PDA

View Full Version : internet piracy



gurgle
14th March 2006, 11:53 AM
was having an interesting conversation with my girlfriend the other day

we were wondering how long piracy on the net will be so accessable, acceptable (generally) and mainstream?

in ten/twenty/fifty years time will we still be .torrenting and p2ping the latest blockbuster/episode/album?
will sites like rapidshare and youtube still be offereing us free and easy downloads of questionable content?
will we be telling our grandkids about the 'good old days' before DRM, 'fair use', region coding, copy control and whatever else they end up bringing out?

i rekon that surely it cant go on as it is.. i dunno how but somehow the powers that be will shut piracy down.. i simply cant see it going on for some time without some kind of serious injunction that drastically reduces piracy..

or are people gonna simply turn away from piracy as legal downloads become more accessable? i say maybe but i cant imagine this getting rid of piracy altogether

decryption
14th March 2006, 11:54 AM
Software and content piracy has been happening for a long time before the internet was around :P

DRM can be removed, protection can be cracked and protected content can just be avoided.

matrixgeek
14th March 2006, 11:55 AM
Or maybe the system will go the other way, and digital content will all become free?

grorr76
14th March 2006, 11:57 AM
see people who illigally download only hurt the masses as music for instance there incorparating these anti piracy techniques that just are so gay. But what can we expect, when people think they can get everything for free. I say attitudes have sliped, just cause you can doesnt mean you should. Its like the old argument if yr friend jusps of a hill cause he can, should u..??

On-Site-Tec
14th March 2006, 11:58 AM
Anything can be gotten around in one way or another. With all sorts of shady methods. Except the more protection methods there are. The more annoying it will be for the general consumer and even more annoying if someone wants to get around it.

marc
14th March 2006, 12:11 PM
The solution is to remove some (if not all of the DRM), and make the content cheap enough and the delivery method so good that doing the right thing is easy. iTMS has gone a long way to achieving this, but isn't there yet.

I can't see it happening soon though in this era of Rootkit and HDCP. The multinational content owners are still trying to maintain complete control in an environment where it's not possible.

Interesting times.

964RSCS
14th March 2006, 12:18 PM
I'm currently in the process of developing an eBook to sell on the net...

I've gone to a lot of trouble and expense to find a system which allows for my product not to be distributed illegally, and gives me full control over who uses it etc. I'm confident that this product will be successful in stopping my product being used illegally. I have the ability to cancel the use of any copy of the book remotely - every couple of times, or more if I like, the book has to 'register' online, where a user enters a password. I can therefore disable any book at any time if needed. I can also disable copy and print commands from the start. Only problem is, the software won't run on OSX :(

With increased piracy, technology is also going to improve to try and combat it.

For those who are happy to pirate products from the net, just ask yourself if you would be happy for anyone to come along and steal a product of yours which you had spent great time, effort and money to develop. Or even just to steal something, anything of yours... I would think you wouldn't. So one day when you want to sell something, and the whole world thinks piracy is ok, ask yourself what you've done to either encourage/promote piracy, or otherwise.

My product is for a fairly specific niche market, so I don't think it will be of any real benfit for any one to try and copy it etc, but I'm making dam sure I do everything I can to avoid that ever happening.

No doubt some here will be thinking I'm over-reacting etc, that's fine, just don't try and copy my book! :P

End of rant :)

Quamen
14th March 2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by 964RSCS@Mar 14 2006, 12:18 PM
I have the ability to cancel the use of any copy of the book remotely - every couple of times, or more if I like, the book has to 'register' online, where a user enters a password. I can therefore disable any book at any time if needed. I can also disable copy and print commands from the start.
And it's DRM like that which forces honest people to pirate.

If I had that eBook on my laptop and opened it on the train with no net connection and it was time to type in a password in order to open it I WOULD BE FUMING!

If printing was disabled I would also be mad. Sometimes reading things on paper is much nicer than reading on screen. Especially for technical documents and tutorials.

tintinaujapon
14th March 2006, 01:02 PM
There's a dividing line here between small producers to whom every tangible cent counts more than exposure, and large-scale producers to whom exposure is worth more than immediately tangible income.

Battlestar Galactica and the new Dr Who have 'suffered' enormous piracy. SkyOne showed episodes in the UK 3 months before its co-producer the Sci-Fi channel showed them in the US. Dr Who was shown in the UK half a year before it began showing in Australia and elsewhere. Hundreds of thousands of copies of each show were being downloaded hours after the end of each initial broadcast, from all over the world.

