panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
But supporting the used market isn't immoral? You will say no because it's legal.
Do you not see how ridiculous this logic is?
Do you not see how ridiculous this logic is?
How does CAG feel about Pirating?
- Thread starter 51jack
- Start date
ing say I ranked those in order of morality---Buying New>>>Buying Used>>>Illegal Downloads.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I'm not going to lie, I stopped reading your posts that time. But I'm glad we ended up agreeing.
Now go out and buy a new copy for everything you've bought used. Repent!
Now go out and buy a new copy for everything you've bought used. Repent!
Nope. What I do is if I love a game I bought used, I'll buy all the DLC for it, and I'll buy the sequel or future games from that developer not only new, but at launch for MSRP.
Buying used is perfectly legit--if less moral than buying new. I'm not going to repent for it. If the game etc. is great, they'll get my money on DLC, future releases etc. If not, I'll do nothing. And somethings like Activision games--I'm like Myke. I don't want to support them, so I buy used.
But I won't pirate as I don't in any way, shape or form want to endorse illegally copying, uploading and file sharing.
I don't mind supporting the used market as consumers should have the legal right to sell anything they buy as they own it--as long as they don't make any copies of it.
Buying used is perfectly legit--if less moral than buying new. I'm not going to repent for it. If the game etc. is great, they'll get my money on DLC, future releases etc. If not, I'll do nothing. And somethings like Activision games--I'm like Myke. I don't want to support them, so I buy used.
But I won't pirate as I don't in any way, shape or form want to endorse illegally copying, uploading and file sharing.
I don't mind supporting the used market as consumers should have the legal right to sell anything they buy as they own it--as long as they don't make any copies of it.
[quote name='dmaul1114']But by pirating you're supporting those who make and distribute illegal copies of copyrighted material. That's the moral wrong versus buying uses.
As well as the simple fact that first sell doctrine makes the used market legitimate. If I (or anyone) buys something we should have the right to sell or trade something as we OWN it. As long as we don't keep a copy for ourselves of course.
What we do not have the right to do is to make illegal copies and distribute them. Nor to go online and download an illegal copy.
And I maintain that piracy is a much bigger threat than used games. Again, I trade/sell a game and I know longer have a copy, and only one person can have that used copy at a time. And eventually it will get nabbed by a collector who keeps it permanently (or get damaged and rendered useless.
Where as one immoral shitstain can make an illegal copy of something, keep one for himself and put it up online for countless people to download and keep copies of for themselves, with many of them passing it on to countless other people.
So that one illegal copy can multiplay limitlessly and cost the company a huge number of sells, where as a game bought and traded in/sold will only reach so many people and can only be possessed by one person at a time. So not nearly as many sales stand to be lost from one game sold/traded on the 2nd hand market as one illegally copied file uploaded on the internet.
The above addresses that. It's a matter of scale. Yes a person buying a used game does no more harm to the publisher than someone who downloaded it (provided they don't pass that illegal copy on to others).
But again, one used game, book, movie etc. will only make it to so many people before it's added to a collection or lost/damaged etc. One illegal copy can be distributed to an infinite number of people as it goes viral around the net and gets passed around. That's why piracy is a greater threat. On person can do a lot more damage putting an illegal copy online than anyone can trading or selling a game they bought.[/QUOTE]
But piracy doesn't always involve mass distribution, what if I rent a movie and copy it? Using my above argument I mean. That's a single isolated incidence of piracy.
As well as the simple fact that first sell doctrine makes the used market legitimate. If I (or anyone) buys something we should have the right to sell or trade something as we OWN it. As long as we don't keep a copy for ourselves of course.
What we do not have the right to do is to make illegal copies and distribute them. Nor to go online and download an illegal copy.
And I maintain that piracy is a much bigger threat than used games. Again, I trade/sell a game and I know longer have a copy, and only one person can have that used copy at a time. And eventually it will get nabbed by a collector who keeps it permanently (or get damaged and rendered useless.
Where as one immoral shitstain can make an illegal copy of something, keep one for himself and put it up online for countless people to download and keep copies of for themselves, with many of them passing it on to countless other people.
So that one illegal copy can multiplay limitlessly and cost the company a huge number of sells, where as a game bought and traded in/sold will only reach so many people and can only be possessed by one person at a time. So not nearly as many sales stand to be lost from one game sold/traded on the 2nd hand market as one illegally copied file uploaded on the internet.
The above addresses that. It's a matter of scale. Yes a person buying a used game does no more harm to the publisher than someone who downloaded it (provided they don't pass that illegal copy on to others).
But again, one used game, book, movie etc. will only make it to so many people before it's added to a collection or lost/damaged etc. One illegal copy can be distributed to an infinite number of people as it goes viral around the net and gets passed around. That's why piracy is a greater threat. On person can do a lot more damage putting an illegal copy online than anyone can trading or selling a game they bought.[/QUOTE]
But piracy doesn't always involve mass distribution, what if I rent a movie and copy it? Using my above argument I mean. That's a single isolated incidence of piracy.
[quote name='Clak']But piracy doesn't always involve mass distribution, what if I rent a movie and copy it? Using my above argument I mean. That's a single isolated incidence of piracy.[/QUOTE]
And that's less morally long than distributing it after copying it, or downloading it from a pirate site and thus supporting those kind of sites.
It's still morally wrong as a rental is a way to check out a movie and then go buy it if you like it enough that you want a copy permanently and not an entitlement to make yourself a copy.
Even with in piracy there are different degrees of wrongness.
And that's less morally long than distributing it after copying it, or downloading it from a pirate site and thus supporting those kind of sites.
It's still morally wrong as a rental is a way to check out a movie and then go buy it if you like it enough that you want a copy permanently and not an entitlement to make yourself a copy.
Even with in piracy there are different degrees of wrongness.
I'm not arguing it's right or anything, just about the argument of most media companies that piracy always hurts them.
In that sort of situation, doesn't that destroy the argument of most media companies, that it hurts them? I mean if you won't buy new, you've already caused them to lose a sale. If you're just doing this for yourself and not distributing it, the only people you'd be hurting are those who sell used media, and most media companies would just as soon as see them shut down anyway.
In that sort of situation, doesn't that destroy the argument of most media companies, that it hurts them? I mean if you won't buy new, you've already caused them to lose a sale. If you're just doing this for yourself and not distributing it, the only people you'd be hurting are those who sell used media, and most media companies would just as soon as see them shut down anyway.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Nope. What I do is if I love a game I bought used, I'll buy all the DLC for it, and I'll buy the sequel or future games from that developer not only new, but at launch for MSRP.
Buying used is perfectly legit--if less moral than buying new. I'm not going to repent for it. If the game etc. is great, they'll get my money on DLC, future releases etc. If not, I'll do nothing. And somethings like Activision games--I'm like Myke. I don't want to support them, so I buy used.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dmaul1114']Nope. What I do is if I lovea game music I bought used downloaded, I'll buy all the DLC for it, and I'll buy the sequel or future games from that developer not only new, but at launch for MSRP. merchandise and see them live if they come by.
Buying used Downloading is perfectly legit--if less moral than buying new. I'm not going to repent for it. If the game music etc. is great, they'll get my money on DLC, future releases etc merchandise, live tickets, etc. If not, I'll do nothing. And somethings like Activision games RIAA-anti-piracy flunkies/family members milking a dead artist --I'm like Myke. I don't want to support them, so I buy used. download.[/QUOTE]
Hey look it's now my argument and guess what, THE ARTIST/PUBLISHER DOESN'T GET ANY MONEY IN EITHER SITUATION!!!
You are no better than me.
Buying used is perfectly legit--if less moral than buying new. I'm not going to repent for it. If the game etc. is great, they'll get my money on DLC, future releases etc. If not, I'll do nothing. And somethings like Activision games--I'm like Myke. I don't want to support them, so I buy used.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dmaul1114']Nope. What I do is if I love
Hey look it's now my argument and guess what, THE ARTIST/PUBLISHER DOESN'T GET ANY MONEY IN EITHER SITUATION!!!
You are no better than me.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The used market question remains interesting for something I just remembered a second ago (and forgive if it's been brought up, but I doubt it).
In the early 1990s, Garth Brooks made a huge public stink about record stores that bought and sold used albums, saying it killed off his royalties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Brooks#1993.E2.80.9394:_In_Pieces
Now, there is a twfold difference that you'll never see happen with the gaming industry (Brooks convinced his label to not ship his 1993 album to stores that sold used, though the utility of that is questionable, since they would essentially be limited to only selling used copies of his album :lol
1) Record stores that sold used were 'small businesses' - not in the Republican talking point sense, but in that the majority of them were owned by small proprietors. Very few chains ever attempted this practice, and few were successful at it. By comparison, the biggest purveyor of used games is GS, who has far too large of a marketshare for, say, an Activision or EA to refuse a shipment of games to. I'd be willing to argue that GS has some degree of monopsony w/r/t game publishers.
