"But as the societal stigma comes off pirating that 10% piracy ratio will rise to 20%, then 50%, and at SOME point practical concerns will matter."
What stigma? I don't pirate stuff but it isn't because I am afraid it will make me look bad - I don't pirate because I actually want to reward people for their work in the hopes that they continue to provide me with enjoyment. I have friends who take what they can... and I don't treat them any different. Heck, because they are willing to do the leg work and try all this crap out there for me, I only get their good recommendations. It saves me time and it saves me money.
"This guy is assuming that societal sanctions will remain the same, and already pirates here at Techdirt believe that "sharing" everything for free is practicable for an industry."
I agree that some people seem to present that point but I don't think it is something that is applicable to everyone here.
"And let's also say that a "pirate" finds a way to hack his own game or make it better and of course at zero cost -- how much longer will he go on developing them when others get all the rewards?"
S/He will continue doing it as long as s/he receives pleasure from it. For some, pleasure is monetary, for others it is accomplishment. Not every action everyone does is for money.
Re: SHEESH! Lawyer redefines ripping a single DVD as "piracy"!
Hold on - I just want to make sure I understand this - are you saying that piracy is only a matter of scale?
These guys have millions... and if they think the director/producer/actor whatever is worth promoting, why don't they just buy those 10 copies? It's still likely to only cost them lass than 50 bucks. And it would allow them to travel on the "moral high ground."
I am pretty sure someone here can find ready examples of when the "hackers" did all the right things (contacted the company, didn't share the details, tried to warn security makers) and were still punished for even being smart enough or unlucky enough to find the problem. And the companies probably didn't even take it seriously.
Too often we punish the people who are trying to help us because of ego.
And the argument can be made that he wasn't being sent to jail for being an asshole (ok, yes, he was... but I'm advocating for the devil so gimme a chance) but for sharing a bunch of information that wasn't his to share. The argument can be made that he could have gone about this a dozen different ways and chose the one that was the most "enjoyable" to him and not the most responsible. He could have shown discretion and judgement.
Of course, that sentence should be shared between him and the board of AT&T for allowing crap like that to happen and then playing innocent victim when it does.
I think the only real victims in all of this were the AT&T customers who had their private communication splashed around the internet.
Re: Re: Re: How many times? -- MASHUPS are always trouble!
And one final piece... I don't care about the clips of the art - I care about the interviews... the clips aren't even the icing on the cake to me - they are the little plastic "Happy Birthday Pete" letters and add no value whatsoever, and certainly not the value they were originally intended to hold.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
"No, you mentioned watermarks first then started a bunch of new questions that had nothing to do with them. You asked me a direct question - "so all restrictions on what I do with something I have legally purchased are inappropriate?", and I gave you my honest answer."
"If you're only talking about watermarks then fine, let's address those and why they're still ineffective at stopping piracy (one of the stated aims by many publishers), and dangerous if misused. But that wasn't the question you were asking."
I was referring to watermarks as a single form of DRM. I was not speaking to their efficacy at piracy reduction. That was never my point or argument. My question/comment had to do with them not being onerous (as in being burdensome on my part).
""ALL DRM IS NOT COPY PROTECTION. Can you at the very least understand that?"
No, because that's false. Watermarks are still copy protection (and they can still be cracked). They're just passive (you can be located and prosecuted or punished after the fact) rather than active (it attempts to blocks you before you can copy or access the content)."
Digital rights management (DRM) is a class of controversial access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale. DRM is any technology that inhibits uses of digital content that are not desired or intended by the content provider.
A watermark has no function other that to identify the content in some manner and limit its use. You can replicate it without any difficulty. Therefore, it is not "copy protection" in the actual use of the term (copy protection being something that prevents replication).
"Why not just accept that my answer to your original question above ("All DRM is onerous?") is a resounding yes, and that this includes watermarks?"
Because I don't agree that it is "onerous."
"We can discuss why I believe this without you trying to move the goalposts or pretend that being against it has anything to do with "giving stuff away for free"."
I didn't move the goalpost. The goalpost is still "is it onerous."
"I'll admit it's the least onerous of the methods that are being thrust upon legal customers, but that doesn't mean I don't have problems with it, or that I believe that other methods are able to achieve the desired aims."
That's entirely fair and understandable, but I think this has to do with a threshold of what you consider onerous and what I consider onerous. I think actual copy protection is garbage. It is always onerous (read - it makes me do work to access my content... often repeatedly...). I do not think watermarking is onerous because it requires no effort on my part. I equate onerous with the amount of effort - as does the dictionary, which is where my argument stems from. That I think we got off on a tangent is clear, and you are absolutely entitled to see any form of "restriction" as inappropriate, but I do not think you should equate it with the word "onerous."
Anyone taking odds on whether EA will find a clue and use it to create a playable version of this game?
Not that it will matter to me - since I'm very selective about what I give them money for. I've noticed a significant focus-shift on their part - they used to focus on making great games but now they seem to think that making stronger DRM will make their games better.
They fail to realize that the best copy protection in the world won't matter if no one wants the game in the first place.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
"Yes. If I buy a book, it doesn't matter if I read it, give it to a friend, use it as toilet paper or as kindling. I could even photocopy it if I wish. The publisher has no say in the matter after the sale. That my eBook happens to be digital in format shouldn't change my rights. I can understand why I may not be able to resell it, but don't try telling me where, when and how I can use it on my own equipment."
And here you miss my point completely. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to use it on your own equipment freely, and I certainly don't support them limiting that. The example of DRM that I provided does not have that restriction. You are saying the all DRM has this restriction. It does not.
"No, and nothing I've said should imply that particular strawman argument. Please restrict your criticisms to my actual opinions, not whatever fiction makes it easier for you to handle."
Fiction? Ok - I can see that you aren't reading my statements for what is there - just what you want to see.
"You agree that restrictions on what you own shouldn't exist, but then reject criticism of DRM - whose only purpose is exactly that? Try to keep your argument straight."
Ok, seriously - I have not rejected EVERY criticism of DRM. I have rejected some of them. I have agreed that the way they enforce "copy protection" is crap and shouldn't be done. Agreeing to that and then saying that I feel that identifying the purchaser of the product to ensure it is not being freely duplicated and redistributed is not contradictory. One is about capability, the other is about culpability.
"OK, then - name the good. Bearing in mind that once DRM is cracked (and it ALWAYS is), it only affects legal paying customers and has no effect on pirates. I can't see the good in something like that, perhaps you'd explain why I should."
ALL DRM IS NOT COPY PROTECTION. Can you at the very least understand that?
All people are mammals. Dogs are mammals.
Here is the question for you - are all people dogs? This is a skill testing question.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
When you are quoting, you shouldn't paraphrase. It's not the same... seriously.
If there is a black car and a white car, and those are your choices, you cannot say the blue car is superior because it doesn't exist. You can say that it might be superior, but you do not absolutely know that because it does not exist. It's a hypothesis at best.
I too use the USPS as my preferred international shipper (to Canada). When I get hit with duty on a package shipped USPS it is just the duty and maybe a small admin fee - when I get something from UPS I get bent over and #$%$#@, dry. I ordered a couple of shirts and they only shipped UPS... the "brokerage fee" was almost the price of my order.
I think the USPS keeps some of these other shippers at least partially honest.