And yet the two of the most successful TV series broadcast in just about every country they're released are Battlestar Galactica & Dr Who. The producers of the former openly acknowledge the boost that fans, ie. people who love the show and support it, gave through filesharing - and have made several key episodes available for direct DRM free download.

Anyone who's interested in this, please read the linked article and see the vid of its presentation I posted here:

http://forums.appletalk.com.au/index.php?s...opic=17576&hl=# (http://forums.appletalk.com.au/index.php?showtopic=17576&hl=#)

This isn't a simple issue. Remember that the movie companies once fought against the idea of VHS.

marc
14th March 2006, 01:03 PM
I agree with Quamen. I've had plenty of songs I've written downloaded. Meh. It happens. I'd prefer that to a really restrictive DRM scheme.

Mark T
14th March 2006, 01:04 PM
Sometimes, I ask myself, "Why is it that movie stars and rock stars seem to be so over-compensated for what they do?" Could it be a result of over-zealous copyright protection?

I foresee a future when copyright protection as we see it today no longer exists. Music, movies, books etc will be produced for free and solely for the benefit of mankind. Perhaps then it will be a rarity to hear of the demise of movie stars and rock stars due to the abuse of lifestyle over-indulgences.

the_OM
14th March 2006, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Mark T@Mar 14 2006, 01:04 PM
Sometimes, I ask myself, "Why is it that movie stars and rock stars seem to be so over-compensated for what they do?" Could it be a result of over-zealous copyright protection?

I foresee a future when copyright protection as we see it today no longer exists. Music, movies, books etc will be produced for free and solely for the benefit of mankind. Perhaps then it will be a rarity to hear of the demise of movie stars and rock stars due to the abuse of lifestyle over-indulgences.
I think Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had the same ideals for industry in the 1800's and look where that got them.

Exocet
14th March 2006, 01:14 PM
Furthermore, people are turning to proprietary players of content. I don't want to have thirteen different players to listen to thirteen different songs - I want to be able to import songs into my personal choice of (mainstream) media player and have the DRM keys and values brought with it.

Building on what Quamen said, things which require always-on internet access are doomed for failure. Secondly if anybody wrote a book which could be remotely and spontaneously combusted, who's going to buy it? Regardless of whether my content is digital or hard-copy, the fact remains that I have bought that item and it is mine to do with it as I wish - who are you to tell me that I can't make a hard-copy of it? What happens when my computer fails? Well looks like I'm out of luck and I have to buy it again.

The line needs to be clearly drawn where DRM impacts on the rights of consumers in purchasing a product. The entire concept of licensing is something which should stay in the business world, personal purchases just don't fall under such a scope. No matter how free your DRM system is, there's still going to be somebody out there who wants to use your product in a way which exceeds that scope and you will never be able to budget for that person.

In short, thoroughly restrictive DRM is more harmful to a copyright owner than it is productive. If you're so worried about the problems that may arise then perhaps an eBook isn't for you - set about getting your book physically published, because then you will never have to worry about it being digitised.

plunkotica
14th March 2006, 01:16 PM
there will always be piracy, someone doesnt want to pay for something, and its easier to go to a torrent site etc than to go to the bother of finding your credit card, entering the number, name, giving another person your private details etc etc..

SRG
14th March 2006, 01:17 PM
yes just trying to think who will be funding all these free arts?

I agree however DRM has to strike a balance. For example I use Zinio Reader and can live with the DRM. However it would be no use if I had to be connected to the Internet to use it.

Interesting moves in France (Age Article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/breaking/france-wants-itunes-to-open-up/2006/03/14/1142098434659.html) where a law is about to be passed to force Itunes (and of course others) to sell music that can be played on any player and not just be tied to say an Ipod.

If they don't the law will remove the offence for writing or using any software that unlocks the content for use on other platforms.

natakim
14th March 2006, 01:17 PM
' I think Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had the same ideals for industry in the 1800's and look where that got them'

whilst the hegelian inspired metaphysical underpinning of much of their work may have lost some of its currency (the end of history etc), historical materialism is far from a discredited theory. what they didn't appreciate fully is the seductive charm of capitalism's trinkets. why would i care about who owns the means of production and class oppression if i can get a plasma screen with which to watch my fav hollywood flick. religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, entertainment works much better!!

plunkotica
14th March 2006, 01:19 PM
i kind of thing it could be cool to have half the music industry fall apart. then you would be left with the people who perform music for the love of performing, no more britney spears, jessica simpson or RnB artists making 20 million an album.. ahh *ponders in wonder of what could be*

marc
14th March 2006, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Mark T@Mar 14 2006, 01:04 PM
Sometimes, I ask myself, "Why is it that movie stars and rock stars seem to be so over-compensated for what they do?" Could it be a result of over-zealous copyright protection?

