At the end of the day, Techdirt is an opinion blog, not a journalism source. If not sticking to professional style guidelines is that annoying to you, this might not be the best arena.
More valuable to me, however, is displayed above. Tim didn't edit the original story to make people look stupid, delete comments that criticised him, block or ban users or any similar action. He agreed he made a mistake, owned up and apologised. That level of honesty and responsibility is why I come here. Too many "professional joranalism" sites would take a dishonest route.
Thanks for the comments, it's always nice to see what is actually being considered in the industry.
Speaking as a consumer, though, DRM is *always* wrong. Once a single unprotected copy is out in the wild (and there *always* will be), DRM is useless. It removes my rights as a consumer, makes your product less valuable and actually encourages piracy (no, I'm not buying another copy of your game because the DRM screwed the first one up, I'm downloading it).
So, I *never* buy a game with DRM infection applied. If you have DRM on your game, you not see my money, ever.
"How do you assure your marketing partners (like Target or GameStop) that piracy won't affect the game sales? "
By lying your ass off. Whether you do this by inserting a piece of malware that gets some consumers returning the product afterwards or not is up to you. If you pretend that DRM stops piracy, you're openly misleading them, so own the negative consequences of your actions.
"How do you protect the user community during pre-launch in such a way to build excitement for the game?"
I have to call bullshit on this. Applying an artificial restriction to keep a release date doesn't protect anyone, except your investors' projections based on release day and pre-release sales. If your community realised they were just being made to wait for a completed game with no technical reason, they'd be very pissed off. They're only "protected" because they don't know how the industry works.
Also, this is something that regularly backfires when applied to regional restrictions. If something is being played in one country, but another has to wait a few weeks, people will download the released copy, no matter which localisation justification you try to explain.
"How do you protect your paying customers from griefers that are dedicated to cheating and/or ruining the game experience for others?"
What the hell does DRM have to do with this? Nothing. Stop clouding the issue.
"How do you align the incentives for when to remove DRM/AT?"
I'll be more open to buying your product if it's not infected with your malware. Align with that.
Is this better or worse than having no commenting at all, though?
Depends on the community, I suppose. The community here on Techdirt, for example. I see plenty of spam and troll posts that are hidden because they're reported, along with a few people whining that their personal attacks on other users are being unfairly "censored". I regularly click through and read hidden posts, and I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a genuine post that hidden.
I dare say that's part of the idea. Warring factions removing each others' posts can only go on for so long, so it's expected that they'll learn to be civil. Whether that works or not depends on whether the community attracts intelligent mature adults or emotionally stunted children.
"What is the best way to get a confused teenager to do what you want? Direct commands or some reverse psychology?"
I'm confused. reverse psychology in this case would mean that the people are doing exactly what they're told not to do (in this case move toward socialism). Yet, they are moving the other way. What was your point?
"its general tenants only lead to suicide"
Assuming you mean "tenets", so do the ones that underlie pure capitalism, communism or feudalism. Which is why most successful societies manage to combine them to some degree. Unless you're at the top, having a little socialism in your society is rather necessary, among all the other ideas. But, oligarchy is never good, unless you happen to be one of the guys in charge.
"I.T. Guy tried to say something, miss used a word, and you try to invalidate his entire statement instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt"
No, I addressed what he actually said, not what he wished he said. If one of us is mistaken, I'm in the habit of addressing grown adults who are capable of laughing it off or bantering a little more, not whining like a little brat. But, then, there's you...
I will note that he hasn't returned, so you're assuming as much as I am. I will apologise if my slightly sarcastic comment didn't address what was in his head if he feels it wasn't correct. I won't apologise to the petulant fool who decided to dive in and display his lack of maturity, though.
"Understand how microphones, and and their associated equipment's hard and software works, is very much part of being an Audio Technician"
...among many other professions, hobbies and general living life in the modern world. Most people who know this fact probably learned it in school or at home. I was probably 8 when I learned of this fact, which I learned by observing what happened when I accidentally plugged the jack in the wrong place. After which, I used the headphones to record some amazingly bad audio to tape, which amused me for a few moments. Then, learning basic electronics in school educated me as to why it happened.
I'm amused to learn this automatically means I work in the field, however, especially since I've never so much as bought an actual microphone unless it was attached to a phone, laptop or headset. Which other professions do I have by making basic observations about the world around me, I wonder?
The sad thing is, he is just as manipulative. It's just that his usual tactics that work in sales and making deals - boosting the ego of his client, putting down the competition, promising the moon until negotiations start, presenting an image of success - don't really work in public service. That's why he's already backtracked - he didn't mean a literal wall, you see, you must have misheard him when he promised one on Mexico's dime...
He's manipulated a lot of people to sell the image of what he promised. The question is what happens when he's expected to deliver (especially since he can't just bankrupt the country and reap the personal rewards like he's done with many of his other business ventures)
Until he gets elected. Then he start to backtrack on everything he promised that wasn't really achievable while ranting at actors for exercising their free speech and embarrassing the country in front of the world stage.
There's a reason Americans have been trained to fear the word "socialism" and equate anything to actually improve the plight of the common man with communism. Such ideas gets in the way of the corporate oligarchy that's actually being built.
As am I, only people are bitching at me for trying to provide ideas as to why they're not being prosecuted for it.
"People have provided examples of how the law has been interpreted and applied in the past as way of explanation. I don't know why you are ignoring that."
I'm not, I just haven't seen anything relevant. Most claims have not been followed with citations or examples. The only one definitely mentioned is the Swartz case, which is irrelevant because it involved ACCESS to the originating SERVER. Which did NOT happen here. It's not being prosecuted under the CFAA because it's not relevant - unless someone can be bothered to give me a citation rather than whining. Get it yet?
