Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Howdy,

the thread regarding proposed anti-piracy laws in France sparked my interest, and I decided to do some Leeeeroy Jen...er I mean Googling.

While I'm not opposed to software companies making a fair return on their investment, I'm not a big fan of onliine activation, or the installation of invasive, buggy DRM software. If a company wants to protect their rights, fair enough, but I expect them to tell me so *before* I hand over the folding.

I've just been reading the Reclaim Your Game website. The number of games with Securom 7 certainly surprised me.

http://reclaimyourgame.com/index.php...d=45&Itemid=11

The three games at the top of my list for 2009 were Empire : Total War, Sims 3 and Dragon Age : Origins.

Empire I put back on the shelf when I found out it needed Steam Activation. Evidentally Sims 3 will not have Securom, but there's no guarantee it won't have some other form of DRM software.

Dragon Age..... just have to wait and see....

And having recently brought Sins of a solar empire (on sale), I was somewhat annoyed to find that it now needs extra software, similar to Steam, to download the latest patch(es).

Not happy :thumbsdown:

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Echoed. :)

The lengths that some game companies are going to is becoming extreme. I've had Bioshock for nearly 6 months now and haven't been able to play it because my gaming rig isn't online. Why does it have to be online?

Grand Theft Auto 4 recently took the cake for absurd measures (that i've encountered), running the gauntlet of installation not only requiring online activation, but registration to 2 other affiliated sites. In its vanilla format, the game can only be launched through Rockstar's website! (Why?! :mad:) Interestingly, all box and manual instructions indicate that all 3rd party registrations are optional, but one soon learns that to be a bold faced lie. I imagine several workarounds have been conjured by the modding community (and promptly labelled "illegal") but too late for me. Rockstar will never see my money again if they're going to pull that shit.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Dragon Age isn't in that list.

I'm pretty sure I read it was going to have only a cd check and a serial, also.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Howdy Luvian,

yep, it looks that way. :)

Though now the company is pushing the fact that a large amount of down loadable content will be available for the game. Hope that doesn't mean it'll be a half baked release and rely on the DLC to flesh it out.

And looks like major grief with Empire - the TWC website has a 'Rant' thread running to 153 pages and a 'Bug' thread of 53 pages :wideeyed:

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Do you blame your work/school etc for putting locks on the doors that make it inconvenient for you to get inside, or do you blame the thief for creating a situation that requires locks?

I blame the latter. DRM/online activation may be a flawed response, but your anger is better served at the thieves who've made it a necessity.

I mean what do you want? Piracy killed the Amgia. I wish they'd used DRMs and other methods rather than fold completely.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

I don't know Yorick. Both Spore and Mass Effect had online activation and both were actually cracked and released on the net before the games were even available for sale at the shops. What then did the protection accomplish beside limiting the actuals buyers?

There is a difference between a school locking it's doors at night and online activation and limited installation numbers for single player games.

A better question would be do you mind having to take the novel you bought back to the shop every day before you can read it, and then having to burn it after having read it three times?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

The point being, they are reactions against theft to protect their property.

Is it more inconvenient having to speak to a bank teller/gas station attendant through a glass wall instead of face to face? Of course.

Is it more inconvenient having to take shoes off and go through tedious airline security checks?

Of course it's inconvenient, but the fault and blame lies with the thieves etc who necessitate some sort of response. Getting angry at the person or group trying - vainly in the example you provided - to mitigate the loss piracy creates is like getting angry at a mugging victim for carrying pepper spray in their bag.

It's my choice to buy a license to read a book if they require me to go back to the shop/burn after reading etc. It's their product, they can do what they like, and I as a consumer don't have to buy.

But getting ANNOYED at them for requiring this, so they can actually make some return on their investment, (so they can make more books), is pointless and misplaced. The annoyance should be with the thieves and pirates, because if the creators do nothing, why then would they bother making a product everyone is going to steal?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Have a read of 'freakonomics' and the section of the "honor pay" donut selling system.
The donut seller lost out time and again because people will NOT pay for something if they can get away with it, and they think it's not a big deal.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Howdy Yorick,

As I said in the original post, I don't have a problem with companies using assorted DRM methods - I just want to know it's there *before* I buy. Don't think that's an unreasonable request.