I foresee a future when copyright protection as we see it today no longer exists. Music, movies, books etc will be produced for free and solely for the benefit of mankind. Perhaps then it will be a rarity to hear of the demise of movie stars and rock stars due to the abuse of lifestyle over-indulgences.
I know A LOT of artists. Some of them have had quite a few records in the top 10 singles charts and I can tell you that most of them struggle financially. I strongly oppose restrictive DRM, but I'm also completely against the BS idea that music/film/content should be free. Someone spent a lot of time creating it for your enjoyment. It's their JOB, they should be paid.

964RSCS
14th March 2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Quamen@Mar 14 2006, 12:54 PM
And it's DRM like that which forces honest people to pirate.

If I had that eBook on my laptop and opened it on the train with no net connection and it was time to type in a password in order to open it I WOULD BE FUMING!

If printing was disabled I would also be mad. Sometimes reading things on paper is much nicer than reading on screen. Especially for technical documents and tutorials.
Well in my instance, I don't intend for it to be have to logged on EVERY TIME, but ceratinly the first time, and maybe every so often there after.

As for printing, I intend to have it printable, because as I agree, plenty of people do prefer to read something in hard copy, myself included.

Nothing however 'forces' people to pirate. It's a vicious cycle though. Passwords etc are used to try and avoid pirating, because so many people believe they have to, or even have the right to pirate someone elses work. If people didn't pirate, there would be no need for me to go to the trouble I have to to try and protect my product.

natakim
14th March 2006, 01:33 PM
' It's their JOB, they should be paid'

yes they should, but isn't the question also how much should they be paid.

The Fluffy Duck
14th March 2006, 01:34 PM
Thing is its piracy vs quality.

Most programs you "aquire" have been hacked or cracked and it makes them buggy and unstable.

MP3'z are sometimes currupt and skip or poor quality.

Video's are just a camcorder in a cinema with peoples heads bobing up and down with an evil EVIL compression codec which is so blocky its near worthless.

I dont think anybody is under REAL threat from piracy as the quality of the pirated product is not as good as the real thing. Some people can live with poor quality pirated products and others cant.

The music industy isnt as bad as they try to make out. Most people still buy CD's. Only computer savy people will have digital music and even MORE computer savy people will p2p it.

Alot of people like the limited edition "greatest hits" cd with a little 10page booklet. Me personally I can live search for the mp3 that doesnt jump.


EDIT: Maya unlimited is $15,000, how the hell is any student going to grab hold of that to learn all the features? Or Im sorry you have a free learning edition with hardly any features and poly count restrictions. Its things like this that make piracy necessary

marc
14th March 2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by 964RSCS@Mar 14 2006, 01:30 PM
Nothing however 'forces' people to pirate.
True, but any scheme that makes it difficult to do the right thing and treats the end user with distrust is starting at a massive disadvantage to an illegally downloaded MP3 version.

marc
14th March 2006, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by The Fluffy Duck@Mar 14 2006, 01:34 PM
Most programs you "aquire" have been hacked or cracked and it makes them buggy and unstable.

MP3'z are sometimes currupt and skip or poor quality.

Video's are just a camcorder in a cinema with peoples heads bobing up and down with an evil EVIL compression codec which is so blocky its near worthless.
I think you're wrong on all three counts.

There's people downloading the full release 9gb DVD versions, and there are people with pressing plants creating perfect dupes.

I agree that legitimate sources are usually more convenient and guarantee quality, but your claims seem a little out of whack with reality.