"Comcast knows that they can get away it with because of who they are, not because what they did couldn't be prosecuted if done by someone less powerful. That's the point being made."
I agree, but nothing I've said changes that. I merely answered the person stating "I still don't see how this isn't violating the CFAA." - and nothing said to me had altered what I said. Absent an explanation of how the CFAA applies here, the examples given are utterly different cases to the one discussed here
"And Comcast is gaining unauthorized to the destination computer to display their messages."
How? They are changing information in transit, between its own servers and those controlled by the requesting customer. They are NOT changing any data on the originating server, only data as it passes through the network they own, en route to the computer that requested the original information. Therefore, how EXACTLY are they gaining unauthorised access to the originating server?
We'll let the other readers of this site work out who looks like the idiot. I'll guess it's more likely to be the sweary child having a tantrum than the adult calmly telling them to stop making a scene.
"I read his comment once and knew what he was trying to say"
...and then spent time ranting because someone else didn't interpret it the same way. Even if you had the higher ground, you lost it the second you started typing this comment in the state you did.
Plus, again, even if he did simply misuse a word, the point he was making was still wrong. Having any specific audio expertise is irrelevant. Throwing a fit doesn't change that.
My opinion has always been this - not feeding the trolls is fine to a point. Obnoxious, swearing children or people obviously just trying to pick a fight can usually be ignored safely.
The problem is, many trolls aren't like this. They lie more subtly, create fictions that seem almost plausible, make accusations that to the unknowing might seem true. You have to fight there. not because they will get rid of the troll, but because they will educate others to the truth. I know I've learned a lot about subjects over the years just from the links and explanations posted to refute the kind of pathetic human being who gets their kicks from reposting debunked lies to kill conversation. Not feeding them means the lies might be believed instead.
"EFF Deeplinks blog still doesn't have ANY comment section. But of course you won't write about THAT."
Did they have comments previously, and then remove them under the guise of "serving their community" or "enabling conversation" when all they're doing is decreasing the level of discourse or (at best) reducing moderation overhead?
Yes? that's a good, relevant story and you should submit it using the available facilities. Techdirt can be quite good at covering a range of subject, but they won't be keeping an eye on every random story, especially if it's not being reported elsewhere (Techdirt's main remit is generating conversation about existing topics, not a primary source of investigative journalism).
No? then who cares? That has nothing to do with the story at hand, which is the hypocrisy and counter-productiveness of removing comments while pretending to have the conversation you just removed. There's millions of sites which don't have user comments, but nobody's saying that every site should have them. Only that removing them under these pretences is wrong. If they're not doing that, then all you're doing is saying "EFF don't act the way *I* think they should act", which isn't particularly constructive, nor does it reflect badly on this site for not randomly writing about that one example.
I suspect this is partly why some sites insist on having comments removed. Even if you don't mind the trolls and spam, there's always someone attacking you for not writing what *they* want you to to write...
Words mean things. If you're going to have argument using them, make sure you know what that is. Your inability to have an adult conversation without devolving into a sweary little child and your proud ignorance of language do not change this fact one bit.
"I wonder if we can get some comparative sales and piracy numbers and see if Denuvo had any effect on sales."
The problem is - you can never really tell, and there's numerous ways to argue away results either way. Whatever figures you get to, they can be explained to prop up whichever narrative you prefer.
Sales too low with DRM. It could be the DRM. Or, it could be bad marketing, overpricing, compatibility issues or bugs, a bad game, lack of or bad achievements, too much DLC, etc. But, there's a good angle for any game that failed due to the publishers' actions (as is usually the case) - it's fault of the pirates who still managed to get a copy, we need more DRM!
Sales fine, or even impressive with DRM - well, the game was still pirated so they could have been even higher, load up more DRM since customers don't seem to mind it!
The simple facts are these - DRM never stops piracy completely, and piracy makes a handy scapegoat if sales are too low for whatever other reason. The best comparison you could probably make is between Inside and their previous game Limbo, but IIRC Limbo was a slow burn that slowly ramped up sales due to word of moth and ports to more platforms. It's most likely too early to tell, and even then the data can be massaged either way.
The only think we know for sure if that people are still buying the game through GoG, which by itself proves that the "can't compete with free" excuse for DRM existing is a lie.
"So, as long as a computer is following instructions, no crime has been committed, even if those instructions have been altered without authorization. Interesting theory, but one wholly without any legal basis whatsoever that I can see"
That's why I've repeatedly said you should wait for someone to sue and follow the court case. I'm simply, as a layman, explaining how I think Comcast can justify this not being illegal. I notice that people are just trying to shoot down me and my ideas without evidence or explanations of how it actually is in violation of the suggested laws.
The point is - if you're trying to apply laws that refer specifically to hacking a computer to this, you're on the wrong track and it's pretty dumb to think that Comcast haven't already consulted lawyers to see if they can get away with it. It's also dangerous to start applying those laws to such things if they're not the best tool. Wiretapping laws, more likely but it really depends on who is considered the originator and requester, and how the TOS and other agreements apply. That will take lawsuits and time in court.
"Aaron Swartz didn't change anything on MIT's computers either."
No, but he gained access to them in a manner that was deemed unauthorised, whether or not you agree with that assessment or the result (I don't, of course). The point is, the data is being changed *after* it has left the originating server and so the CFAA's rule about unauthorised computer access doesn't apply, no matter how strongly you feel it should compare to Swartz or any other victim of that act.
What about "the coach of the winning team has been claiming that the games were rigged both before and after it was played, is insisting that his team scored more runs despite the recorded scoreline and some of the live footage wasn't correctly broadcast"?
Wouldn't that make a review of the recordings of the more questionable innings at least something worth considering?