2) Case law; according to the wiki link (sorry, folks) Garth Brooks' record label had an antitrust suit filed against it, and they eventually had to provide its album to stores that sold used. Off topic, that sounds like an interesting case. Certainly the most interest I've ever had in Garth Brooks in my whole life.
In the early 1990s, Garth Brooks made a huge public stink about record stores that bought and sold used albums, saying it killed off his royalties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Brooks#1993.E2.80.9394:_In_Pieces
Now, there is a twfold difference that you'll never see happen with the gaming industry (Brooks convinced his label to not ship his 1993 album to stores that sold used, though the utility of that is questionable, since they would essentially be limited to only selling used copies of his album :lol
1) Record stores that sold used were 'small businesses' - not in the Republican talking point sense, but in that the majority of them were owned by small proprietors. Very few chains ever attempted this practice, and few were successful at it. By comparison, the biggest purveyor of used games is GS, who has far too large of a marketshare for, say, an Activision or EA to refuse a shipment of games to. I'd be willing to argue that GS has some degree of monopsony w/r/t game publishers.
2) Case law; according to the wiki link (sorry, folks) Garth Brooks' record label had an antitrust suit filed against it, and they eventually had to provide its album to stores that sold used. Off topic, that sounds like an interesting case. Certainly the most interest I've ever had in Garth Brooks in my whole life.
[quote name='Clak']I'm not arguing it's right or anything, just about the argument of most media companies that piracy always hurts them.
In that sort of situation, doesn't that destroy the argument of most media companies, that it hurts them? I mean if you won't buy new, you've already caused them to lose a sale. If you're just doing this for yourself and not distributing it, the only people you'd be hurting are those who sell used media, and most media companies would just as soon as see them shut down anyway.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
What's hurting them is the uploaders and people running sites like The Pirates Bay etc.
That's who they need to be going after. Not the downloaders. The people making illegal copies and uploading them on the net through torrents or pirate sites etc. are the big threat.
They're never going to stop downloaders, people renting and burning copies etc. They just have to live with that.
Uploading and distributing copyrighted material should be criminalized in the US and that's what the media companies should be focused on. Getting the major uploaders, pirate sites etc. out of business. Not hitting downloaders and small time file sharers with absurd fines.
In that sort of situation, doesn't that destroy the argument of most media companies, that it hurts them? I mean if you won't buy new, you've already caused them to lose a sale. If you're just doing this for yourself and not distributing it, the only people you'd be hurting are those who sell used media, and most media companies would just as soon as see them shut down anyway.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
What's hurting them is the uploaders and people running sites like The Pirates Bay etc.
That's who they need to be going after. Not the downloaders. The people making illegal copies and uploading them on the net through torrents or pirate sites etc. are the big threat.
They're never going to stop downloaders, people renting and burning copies etc. They just have to live with that.
Uploading and distributing copyrighted material should be criminalized in the US and that's what the media companies should be focused on. Getting the major uploaders, pirate sites etc. out of business. Not hitting downloaders and small time file sharers with absurd fines.
[quote name='Sporadic']Hey look it's now my argument and guess what, THE ARTIST/PUBLISHER DOESN'T GET ANY MONEY IN EITHER SITUATION!!!
You are no better than me.[/QUOTE]
Buying used is still better morally in my view as it's not in any way shape or form supporting piracy. And I don't buy many used games anyway. I play around 5 games a year and maybe I'll grab 2 off Goozex and buy the rest at launch. I never get used movies or CDs as those are cheap enough to buy at launch or new during sales etc.
I will concede that people like you aren't the problem. The people that are the problems are the loser pirates that download thousands of songs etc. and never buy any CDs or go to concerts or buy merchandise etc. as they 100% don't care about supporting artists and just want as much as they can get for free.
Those people, and mainly the uploaders/pirate site hosts as noted, are who the media companies should be focused on. Not the small timers like you who download to sample stuff etc.
I don't condone using piracy to sample stuff in the age of netflix, streaming music on band's websites, online radio sites like Pandora etc.
You are no better than me.[/QUOTE]
Buying used is still better morally in my view as it's not in any way shape or form supporting piracy. And I don't buy many used games anyway. I play around 5 games a year and maybe I'll grab 2 off Goozex and buy the rest at launch. I never get used movies or CDs as those are cheap enough to buy at launch or new during sales etc.
I will concede that people like you aren't the problem. The people that are the problems are the loser pirates that download thousands of songs etc. and never buy any CDs or go to concerts or buy merchandise etc. as they 100% don't care about supporting artists and just want as much as they can get for free.
Those people, and mainly the uploaders/pirate site hosts as noted, are who the media companies should be focused on. Not the small timers like you who download to sample stuff etc.
I don't condone using piracy to sample stuff in the age of netflix, streaming music on band's websites, online radio sites like Pandora etc.
This is the most heartwarming story I've read all year.
http://torrentfreak.com/filmmaker-schools-pirates-on-correct-way-to-rip-his-dvd-101019/
------------
[quote name='dmaul1114']Buying used is still better morally in my view as it's not in any way shape or form supporting piracy. And I don't buy many used games anyway. I play around 5 games a year and maybe I'll grab 2 off Goozex and buy the rest at launch. I never get used movies or CDs as those are cheap enough to buy at launch or new during sales etc.
I will concede that people like you aren't the problem. The people that are the problems are the loser pirates that download thousands of songs etc. and never buy any CDs or go to concerts or buy merchandise etc. as they 100% don't care about supporting artists and just want as much as they can get for free.
Those people, and mainly the uploaders/pirate site hosts as noted, are who the media companies should be focused on. Not the small timers like you who download to sample stuff etc.
I don't condone using piracy to sample stuff in the age of netflix, streaming music on band's websites, online radio sites like Pandora etc.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I am the person you hate. I have uploaded things before to give back to the community, I have a massive music collection (379 groups...at 386GBs) but that doesn't make me a complete asshole. I do try support the artists I love, as much as I can. I do buy things I could have otherwise downloaded. I do buy from Amazon MP3 and other places (I try to avoid CDs though, unless something special comes with them, since I never use CDs and they take up space). I do try to help out by spreading word of mouth if I'm completely broke that month. I do go back and buy stuff later when I get some money.
I have trouble comprehending why downloading Micheal Jackson's Thriller is bad but buying a copy from a pawn shop for $2 is ok. No compensation was given in either case.
http://torrentfreak.com/filmmaker-schools-pirates-on-correct-way-to-rip-his-dvd-101019/
------------
[quote name='dmaul1114']Buying used is still better morally in my view as it's not in any way shape or form supporting piracy. And I don't buy many used games anyway. I play around 5 games a year and maybe I'll grab 2 off Goozex and buy the rest at launch. I never get used movies or CDs as those are cheap enough to buy at launch or new during sales etc.
I will concede that people like you aren't the problem. The people that are the problems are the loser pirates that download thousands of songs etc. and never buy any CDs or go to concerts or buy merchandise etc. as they 100% don't care about supporting artists and just want as much as they can get for free.
Those people, and mainly the uploaders/pirate site hosts as noted, are who the media companies should be focused on. Not the small timers like you who download to sample stuff etc.
I don't condone using piracy to sample stuff in the age of netflix, streaming music on band's websites, online radio sites like Pandora etc.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I am the person you hate. I have uploaded things before to give back to the community, I have a massive music collection (379 groups...at 386GBs) but that doesn't make me a complete asshole. I do try support the artists I love, as much as I can. I do buy things I could have otherwise downloaded. I do buy from Amazon MP3 and other places (I try to avoid CDs though, unless something special comes with them, since I never use CDs and they take up space). I do try to help out by spreading word of mouth if I'm completely broke that month. I do go back and buy stuff later when I get some money.
I have trouble comprehending why downloading Micheal Jackson's Thriller is bad but buying a copy from a pawn shop for $2 is ok. No compensation was given in either case.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agree, kind of. I don't really see how the music companies are so bad beyond the absurd RIAA law suits.
Music is DRM free now. While it's a crime to crack the DRM to rip or copy a DVD or Blu Ray. Same with making copies of games. Ebooks mostly all have DRM except for some smaller publishers. And worse the DRM is device specific meaning you can't read a DRMd Nook book on your Kindle and vice versa etc.
And prices are pretty much the same as ever. I've been buying CDs since the early 1990 (92 or 93) and I've always paid $10-15 an album for new releases. MP3 albums go for $10 generally. Even $1 a song seems fair to me if it's a song you'll listen to countless times over the rest of your life (I'm still listening to the first albums I bought back in the early 90s) etc.
So I don't get the ire for the music industry.[/QUOTE]
I think I can make a strong case from a business perspective.
As a business, the record labels completely failed.