Originally posted by natakim@Mar 14 2006, 01:33 PM
' It's their JOB, they should be paid'

yes they should, but isn't the question also how much should they be paid.
Yes and no. It's not really up to the consumer to decide. Also, I'm telling you flat out that MOST music artists don't make as much money as anyone in a respectable job. I know this for a fact. The top artists do, and the major labels do (the indies DON'T usually), but I don't know how you fix that skew. Anarchy isn't the answer.

natakim
14th March 2006, 01:49 PM
'It's not really up to the consumer to decide'

no, unfortunately it's not. but they can decide on whether they will add to the (major labels) bloated coffers. my problem is not with the indie labels/artists, but rather with those who receive millions for a single film/album. they have the legal institutions on their side, protecting their rights, thankfully technology is on the side of the 'anarchists'.

beamso
14th March 2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by 964RSCS@Mar 14 2006, 01:18 PM
For those who are happy to pirate products from the net, just ask yourself if you would be happy for anyone to come along and steal a product of yours which you had spent great time, effort and money to develop. Or even just to steal something, anything of yours... I would think you wouldn't. So one day when you want to sell something, and the whole world thinks piracy is ok, ask yourself what you've done to either encourage/promote piracy, or otherwise.
Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.

marc
14th March 2006, 01:54 PM
I agree with all of that, but the vast majority of people that are getting hurt are the smaller labels and artists. I think $1.69 is a great price for a single song, and I'll happily pay that every time.

And don't stress about the majors. The thing they really own and run is the distribution channels. The internet has changed the game and they can't really control them easily. I just hope we don't lose the smaller artists because they can't afford to pay the rent.

964RSCS
14th March 2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by marc@Mar 14 2006, 01:36 PM
True, but any scheme that makes it difficult to do the right thing and treats the end user with distrust is starting at a massive disadvantage to an illegally downloaded MP3 version.
I don't think the idea treats the end user with distrust - it protects their investment in a product, so that they then won't find a site where they can download the same product for free, thereby having them ask themselves the question "why the hell did I just pay for this?".

I'd feel pretty ripped off if I just spent money on a product, only to find it easily available for free, legally or not. I would rather pay something, and have to type in a password every now and then, than to spend money on something which some people are using for free.

964RSCS
14th March 2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by beamso@Mar 14 2006, 01:53 PM
Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.
Copyright infringement is theft.

Besides, regardless of the terminology, it is illegal, and it is ripping someone off.

natakim
14th March 2006, 02:00 PM
marc, yes

thank the likes of the jon spenser blues explosion, selling singles by download years before major labels got on the idea. power to the small, without them innovation would never show its welcome face.

grorr76
14th March 2006, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by the_OM@Mar 14 2006, 01:08 PM
I think Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had the same ideals for industry in the 1800's and look where that got them.
dream on .. untill we are no longer an economic rationist society, protection will exist. maybe one day money wont exist either, if theres no money in it how will artists live no one will do it. Life is driven by money love it or loath it.

grorr76
14th March 2006, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by The Fluffy Duck@Mar 14 2006, 01:34 PM
Thing is its piracy vs quality.

Most programs you "aquire" have been hacked or cracked and it makes them buggy and unstable.

MP3'z are sometimes currupt and skip or poor quality.

Video's are just a camcorder in a cinema with peoples heads bobing up and down with an evil EVIL compression codec which is so blocky its near worthless.

I dont think anybody is under REAL threat from piracy as the quality of the pirated product is not as good as the real thing. Some people can live with poor quality pirated products and others cant.

The music industy isnt as bad as they try to make out. Most people still buy CD's. Only computer savy people will have digital music and even MORE computer savy people will p2p it.

Alot of people like the limited edition "greatest hits" cd with a little 10page booklet. Me personally I can live search for the mp3 that doesnt jump.


EDIT: Maya unlimited is $15,000, how the hell is any student going to grab hold of that to learn all the features? Or Im sorry you have a free learning edition with hardly any features and poly count restrictions. Its things like this that make piracy necessary
proven fact cd sales have been in decline for years now hence why they offer bonus discs etc to try drive up sales.

StLuke
14th March 2006, 02:26 PM
There's a few issues getting confused here.

Piracy as Theft:

Internet piracy is not really like any previous kinds of theft. If I steal a loaf of bread, I have deprived someone else of it's use: if it was stolen from a bakery, they can't sell it; if from a person, they can't eat it. But if I make an exact replica, then no-one else is affected. There's a moral argument to support payment of the maker, but there is no actual detriment done in the same way as real life theft.

