Not a violation of the Net Neutrality rules laid out by the FCC. It remains a violation of the Principle of Net Neutrality as Techdirt Defines it - preventing an ISP from picking winners and losers by providing preferential treatment to one or more players
Given this is the third Witcher game, and they have all been successful, helping build a successful company (its their only IP) and their DRM free empire (GOG.com), your first point is a bit off. They in fact noted from past releases (that Techdirt also commented on) that versions of the (previously released) games were the ones that showed up on pirate sites. The DRM free versions released on GOG.com were not. This is not the first time Techdirt has made this point, This is just the most recent.
Your second point on copyright is a bit rambling, and seems to have no relation to the discussion at hand.
YOur third point is wrong, as the Witcher requires no central server for gameplay.
Your fourth point is also wrong, as it is a stand-alone Windows game. It has no proprietary hardware or software requirements. There is the option to use the steam-like client that GOG has released, but it is completely optional to use, and it is intended to be that way.
NOt sure how your fifth point has any bearing on the fact that sans DRM this game has somehow not fallen into a well of piracy. Popularity should only make that worse.
Not sure what you are asking in the 6th point. I think you are asking how, if what they say is true, DRM survived? Mainly because aside from CD Projekt RED and their publishing/distribution arm GOG.com, no one has been willing to experiment without DRM in some form. It was a sacred cow in the games industry. And GOG.com and CD Projekt are proving (and techdirt is reporting on) the sacred cow to be a little silly.
THe answer to your topic is one of techdirts #1 statements. Provide a conveinent product at a reasonable price and, like netflix, people pay for it instead of prirating. its not 100%, but its more effective then what's been tried.
as for your final question, I've never seen techdirt tout (as in sell/praise the virtues of) Apple Music aside from mentioning it because it was current news. And spotify has a free tier. Id imagine anything less burdensome then Spotify would be a pirate site, which you know, your supposed to be against.
I enjoy that you can't even quote a full sentence to prove your point. The copyright clause is a whole one sentence long, and to make your point, you couldn't even include the full sentence. The full clause is:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
. The purpose of copyright is in that first half, to promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts. The second half you quote is only the means by which the promotion occurs. The first half shows a clear intent to enrich society and therefore the public. You yourself admit that ("..."Authors and Inventors" can reveal their creations for public benefit..."). The copyright clause is merely an incentive to provide those works to the public, not a grant of some moral right.
That was at one point the RIAA's approach. But that hasn't been the approach for a long time. I guess you've never heard of copyright trolls? Rightshaven? Prenda? Malibu Media? All target end consumers. 6 Strikes? Targets End consumers. There are other efforts out there. Techdirt loves to highlight them.
A general 9% tax on your internet bill =/= a 9% tax on online amusements. Even if your ISP determined you vist netflix, they have no idea what tier of service you get, or if there are multiple netflix accounts in a home (because some of the people are tenants with separate Netflix). Nor could your ISP collect a 9% tax on your itunes purchases, or 72 hour digital movie rentals or your purchase of books at amazon. Collecting at the ISP level would not work.
That isn't what was said. What was said is that the publishers knew that the higher price point would lead to piracy, and rather then choose a more affordable price point the publishers chose to encourage piracy. No where did he say that piracy was ok, nor did he suggest anyone go out and pirate ebooks.
Except because of a lack of price flexability and competition in the market, the publishers were capable of retaining a non-optimal price point above the stablization price for the books. This cost them sales, and overall probably cost them money, but likely lead to more sales then the price point would normally sustain. Because with many books, you have no other option. If your favorite author's publisher is only publishing through Apple at the heavy markup, you only have one option to get that ebook. They hurt their sales, but not enough that it kills their business, and now the books are selling for "what they are worth".
I would like to point out that Cadbury wanted a trademark on the specific shade of purple it uses in its UK packaging, which Nestle had started using with a new bar with the seeming intent of confusing UK customers. I don't otherwise know why "My Purple Bar" would be considered a good name for a chocolate colored chocolate bar. So while I agree the trademark probably was correctly not granted, to say that it was a ridiculous fight discounts the real questions about nestle's packaging decisions.