-Wee Pirate to do it for me, then he shall keep his crummy little finges off of my product. Maybe it's stupid of me. Maybe I would benefit more if say 75% of the user base pirated my software. Maybe I should be pragmatic and look to only the end results.

But, again, that has to be my choice, not yours.

poleboy:
Anyway, "taking your business elsewhere" usually implies buying from the competition, not turn your back on the entire industry that produces the products.

Maybe so... or mabe you should quit gaming all together. It all depends on howfar you are prepared to go - legally - to voice your opinion.

/S

Honestly, I think that what it all comes down to is a failure in the market. We've got publishers on one side thinking that they can do business as usual, and file sharers on the other being *ahem* morally ambiguous (Bill has a nice car. Bill is a mad scientist and uses a laser on his car which produces an exact copy which he then gives to his friend Bob. Has Bob stolen the car? Bill and the car company haven't lost anything, but Bob benefits.) and neither side seems to want to back down. Publishers think that building better mousetraps is the answer to the problem, but better mice are being cranked out faster than you can say Mickey and Minnie.

I'm surprised that some enterprising individual hasn't made a serious business out of file-sharing. A file sharing Wallmart, so to speak, for all your movie, music and video game needs all going for spare change. How would they turn a profit you ask? One word: volume. Since we're not making any physical widgets we don't have to worry about having too much or too little, we don't need trains, planes or automobiles to transport them, and we don't need warehouses to store them, we don't need to pay export fees to transport them to other countries, and we don't need to build stores.

Besides, loss of income due to boycotts will only be counted as loss of income due to perceived piracy. So unless you actually take the time to personally write a letter to the companies every time you do not buy a game because of DRM (or any other reason), it might only make the problem worse.

well this is my way of viewing this, i dont live in the US so i have to pay almost double of what a US living peer pays for the same stuff or the fact that i have a relly big possibility of getting a half finished property.

and something that is getting famous now is regional restriction as example: all the games that i bought are from steam, but then when Assassin Creed was coming out and they announce it on steam, i go to the webpage and it doesnt appear when i go to the forums to see whats happening, steam blocked the content from any1 who is outside the US, so they left me with 2 options expect the game with was badly ported to the pc hit the store here at a double of what it cost or just pirate it, i think you know which one i choose, only to notest that the game have been almost a month before release date get leeked.

i know piracy is bad and i know that is not a force option but looked this way, i want to test a game for example or app. but there is no demo or a very restrictive demo who only allow me do half of what it was suppose to do and the devs expect me to give away my money so i may have the change to get a good working app.

i know what you say about cosumer support but this is not the norm, for example if i bought a 2006 version of TuneUp Utilities only to find out that is not compatible with Vista so i go to their website to get a Compatible 1 only to find out that if i want a vista version i need to buy it again.

in the botton line:

the games and apps piracu are almost a sea apart, the problem with games is that the companies tried badly their costumers, and the apps is that they espect to get pay everytime they update the product.

ZenMonkey47:
I'm surprised that some enterprising individual hasn't made a serious business out of file-sharing. A file sharing Wallmart, so to speak, for all your movie, music and video game needs all going for spare change.

Uhm... ever heard of SHAREWARE? Go to download.com, Tucows or any such place and you'll finds those very individuals right there.

I agree with you in that middle-men, i.e. physical shops and such, are in fact a if not dieing at least declining breed. Valve's Steam, Apple's Appstore and iTunes, and Sony Ericsson's PlayNow (sneaky plug... I have worked for one of them) are but a few examples of what the future will be like.

Tjebbe:
Besides, loss of income due to boycotts will only be counted as loss of income due to perceived piracy. So unless you actually take the time to personally write a letter to the companies every time you do not buy a game because of DRM (or any other reason), it might only make the problem worse.

True. So it is vital that the customers, no matter how pissed and angry they are, voice their opinions to the producers. Feedback, no matter positive or negative, can only improve the quality. (Allthough concidering the Dungeons & Dragons Online PvP muck-up, I reserve the right to take back that statement at any time. Sometimes customers just shouldn't be listened at).

/S

Sayvara:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
In other words, why is piracy like having something stolen from you? When something is stolen from you, not only does someone enjoy your property without permission, but you are also deprived of the ability to enjoy it yourself.