DRM Use and Abuse

The best write-up I've seen of arguments against DRM are in this talk of Cory Doctorow's to Microsoft:

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

Future of P2P (IMHO)

I think that it's an economic issue: there's already secure and encrypted channels for p2p, but they are not as easy to use. When the current major filesharing methods are disrupted, people will switch over, or migrate to smaller communities. Brokenstones in China specialises in Mac torrents, so you'd have to convince chinese authorities to crack down.

But they don't actually serve any files themselves, only their users do, so you'd need special provisions in the Chinese legal system AND the will to enforce. My understanding is that piracy in China has been unofficially condoned for ages, since the Chinese don't like to see so much of their money flowing overseas: a Windows server license might be enough to feed a peasant family for a year, why give it to American MS when you can turn a blind eye to piracy and help other Chinese? America itself ignored copyrights when it was still a young nation, because they can suck a lot of money out of a developing economy.

Thoughts:

I'm a big fan of the Creative Commons approach, and I think it will become a larger part of our culture. I also think people should have the right to use more restrictive licenses and to prohibit piracy.

That said, I have pirated software and music. I have bought software and music because I have been impressed by it. I probably have spent less on software and music because of piracy, but I have avoided disappointing/unsuitable purchases because of it.

Which is to say, I am much better off because of piracy, and the makers of excellent software and music are no worse off than before. I think many other users are in the same circumstances. As long as that is the case, I don't think piracy will end, only that enforcement will become more sophisticated.

Luke

grorr76
14th March 2006, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by StLuke@Mar 14 2006, 02:26 PM
There's a few issues getting confused here.

Piracy as Theft:

Internet piracy is not really like any previous kinds of theft. If I steal a loaf of bread, I have deprived someone else of it's use: if it was stolen from a bakery, they can't sell it; if from a person, they can't eat it. But if I make an exact replica, then no-one else is affected. There's a moral argument to support payment of the maker, but there is no actual detriment done in the same way as real life theft.

DRM Use and Abuse

The best write-up I've seen of arguments against DRM are in this talk of Cory Doctorow's to Microsoft:

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt

Future of P2P (IMHO)

I think that it's an economic issue: there's already secure and encrypted channels for p2p, but they are not as easy to use. When the current major filesharing methods are disrupted, people will switch over, or migrate to smaller communities. Brokenstones in China specialises in Mac torrents, so you'd have to convince chinese authorities to crack down.

But they don't actually serve any files themselves, only their users do, so you'd need special provisions in the Chinese legal system AND the will to enforce. My understanding is that piracy in China has been unofficially condoned for ages, since the Chinese don't like to see so much of their money flowing overseas: a Windows server license might be enough to feed a peasant family for a year, why give it to American MS when you can turn a blind eye to piracy and help other Chinese? America itself ignored copyrights when it was still a young nation, because they can suck a lot of money out of a developing economy.

Thoughts:

I'm a big fan of the Creative Commons approach, and I think it will become a larger part of our culture. I also think people should have the right to use more restrictive licenses and to prohibit piracy.

That said, I have pirated software and music. I have bought software and music because I have been impressed by it. I probably have spent less on software and music because of piracy, but I have avoided disappointing/unsuitable purchases because of it.

Which is to say, I am much better off because of piracy, and the makers of excellent software and music are no worse off than before. I think many other users are in the same circumstances. As long as that is the case, I don't think piracy will end, only that enforcement will become more sophisticated.

Luke
good post stluke very informed and level headed. good points

natakim
14th March 2006, 02:33 PM
interesting post but i think this...

'There's a moral argument to support payment of the maker, but there is no actual detriment done in the same way as real life theft'

...is a little to literal an interpretation of theft. interllectual copyright is no less real than other forms of property protection.

said it before but,

private property IS theft

tintinaujapon
14th March 2006, 02:33 PM
Excellent post StLuke.

natakim
14th March 2006, 02:35 PM
grorr76 'QUOTE (the_OM @ Mar 14 2006, 01:08 PM)
I think Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had the same ideals for industry in the 1800's and look where that got them.

dream on .. untill we are no longer an economic rationist society, protection will exist. maybe one day money wont exist either, if theres no money in it how will artists live no one will do it. Life is driven by money love it or loath it. '

i think the_om was actually saying that marx and engels were wrong.

gilligan911
14th March 2006, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by StLuke@Mar 14 2006, 02:26 PM
Piracy as Theft:

Internet piracy is not really like any previous kinds of theft. If I steal a loaf of bread, I have deprived someone else of it's use: if it was stolen from a bakery, they can't sell it; if from a person, they can't eat it. But if I make an exact replica, then no-one else is affected. There's a moral argument to support payment of the maker, but there is no actual detriment done in the same way as real life theft.
I can't agree with this statement. Just because the item being stolen is incorporeal does not mean that to steal it has no effect. It may not be as immediate and as obvious as stealing a loaf of bread, and the detriment may be caused to some huge multinational conglomerate that nobody likes, but it is still there. It is then a personal ethical decision as to whether an individual feels justified in stealing from, say, M$ or Adobe.