Like most big modern American companies, instead of taking the risk of innovating they decided to lawyer up and buy off congress. Instead of giving customers what they wanted (online sales of DRM-less tunes for a buck), they offered the same old shit and subpoenas to anyone who didn't like it.
Except this time it didn't work. The internet is still untamed, and the young have little money but lots of time. The young figured out how to get what they wanted for free, and by the time the record labels got with the program the mindset of entire generations had already changed.
Flash forward to today. After suing grandmas for downloading gangsta rap and poor single mothers for ridiculous sums everyone hates the labels. Their legal bills are through the roof. And the labels have to give a cut of every online sale to Steve Jobs.
What a bunch of fools.
Music is DRM free now. While it's a crime to crack the DRM to rip or copy a DVD or Blu Ray. Same with making copies of games. Ebooks mostly all have DRM except for some smaller publishers. And worse the DRM is device specific meaning you can't read a DRMd Nook book on your Kindle and vice versa etc.
And prices are pretty much the same as ever. I've been buying CDs since the early 1990 (92 or 93) and I've always paid $10-15 an album for new releases. MP3 albums go for $10 generally. Even $1 a song seems fair to me if it's a song you'll listen to countless times over the rest of your life (I'm still listening to the first albums I bought back in the early 90s) etc.
So I don't get the ire for the music industry.[/QUOTE]
I think I can make a strong case from a business perspective.
As a business, the record labels completely failed.
Like most big modern American companies, instead of taking the risk of innovating they decided to lawyer up and buy off congress. Instead of giving customers what they wanted (online sales of DRM-less tunes for a buck), they offered the same old shit and subpoenas to anyone who didn't like it.
Except this time it didn't work. The internet is still untamed, and the young have little money but lots of time. The young figured out how to get what they wanted for free, and by the time the record labels got with the program the mindset of entire generations had already changed.
Flash forward to today. After suing grandmas for downloading gangsta rap and poor single mothers for ridiculous sums everyone hates the labels. Their legal bills are through the roof. And the labels have to give a cut of every online sale to Steve Jobs.
What a bunch of fools.
[quote name='Sporadic']
Actually, I am the person you hate. I have uploaded things before to give back to the community, I have a massive music collection (379 groups...at 386GBs) but that doesn't make me a complete asshole. [/quote]
As I've said, it's a relatively minor moral wrong. I don't think people who pirate are complete assholes. Just very selfish, especially those that don't make any effort to support artists like you do.
As it's implicitly condoning piracy. The used market hurts the industry, but it's hard to find much moral wrong there. If someone buys something, they own it. They should be able to sell it or trade it if they choose to do so as long as they don't make any copies, as it is there property.
By downloading an illegal copy, you're supporting people who make and distribute illegal copies. That's the wrong. Buy a used copy, and your supporting people's right to sell/trade property they own. That's the moral difference to me, even though in either case the creator doesn't get anything.
That said, people should try to buy new over used as often as they can afford as we should reward content creators for entertaining us.
Actually, I am the person you hate. I have uploaded things before to give back to the community, I have a massive music collection (379 groups...at 386GBs) but that doesn't make me a complete asshole. [/quote]
As I've said, it's a relatively minor moral wrong. I don't think people who pirate are complete assholes. Just very selfish, especially those that don't make any effort to support artists like you do.
As it's implicitly condoning piracy. The used market hurts the industry, but it's hard to find much moral wrong there. If someone buys something, they own it. They should be able to sell it or trade it if they choose to do so as long as they don't make any copies, as it is there property.
By downloading an illegal copy, you're supporting people who make and distribute illegal copies. That's the wrong. Buy a used copy, and your supporting people's right to sell/trade property they own. That's the moral difference to me, even though in either case the creator doesn't get anything.
That said, people should try to buy new over used as often as they can afford as we should reward content creators for entertaining us.
[quote name='camoor']I think I can make a strong case from a business perspective.
As a business, the record labels completely failed.
Like most big modern American companies, instead of taking the risk of innovating they decided to lawyer up and buy off congress. Instead of giving customers what they wanted (online sales of DRM-less tunes for a buck), they offered the same old shit and subpoenas to anyone who didn't like it.
Except this time it didn't work. The internet is still untamed, and the young have little money but lots of time. The young figured out how to get what they wanted for free, and by the time the record labels got with the program the mindset of entire generations had already changed.
Flash forward to today. After suing grandmas for downloading gangsta rap and poor single mothers for ridiculous sums everyone hates the labels. Their legal bills are through the roof. And the labels have to give a cut of every online sale to Steve Jobs.
What a bunch of fools.[/QUOTE]
I get all that. But don't see it as an excuse to pirate. The labels suck. But albums are one thing that haven't gotten hit by inflation. I'm paying the same $10-15 for new releases that I was paying two decades ago. And I have vastly more options for sampling music before I buy than I did back then.
DRM sucked, but never affected me as I've always been a CD guy and never bought mp3s. And the way they go after downloaders sucks, but doesn't affect me since I don't pirate music.
So my point is hating a company isn't an excuse to acquire copyrighted content through illegal downloads, much less making copies and uploading yourself etc. IMO.
And I see no incentive through price, sampling etc. as prices haven't rose to unreasonable levels (same as always, maybe even cheaper) and there are more legitimate ways to sample music than ever before.
Yeah, the labels suck, but I'm not going to rip them off because of it. Microsoft sucks, but I'm not going to pirate Office and their other programs I use either. Disliking a corporation etc. isn't justification for ripping them off. If you don't' want to give them money, then buy used or just stick to streaming music online etc.
As a business, the record labels completely failed.
Like most big modern American companies, instead of taking the risk of innovating they decided to lawyer up and buy off congress. Instead of giving customers what they wanted (online sales of DRM-less tunes for a buck), they offered the same old shit and subpoenas to anyone who didn't like it.
Except this time it didn't work. The internet is still untamed, and the young have little money but lots of time. The young figured out how to get what they wanted for free, and by the time the record labels got with the program the mindset of entire generations had already changed.
Flash forward to today. After suing grandmas for downloading gangsta rap and poor single mothers for ridiculous sums everyone hates the labels. Their legal bills are through the roof. And the labels have to give a cut of every online sale to Steve Jobs.
What a bunch of fools.[/QUOTE]
I get all that. But don't see it as an excuse to pirate. The labels suck. But albums are one thing that haven't gotten hit by inflation. I'm paying the same $10-15 for new releases that I was paying two decades ago. And I have vastly more options for sampling music before I buy than I did back then.
DRM sucked, but never affected me as I've always been a CD guy and never bought mp3s. And the way they go after downloaders sucks, but doesn't affect me since I don't pirate music.
So my point is hating a company isn't an excuse to acquire copyrighted content through illegal downloads, much less making copies and uploading yourself etc. IMO.
And I see no incentive through price, sampling etc. as prices haven't rose to unreasonable levels (same as always, maybe even cheaper) and there are more legitimate ways to sample music than ever before.
Yeah, the labels suck, but I'm not going to rip them off because of it. Microsoft sucks, but I'm not going to pirate Office and their other programs I use either. Disliking a corporation etc. isn't justification for ripping them off. If you don't' want to give them money, then buy used or just stick to streaming music online etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, the labels suck, but I'm not going to rip them off because of it. Microsoft sucks, but I'm not going to pirate Office and their other programs I use either. Disliking a corporation etc. isn't justification for ripping them off. If you don't' want to give them money, then buy used or just stick to streaming music online etc.[/QUOTE]
Do two wrongs make a right - probably not. But sometimes that's how the world works. I'm not justifying piracy, I'm just pointing out that you can't expect consumers to be angels when the labels have proven themselves to be corrupt, morally bankrupt, and completely tone-deaf to consumer desires.
If you're a major corporation and you don't want people to hate your guts, it may be a good idea to think before embarking on a cruel and unusual lawsuit campaign that manages to net poverty-stricken single mothers, gangsta-rap downloading grannies, and dead people. Add the price-fixing collusion and payola that record labels regularly engage in, and it's easy to see why people would rather support a band directly through live shows or merch over buying a CD.
And why aren't you using Open Office?
Do two wrongs make a right - probably not. But sometimes that's how the world works. I'm not justifying piracy, I'm just pointing out that you can't expect consumers to be angels when the labels have proven themselves to be corrupt, morally bankrupt, and completely tone-deaf to consumer desires.
If you're a major corporation and you don't want people to hate your guts, it may be a good idea to think before embarking on a cruel and unusual lawsuit campaign that manages to net poverty-stricken single mothers, gangsta-rap downloading grannies, and dead people. Add the price-fixing collusion and payola that record labels regularly engage in, and it's easy to see why people would rather support a band directly through live shows or merch over buying a CD.
And why aren't you using Open Office?
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, the labels suck, but I'm not going to rip them off because of it. [/QUOTE]
But you do. You just said that you only buy Activision games used because you don't like their business practices and don't want them to get any of your money.
