|
Post by sylvana on Nov 21, 2011 2:47:55 GMT -5
I generally buy my games because I like actually owning the original. However, as a result I now own a number of original games that I paid for that I cant even play because the DRM refuses to validate (Games for windows live is of the devil) I will now need to search out dodgy cracks, or even download the whole game illegally just to play something I already own. While I agree with DRM to a degree, the more draconian it becomes, the more likely I am to pirate a game so that I can actually play it. Far too often DRM actually prevents me from playing that prevents piracy.
That said though, this bill is silly. What the companies fail to remember is that if these draconian laws are passed in America ISPs and hosting will just move to a different country where laws like these cannot affect them. Draconian laws like this will not kill the internet because it is without borders or any real kind of police. All it will do is shift jobs currently inside America out of the country, thereby making the economy loose more money.
The Internet is basically pure distilled humanity, it is completely unregulated and as a result is filled with the worst humanity has to offer, however, despite that, it is also filled with people who will find a way to get around anything.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Nov 21, 2011 5:26:39 GMT -5
DRM has purpose in the initial release of a game, because PC game piracy is rampant enough to justify it economically. Once it has been cracked, however, the genie's out of the bottle, and it serves little to no purpose.
As for used games, I think it actually improves the quality of games, because there's more motivation to make a long-lasting game. Someone has to actually sell their copy for it to become available again. A game with 10 hours of content is going to find its way back to the used shelf a lot faster than something like Skyrim. As it should.
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Nov 21, 2011 11:55:53 GMT -5
Once again it comes down to making people WANT to give you money for your product. If all you are going to do is give people the bare bones, lock what they can do with the product or try and control it once they own it then you are only driving people away from you. If you give people extra content, trust them to use your product properly and treat them liked a valued customer and not a pirate then you are going to draw people back into buying from you. An honor system basically.
|
|
Paimun
Full Member
Captain Punderpants!
dick fingers
Posts: 221
|
Post by Paimun on Nov 21, 2011 15:00:11 GMT -5
Once it has been cracked, however, the genie's out of the bottle, and it serves little to no purpose. Which is about 5 hours after the game has been released.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Nov 21, 2011 16:07:48 GMT -5
I like Steam's approach, especially because of the benefit - I cannot lose a Steam game.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 21, 2011 16:32:06 GMT -5
Once again it comes down to making people WANT to give you money for your product. If all you are going to do is give people the bare bones, lock what they can do with the product or try and control it once they own it then you are only driving people away from you. If you give people extra content, trust them to use your product properly and treat them liked a valued customer and not a pirate then you are going to draw people back into buying from you. An honor system basically. Sometimes... I think honor systems work better than you'd think :V Treating all of your customers like potential criminals is a good way to make them so :-) Once it has been cracked, however, the genie's out of the bottle, and it serves little to no purpose. Which is about 5 hours after the game has been released. ...and sometimes 5 hours before the game has been released.
|
|
|
Post by Miles, The Slightly Off on Nov 21, 2011 16:53:18 GMT -5
[dumb] Actually, due to the sheer amount of outrage people had towards the draconian DRM used on Spore, people had cracked it at least a MONTH before its release date. [/dumb]
And the thing about the bill isn't that it was supposed to stop piracy, even though that was how it was labeled. It was to stop copyright infringement.
Now, the reason that this is bad is obvious. How many pictures have you looked at today that used FRAMES from a movie or cartoon? How many songs have you listened to on Youtube or another site without buying it?
It was essentially going to turn the internet into a giant DMCA clusterfuck, like Youtube, but worse.
Therefore (to my understanding) the argument here shouldn't be about whether or not piracy is wrong, because the law - whilst labeled to be against it - is not the only reason for its existence. It should be about whether or not these companies have the right to control the internet the way the bill says they should.
Of course, I'm dumb and could be all wrong, so there's that. Don't mind me if that happens to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 21, 2011 19:36:34 GMT -5
Actually, Miles, I think you have it right on the money.
That's actually part of the reason why I'm even arguing about this. Because it actually isn't about the pirates, but yet they're being blamed right from post #2. >_>
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Nov 21, 2011 19:44:44 GMT -5
I'm calling it...
The winner of the thread, is Miles. *hands miles a gold token* Please take this to the appropriate person to exchange for internets.
/thread
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 21, 2011 19:45:47 GMT -5
I've seen it explained (in a Comic Book Legends Revealed column, I think) that companies have a legal obligation to pursue every single possible breach of their copyright, no matter how innocuous, that comes to their attention lest their hold on that copyright be diminished. That is to say, if they let things slide then the next time they fight an infringement it can be held against them. Assuming this is true, why don't we remove that law (which I'd bet fuels more of this kind of legislation than anything else other than piracy - which is still copyright infringement) rather than bitch about what is being done to follow it?
|
|
|
Post by booley on Nov 21, 2011 20:23:45 GMT -5
... Are these people so stupid that they don't get this? yes. lets face it. all these guys know about the internet is: It's a series of tubes. People who don't like them say mean things about them there. And someone is paying them butt loads of cash to do this. Interesting fact. When Bremer was re-organizing Iraq's government among the most important reforms was not human rights or democratic reforms or government infrastructure. It was intellectual property laws.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 21, 2011 20:51:44 GMT -5
I've seen it explained (in a Comic Book Legends Revealed column, I think) that companies have a legal obligation to pursue every single possible breach of their copyright, no matter how innocuous, that comes to their attention lest their hold on that copyright be diminished. That is to say, if they let things slide then the next time they fight an infringement it can be held against them. Assuming this is true, why don't we remove that law (which I'd bet fuels more of this kind of legislation than anything else other than piracy - which is still copyright infringement) rather than bitch about what is being done to follow it? I can mostly get behind that, but I would like to know the reason why that law was made in the first place. I don't understand it and for all I know, it could have a vital purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Radiation on Nov 21, 2011 21:17:31 GMT -5
What about software? I know that there are a lot of people that pirate software that sells at an insane amount (Photoshop CS5 is around $1000) because they want it but can't afford it. Should the company, if they are so worried about piracy, lower the prices so that people would have the initiative to buy it?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 21, 2011 21:20:23 GMT -5
What about software? I know that there are a lot of people that pirate software that sells at an insane amount (Photoshop CS5 is around $1000) because they want it but can't afford it. Should the company, if they are so worried about piracy, lower the prices so that people would have the initiative to buy it? $1000!?!?!? HELL yes they should. Even if their product wasn't being pirated, they should lower those prices. How the hell can anyone afford that price!? That price alone is more damaging to company profits than the piracy itself :<
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Nov 21, 2011 21:23:51 GMT -5
I've seen it explained (in a Comic Book Legends Revealed column, I think) that companies have a legal obligation to pursue every single possible breach of their copyright, no matter how innocuous, that comes to their attention lest their hold on that copyright be diminished. That is to say, if they let things slide then the next time they fight an infringement it can be held against them. Assuming this is true, why don't we remove that law (which I'd bet fuels more of this kind of legislation than anything else other than piracy - which is still copyright infringement) rather than bitch about what is being done to follow it? I can mostly get behind that, but I would like to know the reason why that law was made in the first place. I don't understand it and for all I know, it could have a vital purpose. It's to prevent the selective abuse of trademark lawsuits. If a company ignores trademark violations against them until they find a really juicy target, that makes the case a bit suspicious. That said, some lawyers will get overzealous and come up with really fucking stupid lawsuits.
|
|