And who suffers because of badly implemented DRM methods ? The user, mate. You and me, and anyone else who has troubles caused by Securom, Starforce or whatever.

One DRM method leaves files scattered around your PC, especially in the registry - just peruse some of the DRM removal walkthrough websites.
Another can potentially, over time, cause damage to optical drives.
And there are suggestions that some of the online verification software can leave your PC open to hacking.

So, I want to know first.

That's true, but you'd be making that choice based on knowing the facts first - you don't take the book home and *then* find out you have to either take it back or burn it.

I've *never* seen a game box that mentions Securom, Starforce, Safedisk, Tages or any of the other software protection methods, which leaves surfing the net in the hope that a website somewhere has the information.

If software companies are so sure that they're doing the 'right thing' with these various DRM systems, why wont they put the information on the box (or the website, if it's a digital download) for the benefit of Joe and Josephine Public ?

I had an Amiga 500 - great computer, well ahead of its time. But, in my opinion, it was the mismanagement of the parent company (especially their desire to keep as much as possible proprietary) which was the main contributor to the sinking of the good ship Amiga.

(There's another viewpoint at http://www.oldsoftware.com/history.html which says, in part "Much of the downfall of Commodore stemmed from poor marketing, lack of dominance in the business sector, competition from other gaming systems, poor support, poor management, and growing competition")

And I'm aware of how people will rort something if they can - we have 'free' health care in Australia and it's slowly collapsing under the weight of its own costs as people use and abuse the system.

Final point - if software companies lose enough paying customers through buggy DRM implementations, they'll be just as broke as any number of hackers can make 'em.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Howdy Yorick,

my apologies - I missed this bit.

I was/am annoyed, because I have to download all my game patches at the local internet cafe, and apply them offline via a flash drive. The programme I brought, Sins of a solar empire, had patches listed on the net up to v1.05.

But you can only download the newest patches via online software (Impulse).

Nothing to do with DRMs in this case.

It's just that I don't appreciate having the rules changed :nod:

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

I'm with Yorick on this, being able to see it from the same side. As some of you know, I've written several technical books. And I have been to a customer site where I've seen one of my books hot off the photocopier.

When you put your hours into something - written, composed, sung, developed, coded, or whatever - and then someone steals it instead of paying you for it, you have a different perspective on things.

That's why all my music is legit, and I decline requests like "hey, you've got a huge CD library! Can I rip some stuff?". May not make me popular with some people, but it makes me popular with the guy who looks back in the mirror in the morning.

My second book, I added a lot of on-line content for purchasers. If someone steals the book, they don't get access to that stuff. Others are trying to do similar things... on-line bonuses after you buy the product.

That said, crappy hidden DRM is *not* the way to go. Doing stuff like that just pisses people off, as you can see (153 pages of rant? Has there ever been a question-only thread?). Software companies would be better suited to inform people that activation is required, and perhaps through what means.

I do my part with people I know, which is what I think Yorick is talking about. I don't provide illegal stuff - music or software. And I explain why. Even when Mom asked me to burn a copy of Office, I declined. Told her my mother raised me better than to do things like that ;)

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Yeah, I really am against the pirating of anything online. I even mentioned it to a pastor friend and his wife some years ago, that they should not copy their movies etc and share them.
It really does not set a good example. Who cares if "everybody's" doing it!

BTW,
I have a pack of 50 DVD's and a pack of 50 CD's, all blank because I just never copy anything. The only thing I do is put my CD's on the PC and then transfer them to the MP4 player.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

But Yorick. The point is, every single computer game, no matter what protection it used, was cracked. Copy protection has not worked a single time.

It's fine to try and protect your investment. But when it doesn't work and the only people it punishes is the legal customers, there is a problem.

By the way. The Sims 3 which is coming out next month has just been hacked and released on the net. People are playing as we speak.