Downloading stuff illegally is not like making an exact replica. It is depriving the author of whatever it is from the potential to make money out of the thing they have created. In some ways it is kind of funny that the anonimity of the internet seems to make the average person who would never contemplate "real life" theft feel it is OK to steal things digitally (myself included - yes I have used bittorrent :o ).

I guess what I am saying is that it is nonsense to argue that something *forces* people to pirate. It is a choice. An individual may be able to justify this choice to themselves and perhaps to others in a moral sense, but unless some of the fundamental concepts upon which society is founded change overnight it will still be theft.

marc
14th March 2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by StLuke@Mar 14 2006, 02:26 PM
The best write-up I've seen of arguments against DRM are in this talk of Cory Doctorow's to Microsoft:

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
Long text, but it seems like a VERY good talk.

And anyone arguing that piracy isn't a form of theft is daft. Sure, sometimes it's great promotion for an artist, but most of the time it's taking something you haven't paid for.

beamso
14th March 2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by 964RSCS@Mar 14 2006, 02:58 PM
Copyright infringement is theft.
It isn't. I didn't physically steal something from you. I reproduced either too much or your complete work.

Rayd
14th March 2006, 03:59 PM
america etc have the wrong idea, apple have the right idea.

If you can't beat them, Join them!

apple created iTunes music store, which will let them download, just have a small fee, and benifits.

dont lock them up! this will enrage the pirates! :P

hawker
14th March 2006, 04:04 PM
Someone made an interesting point the other day, I think it was on Microsoft Windows, and they basically said, they charge so much for the OS, they charge, let's say $300 odd and many people buy it because they have to, yet many people buy it for $2 overseas or download it.

The thoughts raised were, make it $50 and then everyone will probably buy it (sure cheapskates will always exist) - yet more people might buy it, because it'd be more worth it, and in theory Microsoft would make about the same amount of money, with less piracy.

well it might work :blink:

Silver
14th March 2006, 04:19 PM
I have no problem paying for a product. I do object to that product being in some way crippled to prevent my enjoying it. I don't care if the DRM process only eats a few seconds of my time, it is still my time it is eating. I especially hate products that treat me as dishonest, especially when I know that if I were to acquire the product illegitimately, it would be free of this nonsense.

I have yet to seriously pirate any main stream work*. But every time I am forced to watch that stupid 'You wouldn't steal a movie' ad on a DVD, find that I can't import songs from a CD, can't play a DVD because of 'regional' issues, find that I can't print an eBook, etc - I wonder a little bit more if it wouldn't be better to be free of all this hassle and just download the thing off the net. I suspect that a lot of consumers are with me, and if the producers don't start treating us honest customers with respect, they are going to see a major backlash in the near future.

* There has been a few shareware products I didn't register for years, even as a regular user. They eventually got my money though.

grorr76
14th March 2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Silver@Mar 14 2006, 04:19 PM
I have no problem paying for a product. I do object to that product being in some way crippled to prevent my enjoying it. I don't care if the DRM process only eats a few seconds of my time, it is still my time it is eating. I especially hate products that treat me as dishonest, especially when I know that if I were to acquire the product illegitimately, it would be free of this nonsense.

I have yet to seriously pirate any main stream work*. But every time I am forced to watch that stupid 'You wouldn't steal a movie' ad on a DVD, find that I can't import songs from a CD, can't play a DVD because of 'regional' issues, find that I can't print an eBook, etc - I wonder a little bit more if it wouldn't be better to be free of all this hassle and just download the thing off the net. I suspect that a lot of consumers are with me, and if the producers don't start treating us honest customers with respect, they are going to see a major backlash in the near future.