But you do. You just said that you only buy Activision games used because you don't like their business practices and don't want them to get any of your money.
[quote name='camoor']Do two wrongs make a right - probably not. But sometimes that's how the world works. I'm not justifying piracy, I'm just pointing out that you can't expect consumers to be angels when the labels have proven themselves to be corrupt, morally bankrupt, and completely tone-deaf to consumer desires.
If you're a major corporation and you don't want people to hate your guts, it may be a good idea to think before embarking on a cruel and unusual lawsuit campaign that manages to net poverty-stricken single mothers, gangsta-rap downloading grannies, and dead people. Add the price-fixing collusion and payola that record labels regularly engage in, and it's easy to see why people would rather support a band directly through live shows or merch over buying a CD.
And why aren't you using Open Office?[/QUOTE]
I agree, just not to the extent of condoning or justifying piracy.
But as I've said repeatedly any crackdown on piracy has to come with a vast expansion of fair use laws so us legitimate consumers aren't being treated like criminals by the media companies.
I don't bother with open office since software for both my office and work laptop is provided by my university so I'm not paying for it anyway. Plus it's fine software, I dislike the company but the software is fine. Same with the 360. Dislike MS, but they have the exclusives I want to play being an FPS and WRPG guy.
[quote name='Sporadic']But you do. You just said that you only buy Activision games used because you don't like their business practices and don't want them to get any of your money.[/QUOTE]
Again, I don't consider the used market to be ripping companies off as consumers have every right to sell property they bought and owned as long they don't make any copies of it. That's the whole moral notion of property ownership rights. Buy something and it's yours to keep or sell. Just not to copy and distribute to others. And again that's why we need fair use expansion as DRM is in violation of that and treats legitimate consumers like criminals.
If one doesn't want to financially support a company there are legitimate ways to enjoy their content without paying for it in a way that gives them money. Used market, borrow from a friend, libraries, stream the music online, wait for the movie to hit HBO, rent it where they get much less money than if you bought it etc.
I just don't see piracy as ever justified even if you loathe a company as two wrongs don't make a right. Those other methods above are covered under fair use laws etc. and thus are not wrongs and are ways to not directly give money to the company's in question.
If you're a major corporation and you don't want people to hate your guts, it may be a good idea to think before embarking on a cruel and unusual lawsuit campaign that manages to net poverty-stricken single mothers, gangsta-rap downloading grannies, and dead people. Add the price-fixing collusion and payola that record labels regularly engage in, and it's easy to see why people would rather support a band directly through live shows or merch over buying a CD.
And why aren't you using Open Office?[/QUOTE]
I agree, just not to the extent of condoning or justifying piracy.
But as I've said repeatedly any crackdown on piracy has to come with a vast expansion of fair use laws so us legitimate consumers aren't being treated like criminals by the media companies.
I don't bother with open office since software for both my office and work laptop is provided by my university so I'm not paying for it anyway. Plus it's fine software, I dislike the company but the software is fine. Same with the 360. Dislike MS, but they have the exclusives I want to play being an FPS and WRPG guy.
[quote name='Sporadic']But you do. You just said that you only buy Activision games used because you don't like their business practices and don't want them to get any of your money.[/QUOTE]
Again, I don't consider the used market to be ripping companies off as consumers have every right to sell property they bought and owned as long they don't make any copies of it. That's the whole moral notion of property ownership rights. Buy something and it's yours to keep or sell. Just not to copy and distribute to others. And again that's why we need fair use expansion as DRM is in violation of that and treats legitimate consumers like criminals.
If one doesn't want to financially support a company there are legitimate ways to enjoy their content without paying for it in a way that gives them money. Used market, borrow from a friend, libraries, stream the music online, wait for the movie to hit HBO, rent it where they get much less money than if you bought it etc.
I just don't see piracy as ever justified even if you loathe a company as two wrongs don't make a right. Those other methods above are covered under fair use laws etc. and thus are not wrongs and are ways to not directly give money to the company's in question.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've actually downloaded copies of PC games i've bought, just because I don't want to deal with their DRM BS. A lot of DRM schemes search for software like Daemon Tools and won't run if it finds it. Never mind that it's a legitimate disc image mounting software, it's a piracy tool as far as they are concerned. As much as I think Clinton was a good president overall, signing the DMCA was a big mistake.
[quote name='Clak']I've actually downloaded copies of PC games i've bought, just because I don't want to deal with their DRM BS. A lot of DRM schemes search for software like Daemon Tools and won't run if it finds it. Never mind that it's a legitimate disc image mounting software, it's a piracy tool as far as they are concerned. As much as I think Clinton was a good president overall, signing the DMCA was a big mistake.[/QUOTE]
Yep, DRM blows 100%. Treats legitimate consumers like criminals and has absolutely no effect on the serious pirates who are the real threat as they're the tech savvy type that can easily strip DRM and keep on uploading etc.
Yep, DRM blows 100%. Treats legitimate consumers like criminals and has absolutely no effect on the serious pirates who are the real threat as they're the tech savvy type that can easily strip DRM and keep on uploading etc.
51jack
Banned
Hey i got one for you guys. There this slasher film on dvd called silent night, deadly night that goes for about 15 bucks on ebay since its out of stock. Why not download it illegaly? no one is making money off of it anymore and the and its impossible to find anywhere but ebay, so the only person getting compensation is the private seller not the creator. oh btw heres a link if your interested. http://catalog.ebay.com/Silent-Nigh...3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A4026&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14
[quote name='51jack']Hey i got one for you guys. There this slasher film on dvd called silent night, deadly night that goes for about 15 bucks on ebay since its out of stock. Why not download it illegaly? no one is making money off of it anymore and the and its impossible to find anywhere but ebay, so the only person getting compensation is the private seller not the creator. oh btw heres a link if your interested. http://catalog.ebay.com/Silent-Nigh...3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A4026&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14[/QUOTE]
If "everyone" pirates something, it will decrease the demand for a legitimate source for the product. Now, we can argue as to how much it decreases the demand (I don't agree with the 1:1 ratio, for what it's worth), but it does decrease the demand. Therefore, the simple fact of having a "free" source for the movie *can* decrease a studio's willingness to put the title back into print.
Let's say a movie studio crunches the numbers... they need to sell 75 copies of MovieX to make a profit. Let's say there's 100 people who want to see it. 25 of those people aren't willing to pay for it, no matter what. 25 of those people are against piracy and are waiting for a legitimate source for the movie. 50 of those people are willing buy the movie, but if there's a free source available, they'd consider that instead. So with the free source, there's not enough demand to make it worth while for the studio to reproduce. Remove that, and you've got enough buyers.
For big time movies, like, Iron Man 2... yeah, there's enough buyers out there, regardless. But for small flicks trying to make a buck to fund their next venture? Good luck. But that's okay. As long as we have big-budget monsters like "Eddie Murphy Farting in a Fat Suit", who needs small, indie films?
If "everyone" pirates something, it will decrease the demand for a legitimate source for the product. Now, we can argue as to how much it decreases the demand (I don't agree with the 1:1 ratio, for what it's worth), but it does decrease the demand. Therefore, the simple fact of having a "free" source for the movie *can* decrease a studio's willingness to put the title back into print.
Let's say a movie studio crunches the numbers... they need to sell 75 copies of MovieX to make a profit. Let's say there's 100 people who want to see it. 25 of those people aren't willing to pay for it, no matter what. 25 of those people are against piracy and are waiting for a legitimate source for the movie. 50 of those people are willing buy the movie, but if there's a free source available, they'd consider that instead. So with the free source, there's not enough demand to make it worth while for the studio to reproduce. Remove that, and you've got enough buyers.
For big time movies, like, Iron Man 2... yeah, there's enough buyers out there, regardless. But for small flicks trying to make a buck to fund their next venture? Good luck. But that's okay. As long as we have big-budget monsters like "Eddie Murphy Farting in a Fat Suit", who needs small, indie films?
[quote name='UncleBob']If "everyone" pirates something, it will decrease the demand for a legitimate source for the product. Now, we can argue as to how much it decreases the demand (I don't agree with the 1:1 ratio, for what it's worth), but it does decrease the demand. Therefore, the simple fact of having a "free" source for the movie *can* decrease a studio's willingness to put the title back into print.
Let's say a movie studio crunches the numbers... they need to sell 75 copies of MovieX to make a profit. Let's say there's 100 people who want to see it. 25 of those people aren't willing to pay for it, no matter what. 25 of those people are against piracy and are waiting for a legitimate source for the movie. 50 of those people are willing buy the movie, but if there's a free source available, they'd consider that instead. So with the free source, there's not enough demand to make it worth while for the studio to reproduce. Remove that, and you've got enough buyers.