I heard an argument that online activation isn't actually to stop piracy but the second hand game marked. That is a really really big market, accounting for about 60% of Gamestop's profits. And you can not resell a game you activated. That argument makes much more sense to me, although it is still the customers getting screwed over.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Sims 3 already leaked wtf? I am stuck here waiting for its release! Reminds me of what they did with the Wolverine movie. Apparently, there was a working copy leaked onto the internet and you could see the cables and bluescreens around the actors. And yes, some retarded people actually watched this before seeing the movie in on the big screen. I ain't that desperate to ruin a good flick. Maybe if I lived somewhere in the world where I had no hope to ever see it in the theatres....

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Yeah and every law a society makes gets broken.
Every speed limit gets ignored by at least one driver.

Does that mean we should allow rape, drunk driving, tax evasion, theft and other stuff?

Your arguments wouldn't work with any other law that protects property, so why would it work here?

As I've acknowledged a couple of times now, it's a faulty response. The fault still lies with the thieves. Blame them. And if you pirate software and music, blame you. You're part of the problem.

Or would you prefer they went the deterrent route and executed software/music pirates? Would that be effective? Is effectiveness the only justification a solution has for validity?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Onya bung!
So sorry to hear about the piracy stuff.
I got hit by Limewire.
Some idiot uploaded a track I sang, and mislabeled it, crediting another band.
It went all around the net that this other band perform the song.
I even had some kids - after I informed them of the truth - try and tell me I was not the singer! It HAD to be this other band.
So that shoots a hole through the "hey it's free publicity" garbage. What publicity? Limewire enables theft of the song, and in my case, theft of credit.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

I haven't said theft should be legalized. The problem here is that it is a "big brother-ish" way to go about it and they are going about the assumption that every user is a criminal and should not be trusted. And to make things worse it does not stop a single pirate. Not a single one.

Would you limit the people who buy your songs to listening to them only three times? Would you force them to call you for permission every times before being allowed to listen to your songs? Do you think this would have any effect on someone who downloaded a ripped mp3 on limewire instead of buying your copy-protected cd?

The problem here is that they are actually fighting their own customers. The pirates do not get the use limitations, they never have to call home for permission. Only the customers do. But do you think these companies are too stupid realize that?

Of course not. They know full well these protection schemes only affect their legit customers, as pirates have to remove them before they can play. Why then do they keep restricting their customers anyway? Because they don't want us to resell our games. They want us all to have to buy new and preferably only be able to reinstall it a couple of times so we have to re-buy it a couple of times over the years.

This is not about piracy. Piracy is illegal and there are laws against piracy. People do get arrested for it. No, what these companies are waging a war against is the second-hand market. The second hand market is legal so they are coming up with their own ways to enforce against it; tying your game to an online account so only you can use it, and limiting the number of times a game can get installed so that even if you still get rid of the game, it being able to get installed only three times it can only be resold two more times.

The truth is that this anti-piracy thing is only an excuse to stop the billion dollars second-hand market so they can get all that money for themselves. Did you know Gamestop makes more money out of selling used games than they do out of selling new games? Publishers knows they can't get money out of pirates but they know they can get money out of those who buy used.

So anti-piracy or anti-customers? Simple; anti-second hand customers. These "protections" didn't make sense when we thought they were targeted at pirates, but they make a lot more sense when you know the are targeted at the second hand market, don't they?

When a car gets stolen the theft get reported and the cops get involved. When someone sells stolen cars the cops gets called and they handle the law.

You don't see GM taking the law into their own hands and forcing you to call OnStar and identify it is you and only you every times before you can turn your car on. You don't see them limiting the number of times you can ever turn your car on before it stops working and you have to buy a new one.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Unprovable speculation Luvian. I highly doubt anti-piracy measures have not ever meant a single user bought a product legitimately instead of stealing it.

Maybe I would.
It's called "Live performance". See in days of yore, you had to pay a musician to perform a song in front of you to hear it. Recording and duplicating that performance is a luxury we in the last 150 years have been blessed to enjoy

So yeah, you perhaps had to get out of your house and pay some money and have a doorman check to see that you paid. And lo! The singer/instrumentalist/orchestra might not sing your favourite song! Or maybe they perform it just once! Ever!