* There has been a few shareware products I didn't register for years, even as a regular user. They eventually got my money though.
if people didnt bootleg and pirate drm wouldnt exist..

plod2
14th March 2006, 06:13 PM
encryption and other anti piracy techniques only stop honest people from using the aquired goods/services. It does absolutly nothing from stopping a dishonest person.
All been said b4 but true

marc
14th March 2006, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by grorr76@Mar 14 2006, 04:28 PM
if people didnt bootleg and pirate drm wouldnt exist..
So the solution is to punish your loyal customers for something someone else has done? Not smart.

natakim
14th March 2006, 09:29 PM
as someone who as a small child whom is addicted to games, i am endebted to hackers who crack the games and produce the no-cd exe. at $100 a throw, these games are damn expensive. without the no-cd files, the life span of these legit copys would be.. well.. limited. everytime a seven yearold takes the game from the case and puts it in the drive the potential for this $100 disk to be scratched, and thus rendered useless, is huge. while i will pay for the game, i refuse to buy it again just because THEY can't come up with a medium that lasts. i mean seriously, one decent scrape across the corner of the drive tray and the disk is screwed. the copy protection that makes the user insert the disk each time they play also ensures that its lifespan is potentially limited.

tintinaujapon
14th March 2006, 09:46 PM
Roxio is one company which makes it hard for legit customers.

Their Toast software tells you when an update is needed, but neither automatically updates your software nor takes you directly to the download site.

Instead you've got to go to the Roxio site, designed by the Republican Guard, try and remember your login, navigate through I can't remember how many layers of pages, and at the end of it you might get the update file you need.

Honestly, it was easier to download the last few updates to my legitimately purchased software off file-sharing networks than it was to simply get it out of Roxio.

EDIT: here's a current article over at Wired about how the Swede's penchant for free and open file sharing & resistance to attempts by authorities to log their internet usage has spawned a political party:

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,703...l?tw=wn_index_1 (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70358-0.html?tw=wn_index_1)

The Fluffy Duck
14th March 2006, 11:07 PM
YOU cant beat the pirates. If you put 2048bit encrytion with DRM built into the cardboard box it was packaged in, a pirate out there will find a workaround.

Cd-keys are a joke. They dont work. Even server based registration can be tricked.

StLuke
15th March 2006, 12:13 AM
Thanks for your responses :) I'll try to be shorter and more to the point this time!

2 things I wanted to clarify:

1. Piracy is very effective for the pirates. I could experience media and use more software than I could afford. I can *choose* to pay, I can choose not to.

I have used bittorrent, emule, and so on. But I still *bought* Motion2, Isadora, World of Warcraft, some MSWin licences, and a lot of shareware. I will continue to purchase software. I have a subscription to the O'Reilly Safari library, and buy a lot of printed books.

Economically, pirates pay a lot less, get a lot more, run very low risks, and have the choice of how to dispose of their income. Can you see how piracy could decrease in this situation? The question is really about how content creators (in media and software) can best use digital distribution to support themselves.

Cory Doctorow (the author of the DRM talk at http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt one) has released all his books under Creative Commons licences. You can download any of his books to read, without having to pay a cent. He's still selling a lot of paper copies and doing well for a modern SF author.

He believes it's because many more people are exposed to his work (I've read two of his books, for example, and I would never have looked at them twice in a store) and they pass on their recommendations to all their friends.

I think people should be free to offer up their work under Creative Commons licences, or to release them under more restrictive traditional licences - but with the understanding that DRM is going to adversely affect their legit users and pirates will get their hands on the material anyway.

Maybe I'll put that unequivocally: I think people will steal intellectual property, regardless of the authors' wishes. Authors of intellectual property should have the freedom to respond to this as they see fit.

Use DRM if you want, but you will find it much harder to sell to me and many others. Rage against piracy, but don't expect people to make their lives more difficult because it suits you!

2. Intellectual property theft is *not* physical property theft. Steal a car, the owner doesn't have it to use or sell. Make an exact replica, and they can still use or sell the original: they have only been deprived in the abstract, by lessening the resale value, and reducing the chance you will hire them as a taxi service.

These are losses, I am not disagreeing with that. But if the abstract possibility that I *might* pay them for their software was 0, then by that logic they have lost nothing anyway.

Personally, I think that if you can pay, then you should pay. I also go out of my way to use open-source equivalents instead of pirated commercial software (OpenOffice instead of MSOffice, Audacity instead of Audition, and so on) if I am not willing to pay.

Hmmm... lots and lots of what *I* think. Any economists out there who care to contribute? I keep thinking the economic argument is going to win the day over the moral/legal one ;)

Luke