For big time movies, like, Iron Man 2... yeah, there's enough buyers out there, regardless. But for small flicks trying to make a buck to fund their next venture? Good luck. But that's okay. As long as we have big-budget monsters like "Eddie Murphy Farting in a Fat Suit", who needs small, indie films?[/QUOTE]
That's horseshit.
If they don't think they have enough customers to do another pressing themselves, they could always license it out to another company willing to take the risk (look up Boy Meets World with Disney and Lionsgate). Trying to use piracy as the big boogeyman is a good way to make no money instead of some or to try and excuse their incompetence.
But that isn't a small flick trying to fund their next venture. It's a cult slasher film from almost 20 years ago.
Also the fact the price on used titles are up to the normal retail price kind of proves there is a demand for it.
Let's say a movie studio crunches the numbers... they need to sell 75 copies of MovieX to make a profit. Let's say there's 100 people who want to see it. 25 of those people aren't willing to pay for it, no matter what. 25 of those people are against piracy and are waiting for a legitimate source for the movie. 50 of those people are willing buy the movie, but if there's a free source available, they'd consider that instead. So with the free source, there's not enough demand to make it worth while for the studio to reproduce. Remove that, and you've got enough buyers.
For big time movies, like, Iron Man 2... yeah, there's enough buyers out there, regardless. But for small flicks trying to make a buck to fund their next venture? Good luck. But that's okay. As long as we have big-budget monsters like "Eddie Murphy Farting in a Fat Suit", who needs small, indie films?[/QUOTE]
That's horseshit.
If they don't think they have enough customers to do another pressing themselves, they could always license it out to another company willing to take the risk (look up Boy Meets World with Disney and Lionsgate). Trying to use piracy as the big boogeyman is a good way to make no money instead of some or to try and excuse their incompetence.
But that isn't a small flick trying to fund their next venture. It's a cult slasher film from almost 20 years ago.
Also the fact the price on used titles are up to the normal retail price kind of proves there is a demand for it.
Yup - it's a cult slasher film from 20 years ago. I wonder if there's any small-time companies that look for movies like this, and gauge the interest in re-releasing them to DVD.
And high prices on a low supply doesn't guarantee substitutable market prices on a high supply.
And high prices on a low supply doesn't guarantee substitutable market prices on a high supply.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, DRM blows 100%. Treats legitimate consumers like criminals and has absolutely no effect on the serious pirates who are the real threat as they're the tech savvy type that can easily strip DRM and keep on uploading etc.[/QUOTE]
These companies have their priorities all wrong. As somebody with excellent knowledge of the pirate scene, I believe that there won't be much of a boost in sales even if piracy was somehow to be stamped out. Let's say a liquor store is giving away a free bottle of wine to anyone who asks for it as a promotion. If they give away 1000 in a week, I'm sure you'd think it would be silly for them to say "since the demand of this wine is 1000 per week, we stand to make $10,000 in income per week if we charge $10 for it." Yet you often hear things like "did you know Company X lost $100 million in revenues last year due to piracy because their games were downloaded 20 thousand times?
The fact is that DRM can be costly:
- Game publishers and developers are paying a lot of money to develop/use DRM in their games.
- Potential customers may be turned off by some forms of DRM (Starforce and the new Ubisoft DRM comes to mind) and just not purchase the game in question.
- In some cases servers will have to be set up for their DRM (e.g. Ubisoft).
- Customers may be unsatisfied with their product because of some kind of limitation imposed by the DRM and therefore will be less likely to buy future games from the company.
- DRM goes wrong and a company may have to reimburse its customers (again, Ubisoft).
DRM is supposed to reduce piracy by making a piece of software difficult to reproduce. Instead games are often cracked on the day of release - sometimes even days before. Like Clak said, different pirate groups actually race to see who can release a crack first. Anyone with knowledge of the internet nowadays know at least one way of downloading movies/music/software for free, meaning a crack can easily be found.
Companies are targeting the wrong people. As soon as a game is cracked (and it will be cracked), DRM starts to only punish legitimate buyers, leaving pirates to enjoy their restriction-free game. Does DRM accomplish anything at all except irritate customers? Why do companies insist on using DRM? Either don't use it at all (Stardock, GoG), or provide some incentives for people to buy from you (Steam). Can somebody enlighten me as to why companies such as Ubisoft are investing so much into such a ridiculously flawed system?
These companies have their priorities all wrong. As somebody with excellent knowledge of the pirate scene, I believe that there won't be much of a boost in sales even if piracy was somehow to be stamped out. Let's say a liquor store is giving away a free bottle of wine to anyone who asks for it as a promotion. If they give away 1000 in a week, I'm sure you'd think it would be silly for them to say "since the demand of this wine is 1000 per week, we stand to make $10,000 in income per week if we charge $10 for it." Yet you often hear things like "did you know Company X lost $100 million in revenues last year due to piracy because their games were downloaded 20 thousand times?
The fact is that DRM can be costly:
- Game publishers and developers are paying a lot of money to develop/use DRM in their games.
- Potential customers may be turned off by some forms of DRM (Starforce and the new Ubisoft DRM comes to mind) and just not purchase the game in question.
- In some cases servers will have to be set up for their DRM (e.g. Ubisoft).
- Customers may be unsatisfied with their product because of some kind of limitation imposed by the DRM and therefore will be less likely to buy future games from the company.
- DRM goes wrong and a company may have to reimburse its customers (again, Ubisoft).
DRM is supposed to reduce piracy by making a piece of software difficult to reproduce. Instead games are often cracked on the day of release - sometimes even days before. Like Clak said, different pirate groups actually race to see who can release a crack first. Anyone with knowledge of the internet nowadays know at least one way of downloading movies/music/software for free, meaning a crack can easily be found.
Companies are targeting the wrong people. As soon as a game is cracked (and it will be cracked), DRM starts to only punish legitimate buyers, leaving pirates to enjoy their restriction-free game. Does DRM accomplish anything at all except irritate customers? Why do companies insist on using DRM? Either don't use it at all (Stardock, GoG), or provide some incentives for people to buy from you (Steam). Can somebody enlighten me as to why companies such as Ubisoft are investing so much into such a ridiculously flawed system?
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup - it's a cult slasher film from 20 years ago. I wonder if there's any small-time companies that look for movies like this, and gauge the interest in re-releasing them to DVD.
And high prices on a low supply doesn't guarantee substitutable market prices on a high supply.[/QUOTE]
There are a ton of small studios that deal in low budget horror flicks. I imagine a big name title like that would be a godsent for them.
And why do they have to do a high supply? They could always do what Arrow Video is doing in the UK with Battle Royale. A super, special edition limited to 3,000 (with certificate) for the fans. If demand is really high, they could always do a cheaper run in the future.
But you know what makes them no money? Letting it go OOP when they still have the rights.
And high prices on a low supply doesn't guarantee substitutable market prices on a high supply.[/QUOTE]
There are a ton of small studios that deal in low budget horror flicks. I imagine a big name title like that would be a godsent for them.
And why do they have to do a high supply? They could always do what Arrow Video is doing in the UK with Battle Royale. A super, special edition limited to 3,000 (with certificate) for the fans. If demand is really high, they could always do a cheaper run in the future.
But you know what makes them no money? Letting it go OOP when they still have the rights.
You know what loses them money? To press a bunch of copies and ship them to retailers, only to have them not sell, then have to do returns and markdowns. Then, there's the time invested in releasing a 20 year old movie (because, if they just threw it on a disc and called it a day, everyone would throw a fit that there were no special features, no remastering, crappy menus, etc., etc.) vs. having that crew work on a current movie that they have already judged to have a higher demand for.
It's all about the demand. This is what the studio uses to judge the feasibility of re-releasing an old title. Now, like I said, the amount of which piracy effects demand can be debated, but I'm sure that you're reasonable enough to believe that piracy does have *some* effect on legal purchases (i.e.: demand).
It's all about the demand. This is what the studio uses to judge the feasibility of re-releasing an old title. Now, like I said, the amount of which piracy effects demand can be debated, but I'm sure that you're reasonable enough to believe that piracy does have *some* effect on legal purchases (i.e.: demand).
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']You know what loses them money? To press a bunch of copies and ship them to retailers, only to have them not sell, then have to do returns and markdowns. Then, there's the time invested in releasing a 20 year old movie (because, if they just threw it on a disc and called it a day, everyone would throw a fit that there were no special features, no remastering, crappy menus, etc., etc.) vs. having that crew work on a current movie that they have already judged to have a higher demand for.
It's all about the demand. This is what the studio uses to judge the feasibility of re-releasing an old title. Now, like I said, the amount of which piracy effects demand can be debated, but I'm sure that you're reasonable enough to believe that piracy does have *some* effect on legal purchases (i.e.: demand).[/QUOTE]
What experience do you have with marketing and sales?