Isn't software piracy more like a trespass if the pirate just uses the software without the developer's permission? And doesn't that change the issues involved in this debate significantly?

I don't kow about other contries, but here in Sweden it is not concidered theft, but another crime to use people's property without permission.

For example: My car is parked on the street. Having access to various non-destructive methods of opening and starting my car, you take it for a spin. Afterwards, you return it, refueled and you even gave it a wash and a little makeover, checking the tires, topping off oil and other fluids.

Do you concider this a crime or not?

I most certainly do. The car is mine, not yours. Using my property without asking my permission first is a crime. It is stomping on my rights as the owner. And it doesn't matter that the car is returned in its original state, or that I wasn't using it in the mean time. The car was not yours.

So yes, a trespass it is... and trespassing is wrong. To return to my original post: it's a matter of the very basic and commonly accepted principle of Mine & Yours. You don't use other people's property withpout permission... it's that simple.

Well, I never said trespass wasn't wrong, first of all. Don't conflate my point to nilcypher about the vocabulary of the discussion with my points directly to you about whether using pirated software makes someone the moral equivalent of "pimply snot-nosed kids" who "don't have the manners or good graces to actually respect other people's property."

My point to nilcypher was that part of that "commonly accepted principle of Mine & Yours" is that trespass, while still a crime, is (in most cases) placed in a totally different category of crime than theft. Jaywalking and dropping cinderblocks off an overpass are both violations of the law regarding pedestrians, but I think there's a significant difference between jaywalkers and people who drop heavy objects into the roadway, don't you?

Also, your analogy to a car is flawed: when someone takes your car from you, they *actually* take your car from you. When someone pirates your software, they don't actually take the source code out of your office to copy it (at least the kind of piracy I'm defending here). They use a copy that already left your possession. That's a significant difference that gets lost in this discussion when--to go back to my point to nilcypher--people call piracy 'theft'.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

would you rather

--the world be made up of pirates who buy two of your products and pirate one of them;

or

--the world be made up of honest consumers that pirate none of your products, but only buy one of them?

That's a false dilemma. I'm not going to answer such a question because the choices do not reflect reality. You have selected choices that fit your point of view rather than looking at what the choices in reality are.

Have I? Or are you selecting a *lack* of choices because they *don't* fit your point of view?

I know I fall into the category of having played pirated games, but ALSO having purchased *at least* twice as many games as I ever pirated. Plenty of my friends fall into that category. Why don't you think those categories--and therefore, those choices--exist?

I have fielded the issue of exposure vs revenue protection in an earlier reply.

I'm not talking about that issue. I'm talking about taking a consumer as you find them, a consumer that buys the two copies they do for the exact same reasons as the totally honest consumer buys the one, not because of the positive side-effect you fielded in the post you linked to.

The most burning issue here is: what do I as a producer tell the customers that did pay for the software?

Umm, for someone responding to others that they have "selected choices that fit your point of view rather than looking at what the choices in reality are" aren't you describing a situation that almost never arises? How many customers do you have coming to you complaning?

I've never seen these customers--where are they? I wouldn't even say it's a *real* question, let along a burning one.

It's unfair to not offer it to everyone under the same conditions. It would be utterly dishonest and unfair of me to offer the same product for different prices to different customers just to increase my revenue.

Granting that for the sake of argument, that's a different question than the one under discussion. The question under discussion is whether people who play pirated games are "pimply snot-nosed kids" who "don't have the manners or good graces to actually respect other people's property," not whether the software developer should host free copies of their game or something.

What you describe might be unfair, but, it has nothing to do with what's under discussion, much the same as people bringing up DRM to you miss your point.

Sayvara:

poleboy:
Anyway, "taking your business elsewhere" usually implies buying from the competition, not turn your back on the entire industry that produces the products.

Maybe so... or mabe you should quit gaming all together. It all depends on howfar you are prepared to go - legally - to voice your opinion.

/S

I don't see how quitting gaming altogether would benefit anyone.
Admittedly, I have pirated software but I was a "casual" pirate at best. And I've tossed plenty of money into the industry on other occasions both before and since. Me quitting gaming altogether would hurt the industry more than the few games I've pirated. But you seem so intent that everyone must abide by your standards, that you'd rather see the entire industry brought to its knees by refusal to accept changes in times and distribution methods than compromise in any way.