If I choose to only ever make my songs streamable off a website, rather than purchasable and downloadable, then yes, I have every right to do so.

Yes. There'd be no CD and no mp3 to rip, increasing the techno-difficulty of piracy, and decreasing the amount of casual pirates.


Circular logic Luvian. By categorizing pirates and customers separately, therefore, by your definition, no pirate can ever be limited by the limitation, because if they are, they become a "customer."

PEOPLE are limited by the DRM, some of whom will bypass - and pirate; some of whom will not - and will purchase; some of whom will not - and will not purchase.

Yes, also the right of an artist to determine what exactly they are selling.

The ability for consumers to resell a visual artists work is why you have Australian Aboriginal artists living in complete poverty while their art gets resold for millions. If a law was passed where you never own an artists work, you just own a license, you could mandate a resale percentage to go back to the artist, thereby preventing such a rotten situation.

Obviously computer games do not compare, but preventing resale is a legitimate business practice, akin to outlawing subletting in housing for example.



I have bought and sold music programs with online activation and registration. It's not hard to legitimately transfer registration along with the product, so it's all still legal. You would sell the online account along with the game, if the two are tied together.


They can stop making parts for second hand cars, thus limiting the ease or affordability of resale.

Anyway, that's all beside the point. There's a lot of conjecture about motive re. 2nd hand sales, which is not quantifiable. My point still stands Luvian.

I'd like to see you devote years to making something, and then see people so vehemently angry with you for trying to protect it.

Kezardin, I take your point earlier, about NOT KNOWING the locked doors were in place when buying the product. I've seen people return product that was "unreturnable once opened" for those reasons, so generally you should be able to get your money back if that's an issue. Especially if you buy it from a store, who then take issue back to the company, while you get a store credit or whatever.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

All it would take is one pirate to get the song off your stream (which is really not hard to do) and then put it on Limewire. It's about the same as a hacker hacking a game and putting it online, except pretty much anyone with a two megabytes program can rip off streams.

According to most game EULAs it isn't. Even if you were to do it services like Steam lump all your games on the same account so selling the account would see all your games go.

What do you mean conjecture about second hand sales? If you mean sales numbers they have been released and I have seen them. I have also seen interviews from game execs complaining about the second hand market and wanting to get rid of it. I believe someone even tried to pass a law preventing second hand sales, although I don't remember where I saw that part.

As a matter of fact, I've been working on a fantasy novel and the world it's set in for a couple of years. If I do finish it, I plan to do my best to find a way to give people a free option. BAEN gives free download versions of books so that people gets interested and buy them in stores. From their results it has had a positive effect on sales. But they're science fiction.

No one here said an artist shouldn't have the right to protect his creation, but as customers we have every rights to get angry at the method chosen, especially when it's so widespread it is the only alternative. The only way this can get changed is if we voice our displeasure.

You definitely should read the article on that link. You might say Eric Flint is kind of a role model for me, as far as this subject goes.

"In short, rather than worrying about online piracy — much less tying ourselves and society into knots trying to shackle everything — it just makes more sense, from a commercial as well as principled point of view — to "steal from the stealers. "

Don't bother robbing me, twit. I will cheerfully put up the stuff for free myself. Because I am quite confident that any "losses" I sustain will be more than made up for by the expansion in the size of my audience." --Eric Flint

"...But how many people, in the real world, are going to be tempted to steal a few bucks?

Some, yes — precious few of whom, I suspect, read much of anything. But the truth is that most people are no more tempted to steal a few dollars than they are to spend their lunch hour panhandling for money on the streets. Partly because they don't need to, but mostly because it's beneath their dignity and self-respect.

The only time that mass scale petty thievery becomes a problem is when the perception spreads, among broad layers of the population, that a given product is priced artificially high due to monopolistic practices and/or draconian legislation designed to protect those practices. But so long as the "gap" between the price of a legal product and a stolen one remains both small and, in the eyes of most people, a legitimate cost rather than gouging, 99% of them will prefer the legal product." --Eric Flint

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

And suppose that eventually someone could come up with a method with which streamed music couldn't be ripped (which won't happen)...nothing would stop a user from putting a casette recorder next to his PC speakers and just record the song as it plays...