It's all about the demand. This is what the studio uses to judge the feasibility of re-releasing an old title. Now, like I said, the amount of which piracy effects demand can be debated, but I'm sure that you're reasonable enough to believe that piracy does have *some* effect on legal purchases (i.e.: demand).[/QUOTE]
What experience do you have with marketing and sales?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dark2025']Companies are targeting the wrong people. As soon as a game is cracked (and it will be cracked), DRM starts to only punish legitimate buyers, leaving pirates to enjoy their restriction-free game. Does DRM accomplish anything at all except irritate customers? Why do companies insist on using DRM? Either don't use it at all (Stardock, GoG), or provide some incentives for people to buy from you (Steam). Can somebody enlighten me as to why companies such as Ubisoft are investing so much into such a ridiculously flawed system?[/QUOTE]
Speculation only, but perhaps Ubi feels like they're targeting the right people. Pirates are criminals, simply put. Any argument that suggests they be ignored is going to be quickly disregarded by companies who want to protect their investment.
Now, I'm not arguing that their DRM was a bit of a 'fiasco' (in quotes only b/c it's hard to tell how many people are legit hurt by DRM based on little more than internet complaints, wherein the internet is always the minority of any population of vocal, always offended, persons) w/r/t Assassin's Creed II.
One option you leave out of your list of potential options is to pursue and prosecute pirates. Why is that? If you break the law, and you get caught, you have to face a punishment. And it's not commensurate with the value of the item you take. So while civil suits from record labels for tens of thousands of dollars against Gramma is unfortunate, isn't it a more sensible option to send pirates to criminal court where they can face fines of up to $1,000 and/or 30 days in jail? (ignoring overcrowding and costs issues). Can't we think of alternate sanctions to essentially 'sticking up' publishers to be nicer to legit buyers (a fine argument, but one that circumvents the point that implicit with it is the idea that we ignore criminal activity when it happens)?
Speculation only, but perhaps Ubi feels like they're targeting the right people. Pirates are criminals, simply put. Any argument that suggests they be ignored is going to be quickly disregarded by companies who want to protect their investment.
Now, I'm not arguing that their DRM was a bit of a 'fiasco' (in quotes only b/c it's hard to tell how many people are legit hurt by DRM based on little more than internet complaints, wherein the internet is always the minority of any population of vocal, always offended, persons) w/r/t Assassin's Creed II.
One option you leave out of your list of potential options is to pursue and prosecute pirates. Why is that? If you break the law, and you get caught, you have to face a punishment. And it's not commensurate with the value of the item you take. So while civil suits from record labels for tens of thousands of dollars against Gramma is unfortunate, isn't it a more sensible option to send pirates to criminal court where they can face fines of up to $1,000 and/or 30 days in jail? (ignoring overcrowding and costs issues). Can't we think of alternate sanctions to essentially 'sticking up' publishers to be nicer to legit buyers (a fine argument, but one that circumvents the point that implicit with it is the idea that we ignore criminal activity when it happens)?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I think Ubisoft is mostly alone in a dying cabal of big DRM proponents. DRM is a 'punishing' tool to fight piracy.
As much as I hate to say it, I think EA is on the right track. Making important aspects of the game only 'free' if you buy the game seems to be working (though I have no hard numbers).
The other downside to all this is that the fight against piracy will also inevitably destroy the used media market.
The big question I don't think the industry has yet fully answered is - when you pay for a cd/game/movie, did you buy the rights for only YOU to use it? Or do the rights to use it emanate from the physical object they are on?
As much as I hate to say it, I think EA is on the right track. Making important aspects of the game only 'free' if you buy the game seems to be working (though I have no hard numbers).
The other downside to all this is that the fight against piracy will also inevitably destroy the used media market.
The big question I don't think the industry has yet fully answered is - when you pay for a cd/game/movie, did you buy the rights for only YOU to use it? Or do the rights to use it emanate from the physical object they are on?
[quote name='mykevermin']Speculation only, but perhaps Ubi feels like they're targeting the right people. Pirates are criminals, simply put. Any argument that suggests they be ignored is going to be quickly disregarded by companies who want to protect their investment.
Now, I'm not arguing that their DRM was a bit of a 'fiasco' (in quotes only b/c it's hard to tell how many people are legit hurt by DRM based on little more than internet complaints, wherein the internet is always the minority of any population of vocal, always offended, persons) w/r/t Assassin's Creed II.
[/quote]
Agree. But the problem is DRM isn't much of a hassle for pirates, yet limits how legitimate owners of things can use content they buy.
i..e There's no reason it should be illegal to rip a DVD to put on your laptop, iPad etc. It should be the same as ripping CDs to MP3s which is legal, but it's not as DVDs have DRM and it's been made illegal to crack the DRM.
Or e-books, one should be able to read those on any device they choose. But each company has there own DRM scheme so most books are tied to one companies devices and apps. Similarly e-books thus can't be lent to friends or sold or donated etc. after finishing them like a paper book can--despite costing the same as the paperback most of the time.
That's where DRM hurts legitimate users--it's a major affront to fair use laws.
And while they may be trying to target the right people--pirates--the method is ineffective as internet pirates are by default tech savvy and parts of communities with broader knowledge of how to break DRM etc. than the average joe.
Agree 100%. That's exactly what needs to happen. And it should be especially focused on uploaders and those hosting pirate sites.
It doesn't affect legitimate owners of content like DRM does. It would send a stronger message about the wrongness of piracy than very seldomly applied civil suits. And it can lead to shutting down problem sites etc.--at least those hosted in the US.
Now, I'm not arguing that their DRM was a bit of a 'fiasco' (in quotes only b/c it's hard to tell how many people are legit hurt by DRM based on little more than internet complaints, wherein the internet is always the minority of any population of vocal, always offended, persons) w/r/t Assassin's Creed II.
[/quote]
Agree. But the problem is DRM isn't much of a hassle for pirates, yet limits how legitimate owners of things can use content they buy.
i..e There's no reason it should be illegal to rip a DVD to put on your laptop, iPad etc. It should be the same as ripping CDs to MP3s which is legal, but it's not as DVDs have DRM and it's been made illegal to crack the DRM.
Or e-books, one should be able to read those on any device they choose. But each company has there own DRM scheme so most books are tied to one companies devices and apps. Similarly e-books thus can't be lent to friends or sold or donated etc. after finishing them like a paper book can--despite costing the same as the paperback most of the time.
That's where DRM hurts legitimate users--it's a major affront to fair use laws.
And while they may be trying to target the right people--pirates--the method is ineffective as internet pirates are by default tech savvy and parts of communities with broader knowledge of how to break DRM etc. than the average joe.
Agree 100%. That's exactly what needs to happen. And it should be especially focused on uploaders and those hosting pirate sites.
It doesn't affect legitimate owners of content like DRM does. It would send a stronger message about the wrongness of piracy than very seldomly applied civil suits. And it can lead to shutting down problem sites etc.--at least those hosted in the US.
51jack
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think Ubisoft is mostly alone in a dying cabal of big DRM proponents. DRM is a 'punishing' tool to fight piracy.
As much as I hate to say it, I think EA is on the right track. Making important aspects of the game only 'free' if you buy the game seems to be working (though I have no hard numbers).
The other downside to all this is that the fight against piracy will also inevitably destroy the used media market.
The big question I don't think the industry has yet fully answered is - when you pay for a cd/game/movie, did you buy the rights for only YOU to use it? Or do the rights to use it emanate from the physical object they are on?[/QUOTE]
No, what EA did was try and make you buy the game new instead of used.
As much as I hate to say it, I think EA is on the right track. Making important aspects of the game only 'free' if you buy the game seems to be working (though I have no hard numbers).
The other downside to all this is that the fight against piracy will also inevitably destroy the used media market.
The big question I don't think the industry has yet fully answered is - when you pay for a cd/game/movie, did you buy the rights for only YOU to use it? Or do the rights to use it emanate from the physical object they are on?[/QUOTE]
No, what EA did was try and make you buy the game new instead of used.
I have no problem with games that included DLC codes to encourage buying new. Very smart way to encourage people to buy new.
But yeah, that's to fight the used market, not piracy. Pirated console games are never going to come with DLC obviously--even game of the year editions tend to come with download codes for the DLC these days. So that type of thing has no impact on decision to pirate really. They're not going to pay $50-60 to get $10-15 DLC for free. They'll pirate and pay the $10-15 for DLC if they want it--most likely they'll just do without being uber cheapasses.
But yeah, that's to fight the used market, not piracy. Pirated console games are never going to come with DLC obviously--even game of the year editions tend to come with download codes for the DLC these days. So that type of thing has no impact on decision to pirate really. They're not going to pay $50-60 to get $10-15 DLC for free. They'll pirate and pay the $10-15 for DLC if they want it--most likely they'll just do without being uber cheapasses.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agree. But the problem is DRM isn't much of a hassle for pirates, yet limits how legitimate owners of things can use content they buy.
i..e There's no reason it should be illegal to rip a DVD to put on your laptop, iPad etc. It should be the same as ripping CDs to MP3s which is legal, but it's not as DVDs have DRM and it's been made illegal to crack the DRM.