Anyway, the whole point of my initial argument about EA was not so much about piracy as about them dominating the market in such a way that I have few if any other choices from whom I want to buy my product. Which you respond to by telling me to get out of the game if I don't like the rules. The rules that are being influenced by someone whose authority cannot be challenged, because they're the biggest fish in the pond. Do you think that's a good basis for a creative industry to grow?

I'm not trying to defend piracy, not very hard anyway. But you come across as a bit zealous when you tell me I can't be in the club because I disagree with you on some (not all!) points.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Yeah, but part of that "commonly accepted principle of Mine & Yours" is that trespass, while still a crime, is in generally in a totally different category of crime than theft. Jaywalking and dropping cinderblocks off an overpass are both violations of the law regarding pedestrians, but I think there's a significant difference between jaywalkers and people who drop heavy objects into the roadway, don't you?

In the matter of deciding of whether they are on the right or wrong side of the big line that says "DO NOT CROSS!", no. you not being a thief does not excuse your trespassing.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Also, you analogy to a car isn't valid: when someone takes your car from you, they *actually* take your car from you.

My analogy involved giving the car back before I even noticed it was gone.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
They use a copy that already left your possession. That's a significant difference.

Well since I never argued that the wrong-doing in question is theft but rather it is trespassing the argument is moot anyway.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I'm not talking about that issue. I'm talking about taking a consumer as you find them, a consumer that buys the two copies they do for the exact same reasons as the totally honest consumer buys the one, not because of the positive side-effect you fielded in the post you linked to.

And you point is what? That there are peple that both pirate and buy games? Well what the heck kind of bearing does this have to do with the issue at hand? The day I start selling my software under a "Take 3, pay for 2" pricing scheme I will concider your argument, but people paying for some of my software while pirating other parts of it isn't any less over the aforementioned line that has RIGHT on one side and WRONG on the other.

What exactly are you after here? A pat on the back for respecting my rights occationally?

Cheeze_Pavilion:

The most burning issue here is: what do I as a producer tell the customers that did pay for the software?

Umm, for someone responding to others that they have "selected choices that fit your point of view rather than looking at what the choices in reality are" aren't you describing a situation that almost never arises? How many customers do you have coming to you complaning?

That's because I - or should I say my employer - doesn't sell software that way. But I can assure you that if we sold software to one customer, and then handed it out for free to one of their competitors, customer number 1 would have a thing or to to say to us, you can bet on it.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Granting that for the sake of argument, that's a different question than the one under discussion. The question under discussion is whether people who play pirated games are "snot nosed kids with no manners,".

Eh? Are you arguing that I'm offending some of those that trespass on my property by calling them snot-nosed kids when they are in fact working middle class who can afford my software anyway? I don't think that really speaks in their favour...

Cheeze_Pavilion:
What you describe might be unfair, but, it has nothing to do with what's under discussion.

Yes it does. If I do not take a stand against piracy, then I am giving my unspoken consent to do it. Which in effect means that my paying customers get ripped off since I take their money even though I'm actually consenting to them getting the game for free. That's not fair.

/S

poleboy:
I don't see how quitting gaming altogether would benefit anyone.

Well if you did, there would be no need for anti-pirating schemes. Because no matter how futile, the companies will implement them as long as people pirate the games. You'd send a clear signal that you do not accept their customer-unfriendly business practices and you take a moral high-ground compared to tge producers in that you respect their rights even though they don't fully respect yours.

poleboy:
Admittedly, I have pirated software but I was a "casual" pirate at best. And I've tossed plenty of money into the industry on other occasions both before and since. Me quitting gaming altogether would hurt the industry more than the few games I've pirated. But you seem so intent that everyone must abide by your standards, that you'd rather see the entire industry brought to its knees by refusal to accept changes in times and distribution methods than compromise in any way.

Strawman argument. I never said I want the industry to crash. I want both pirating and customer-unfriendly business practices to cease, something I have posted very clearly earlier in the thread.

poleboy:
The rules that are being influenced by someone whose authority cannot be challenged, because they're the biggest fish in the pond. Do you think that's a good basis for a creative industry to grow?

Well a problem as that may be, piracy is not the solution. The problem with monolithic entities on the market are to be handled elsewhere.

/S