Or e-books, one should be able to read those on any device they choose. But each company has there own DRM scheme so most books are tied to one companies devices and apps. Similarly e-books thus can't be lent to friends or sold or donated etc. after finishing them like a paper book can--despite costing the same as the paperback most of the time.
That's where DRM hurts legitimate users--it's a major affront to fair use laws.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I refuse to participate in most digitally distributed affairs of purchasing. Why should I have to buy a separate and different digital copy of the same movie to play on various devices/services? And why should it only be available to download for a certain period of time?
It is lame.
[quote name='51jack']No, what EA did was try and make you buy the game new instead of used.[/QUOTE]
It was for both.
i..e There's no reason it should be illegal to rip a DVD to put on your laptop, iPad etc. It should be the same as ripping CDs to MP3s which is legal, but it's not as DVDs have DRM and it's been made illegal to crack the DRM.
Or e-books, one should be able to read those on any device they choose. But each company has there own DRM scheme so most books are tied to one companies devices and apps. Similarly e-books thus can't be lent to friends or sold or donated etc. after finishing them like a paper book can--despite costing the same as the paperback most of the time.
That's where DRM hurts legitimate users--it's a major affront to fair use laws.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I refuse to participate in most digitally distributed affairs of purchasing. Why should I have to buy a separate and different digital copy of the same movie to play on various devices/services? And why should it only be available to download for a certain period of time?
It is lame.
[quote name='51jack']No, what EA did was try and make you buy the game new instead of used.[/QUOTE]
It was for both.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']i..e There's no reason it should be illegal to rip a DVD to put on your laptop, iPad etc. It should be the same as ripping CDs to MP3s which is legal, but it's not as DVDs have DRM and it's been made illegal to crack the DRM.[/quote]
Devil's advocate: the market has responded somewhat. As I said before, I don't buy movies as often anymore thanks to Netflix, but when I see them on sale, they appear to be (more often than not) Blu-Ray/DVD/digital download combo packs for the same price as a Blu-Ray would be otherwise. So that keeps the DRM in place, but allows for use on multiple formats. How does that suit you?
I know little about e-books, but is it possible there's more of a 'format war' between the numerous devices out there than it is a matter of DRM? I don't own an e-reader, but I do use the Kindle for Mac app to download books (man, the selection of free classic literature on Amazon alone is drool-inducing, and brilliant marketing for their format). Are you certain that these books are the same format/data if they're sold for Kindle vs nook vs iPad Book Store vs the other devices? Or is this more Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD than a DRM matter?
Yep, the ineffectiveness of target hardening on protecting internet stuffs is fascinating and underresearched. One of these days...
While I took issue with the use of 'lazy' the other day, I would like to emphasize your use of 'wrongness' here. That's a big underlying theme of the issue - it's not considered wrong by many people - many who would otherwise not be committing crimes on the street (i.e., people who recognize 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of most forms of criminal behavior, but fail to do so w/r/t piracy). We see as much when people discuss whether or not it constitutes larceny. Wrongness is an important point we shouldn't overlook.
Devil's advocate: the market has responded somewhat. As I said before, I don't buy movies as often anymore thanks to Netflix, but when I see them on sale, they appear to be (more often than not) Blu-Ray/DVD/digital download combo packs for the same price as a Blu-Ray would be otherwise. So that keeps the DRM in place, but allows for use on multiple formats. How does that suit you?
I know little about e-books, but is it possible there's more of a 'format war' between the numerous devices out there than it is a matter of DRM? I don't own an e-reader, but I do use the Kindle for Mac app to download books (man, the selection of free classic literature on Amazon alone is drool-inducing, and brilliant marketing for their format). Are you certain that these books are the same format/data if they're sold for Kindle vs nook vs iPad Book Store vs the other devices? Or is this more Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD than a DRM matter?
Yep, the ineffectiveness of target hardening on protecting internet stuffs is fascinating and underresearched. One of these days...
While I took issue with the use of 'lazy' the other day, I would like to emphasize your use of 'wrongness' here. That's a big underlying theme of the issue - it's not considered wrong by many people - many who would otherwise not be committing crimes on the street (i.e., people who recognize 'right' and 'wrong' in terms of most forms of criminal behavior, but fail to do so w/r/t piracy). We see as much when people discuss whether or not it constitutes larceny. Wrongness is an important point we shouldn't overlook.
[quote name='mykevermin']Devil's advocate: the market has responded somewhat. As I said before, I don't buy movies as often anymore thanks to Netflix, but when I see them on sale, they appear to be (more often than not) Blu-Ray/DVD/digital download combo packs for the same price as a Blu-Ray would be otherwise. So that keeps the DRM in place, but allows for use on multiple formats. How does that suit you?
[/quote]
The digital copies for movies are ok. But not all come with them, and the copies themselves are riddle with DRM, expire if not redeemed (so buy the movie a couple years down the road and you're out of luck etc.).
There's just no reason that if I buy a movie I shouldn't be able to make a digital copy of it and put it on every computer, iPad etc. that I own. Just like I do with CDs--mp3s get ripped on put on my mp3 players, my home desktop, my laptop, my office desktop etc.
As long as I'm not giving copies to other people, I should be able to have as many as I want and no restrictions on them for personal use.
You're right that it's both. It's a format war, as well as Amazon, Sony, B&N etc. wanting to lock users into their stores. But DRM still causes the issues with not being able to resell, give e-books as gifts etc. etc. If I want to share books with my Girlfriend (who has my old Kindle 1, as well as an iPad with Kindle app) we have to share one account etc. It's a pain.
They also limiting the number of devices/apps you can put an e-book on. With Kindle, that's up to the publishers. There's Kindle apps on multiple platforms (as you know since you use the MAC app), but publishers limit how many different devices you can download the book too. Typically it's not a big deal since it's usually 5 or 6. But I've seen a few limited to 1 or 2 devices which sucks if you want to read on your kindle, office PC and iPhone etc. depending on where you're at.
It's because the targets aren't really hardened. Pirates are parts of communities knowledgedable on things like stripping DRM. It's not much target hardening for that population when stripping DRM is as simple as downloading free software and running it to remove the DRM.
It stops the normal people who buy it from being able to make copies, but not the people who are making and distributing copies online. Just a poorly designed effort.
Absolutely. And that's why piracy is so rampant. Many people don't feel it's wrong. And that's what has to be changed. Criminalizing it as you and I have suggested throughout the thread is probably the best way to do that.
[/quote]
The digital copies for movies are ok. But not all come with them, and the copies themselves are riddle with DRM, expire if not redeemed (so buy the movie a couple years down the road and you're out of luck etc.).
There's just no reason that if I buy a movie I shouldn't be able to make a digital copy of it and put it on every computer, iPad etc. that I own. Just like I do with CDs--mp3s get ripped on put on my mp3 players, my home desktop, my laptop, my office desktop etc.
As long as I'm not giving copies to other people, I should be able to have as many as I want and no restrictions on them for personal use.
You're right that it's both. It's a format war, as well as Amazon, Sony, B&N etc. wanting to lock users into their stores. But DRM still causes the issues with not being able to resell, give e-books as gifts etc. etc. If I want to share books with my Girlfriend (who has my old Kindle 1, as well as an iPad with Kindle app) we have to share one account etc. It's a pain.
They also limiting the number of devices/apps you can put an e-book on. With Kindle, that's up to the publishers. There's Kindle apps on multiple platforms (as you know since you use the MAC app), but publishers limit how many different devices you can download the book too. Typically it's not a big deal since it's usually 5 or 6. But I've seen a few limited to 1 or 2 devices which sucks if you want to read on your kindle, office PC and iPhone etc. depending on where you're at.
It's because the targets aren't really hardened. Pirates are parts of communities knowledgedable on things like stripping DRM. It's not much target hardening for that population when stripping DRM is as simple as downloading free software and running it to remove the DRM.
It stops the normal people who buy it from being able to make copies, but not the people who are making and distributing copies online. Just a poorly designed effort.
Absolutely. And that's why piracy is so rampant. Many people don't feel it's wrong. And that's what has to be changed. Criminalizing it as you and I have suggested throughout the thread is probably the best way to do that.
[quote name='Sporadic']There are a ton of small studios that deal in low budget horror flicks. I imagine a big name title like that would be a godsent for them.
And why do they have to do a high supply? They could always do what Arrow Video is doing in the UK with Battle Royale. A super, special edition limited to 3,000 (with certificate) for the fans. If demand is really high, they could always do a cheaper run in the future.
But you know what makes them no money? Letting it go OOP when they still have the rights.[/QUOTE]
Like the "Disney vault". Take something off the market for a while to drive up demand, then release it after demand is strong enough again. Rinse and repeat
And why do they have to do a high supply? They could always do what Arrow Video is doing in the UK with Battle Royale. A super, special edition limited to 3,000 (with certificate) for the fans. If demand is really high, they could always do a cheaper run in the future.
But you know what makes them no money? Letting it go OOP when they still have the rights.[/QUOTE]
Like the "Disney vault". Take something off the market for a while to drive up demand, then release it after demand is strong enough again. Rinse and repeat
helluvagood
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 16 (100%)
100% for piracy. TPB FTW!
[quote name='Clak']Like the "Disney vault". Take something off the market for a while to drive up demand, then release it after demand is strong enough again. Rinse and repeat[/QUOTE]
Disney is one of the few companies that can actually do that and they flood the market with copies. Shit can go back into the vault but you can easily find a copy (used or new). It's just a genius way to market old classics to new generations.
- edit Also they don't vault everything they have. There is always a handful of Disney titles out to make them money.
- edit 2 [quote name='dmaul1114']Absolutely. And that's why piracy is so rampant. Many people don't feel it's wrong. And that's what has to be changed. Criminalizing it as you and I have suggested throughout the thread is probably the best way to do that.[/QUOTE]
Hell yeah, let's fill up our prisons with even more non-violent criminals! Maybe we can get it up to 1000 prisoners per 100,000 population!!!
Disney is one of the few companies that can actually do that and they flood the market with copies. Shit can go back into the vault but you can easily find a copy (used or new). It's just a genius way to market old classics to new generations.
- edit Also they don't vault everything they have. There is always a handful of Disney titles out to make them money.
- edit 2 [quote name='dmaul1114']Absolutely. And that's why piracy is so rampant. Many people don't feel it's wrong. And that's what has to be changed. Criminalizing it as you and I have suggested throughout the thread is probably the best way to do that.[/QUOTE]
Hell yeah, let's fill up our prisons with even more non-violent criminals! Maybe we can get it up to 1000 prisoners per 100,000 population!!!
[quote name='Sporadic']
Hell yeah, let's fill up our prisons with even more non-violent criminals! Maybe we can get it up to 1000 prisoners per 100,000 population!!![/QUOTE]
Making it criminal doesn't have to mean prison sentence.
Simple fines would do the trick. Prison would only be for the bootlegers distributing a shit ton of illegal files.
And fines would be MUCH smaller than the absurd civil court penalties currently.
Severity of punishment is shown pretty consistently not to matter. What matters is certainty. Make it criminal, find some way of detecting it and punishing it with small fines as often as possible.
That will help get out the message that piracy is wrong, have more deterrent impact (more from getting a misdemeanor on your record than the fine) etc.
Gets the message across=win for media companies. Stops the ridiculous fines=improvement for the few who get caught and punished vs. the current situation.
Hell yeah, let's fill up our prisons with even more non-violent criminals! Maybe we can get it up to 1000 prisoners per 100,000 population!!![/QUOTE]
Making it criminal doesn't have to mean prison sentence.
Simple fines would do the trick. Prison would only be for the bootlegers distributing a shit ton of illegal files.
And fines would be MUCH smaller than the absurd civil court penalties currently.
Severity of punishment is shown pretty consistently not to matter. What matters is certainty. Make it criminal, find some way of detecting it and punishing it with small fines as often as possible.
That will help get out the message that piracy is wrong, have more deterrent impact (more from getting a misdemeanor on your record than the fine) etc.
Gets the message across=win for media companies. Stops the ridiculous fines=improvement for the few who get caught and punished vs. the current situation.
[quote name='Clak']Detecting it will mean getting the ISPs involved in monitoring you even more than they already do. I don't wnat them to to basically be the pawns of law enforement.[/QUOTE]
Or it could mean the FBI or other agencies that already investigate cyber crime taking on the responsibility of monitoring torrents, known pirate sites etc. which is what's more likely to happen if it were criminalized.
Or it could mean the FBI or other agencies that already investigate cyber crime taking on the responsibility of monitoring torrents, known pirate sites etc. which is what's more likely to happen if it were criminalized.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Or it could mean the FBI or other agencies that already investigate cyber crime taking on the responsibility of monitoring torrents, known pirate sites etc. which is what's more likely to happen if it were criminalized.[/QUOTE]
How? By grabbing the IP address from swarms? The second that happens, everybody will go back to newsgroups/darknet. And when that happens, it will be up to ISPs to narc on users.
How? By grabbing the IP address from swarms? The second that happens, everybody will go back to newsgroups/darknet. And when that happens, it will be up to ISPs to narc on users.
[quote name='Sporadic']How? By grabbing the IP address from swarms? The second that happens, everybody will go back to newsgroups/darknet. And when that happens, it will be up to ISPs to narc on users.[/QUOTE]
It would be just like phone fraud, credit card fraud etc.
ISPs would have to cooperate by handing over requested info to law enforcement, just like the telecom companies, banks etc.
Just saying the burden wouldn't/shouldn't be on ISPs to hire there on investigators to detect violations and report to the authorities.
The authorities should be building cases against users and asking ISPs for IP addresses and identities when they've got enough to get a warrant.
It's a big work in progress. As we move into an increasingly digital world, figuring out how to do law enforcement in cyber space is a central challenge.
It would be just like phone fraud, credit card fraud etc.
ISPs would have to cooperate by handing over requested info to law enforcement, just like the telecom companies, banks etc.
Just saying the burden wouldn't/shouldn't be on ISPs to hire there on investigators to detect violations and report to the authorities.
The authorities should be building cases against users and asking ISPs for IP addresses and identities when they've got enough to get a warrant.
It's a big work in progress. As we move into an increasingly digital world, figuring out how to do law enforcement in cyber space is a central challenge.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Absolutely. And that's why piracy is so rampant. Many people don't feel it's wrong. And that's what has to be changed. Criminalizing it as you and I have suggested throughout the thread is probably the best way to do that.[/QUOTE]
Devil's advocate: I'm not sure it is wrong. Would it be so horrible if piracy became mainstream (if it isn't already)? I still think big movie studios would make big budget movies - they are still making TONS of money right now on legitimate ticket and blu-ray/DVD sales. I still think recording artists - the good ones - will find a way to make a lot of money (concerts, memorabilia, fan club membership, etc.) in the face of piracy.
If this means that Tom Cruise can only command $1M per movie instead of $20M + back end profits then what's the problem? If this thins out the unbelievably large group of people who have access to a microphone and a computer putting out complete shit and the record companies go out of business what's the problem? Would it be so bad if it meant being a successful actor or artist meant that you earned merely an above-average living instead of making a ridiculous amount of money? I'm just generalizing but you get the idea - doesn't this stuff self-correct over time?
Devil's advocate: I'm not sure it is wrong. Would it be so horrible if piracy became mainstream (if it isn't already)? I still think big movie studios would make big budget movies - they are still making TONS of money right now on legitimate ticket and blu-ray/DVD sales. I still think recording artists - the good ones - will find a way to make a lot of money (concerts, memorabilia, fan club membership, etc.) in the face of piracy.
If this means that Tom Cruise can only command $1M per movie instead of $20M + back end profits then what's the problem? If this thins out the unbelievably large group of people who have access to a microphone and a computer putting out complete shit and the record companies go out of business what's the problem? Would it be so bad if it meant being a successful actor or artist meant that you earned merely an above-average living instead of making a ridiculous amount of money? I'm just generalizing but you get the idea - doesn't this stuff self-correct over time?
Just more BS justifications. People deserve to be compensated for their work, end of story.
People bitch about crappy products--but these wouldn't come out if people weren't buying them. And hell, even piracy just shows demand for the products.
There's no more crappy movies, music etc. out there than in the past. Just more variety than every so of course there's more crap one individual doesnt' like and can bitch about.
People bitch about crappy products--but these wouldn't come out if people weren't buying them. And hell, even piracy just shows demand for the products.
There's no more crappy movies, music etc. out there than in the past. Just more variety than every so of course there's more crap one individual doesnt' like and can bitch about.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Just more BS justifications. People deserve to be compensated for their work, end of story.[/QUOTE]
They do...but have you ever thought that they shouldn't be able to live all of their life off of one work? That the music or book or movie could be the promotional tool to get people out to concerts or book readings or meet-and-greet or theater or to buy the special edition copy or other merchandise that can't be easily replicated like t-shirts, toys, posters, etc?
[quote name='dmaul1114']And hell, even piracy just shows demand for the products.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. It shows the demand for the product...if the product was completely free.
They do...but have you ever thought that they shouldn't be able to live all of their life off of one work? That the music or book or movie could be the promotional tool to get people out to concerts or book readings or meet-and-greet or theater or to buy the special edition copy or other merchandise that can't be easily replicated like t-shirts, toys, posters, etc?
[quote name='dmaul1114']And hell, even piracy just shows demand for the products.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. It shows the demand for the product...if the product was completely free.
bread's done