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Same with people who disable right click on their pages so you can't save their images. Not only is there a dozen other ways to save them, but if all else failed you could just take a screenshot of the page and crop it. As long as you distribute something there will be ways for people to get it illegally. It is unavoidable.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Another interesting question is geographic restriction of content. For example, episodes of certain TV series can be watched online *if* you are in the US. As far as I can remember they even put advertisements in the middle of the episodes. I really hate adverts on TV, but I'd watch the episode, even if the adverts were in the middle and there was no skip feature, because I'm interested by the episode.

But I can't watch it...not legally that is. Of course one could use a proxy and mask an IP address, but in most countries that is illegal. You can also wait a couple hours after the episode has aired and then ... (I probably shouldn't mention exactly what, this forum has rules of not discussing exactly how to get illegal content, not that most people don't know how to do it...)

Does it stop me from buying the DVDs of the series when they come out? No.

I know why they do the geographical filtering. It's because of the contracts they have with TV channels in other countries who also want to insert their own adverts into the middle of episodes and make some more money off it. But I'm in France...and I don't care about French versions of TV series...I'd never watch English Tv shows on French TV.

You know what...I'll admit to having seen a TV episode which aired last week in the US and is in no way available in Europe (not that that wasn't obvious from my post in the Lost thread). And yes I'm planning on buying the DVD when it comes out, because I feel that the creators even though they are already rich off this show, deserve my contribution for the work they have done.

Similarly...if I were to download a music CD that comes out in the US on the 19th of a month and then buy it when it comes out in Europe on the 24th...it's illegal, but I'm not actually causing the artist or the publisher any monetary loss. So why have all these stupid rules?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

That's one of the ways they get movies on the internet now. They tape it onto a camcorder, right in the theatre!

We went to the advance screening of a movie last year. My wife gets tickets through the radio station she works for at times. They checked everybody as they were going in. I asked if people brought weapons into the theatre. They told me they were looking for recording devices. I felt a little foolish, but I would never even think of that stuff.

I know that co-workers download and share this stuff all the time. I actually reported it to the RCMP. They did not do anything. This was about 4 years ago. I have been working at home for 3 years now, so I 'm not privy to a lot of what goes on there anymore.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

From what I've seen, leaked copies are much more common nowadays than those recorded directly in the cinema. Leaked copies come out much earlier...

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Proven to be completely incorrect.
Again, read "Freakonomics" before we continue this discussion.
Statistics show people will steal the petty far more than they will the important.
The book shows how people will steal a cheap Donut, rather than a car.
http://freakonomicsbook.com/

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Sure people do that with cinemas and cameras.
The quality is the issue then.
The problem with peer to peer audio theft has been zero quality reduction.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

The key is distribution.

If you make recording completely non-financial it will go out the window, and only live music will remain (you can't steal the live experience, a movie doesn't compare), alongside old songs or commercials that ARE paid for.

I myself will not produce artists who plan to give away their music for free, as how am I, as a producer, going to get paid? Producers get a percentage of song sales, not live performances or merch or song plays on radio etc.

So that's at least one producer with 20 years experience "off the market" for that kind of situation so to speak, and there are many more with waaaay more experience who would not.

Which is why more and more composer/producers are working to create 30 sec commercials rather than albums. Because they can actually feed their family from it.

Piracy is a cancer that will kill the thing it's feeding from.

See the thing stupid children don't understand is that a single person doesn't normally make an album. An entire industry was built up around the creation of the music that were paid from advanced album sales and only album sales. A producer, a recording engineer, a mastering engineer, a mixing engineer, an assistant producer, a session musician or three (or more).

None of these are "the artist" who is being "ripped off by the record company".
They are all professionals paid well by the same evil record company, and due to specialisation and years of experience, created quality work.

Now of course music will evolve, and "do it yourself garage" like the White Stripes for example, has it's merits.

But not everyone likes to hear a drummer with 3 years experience banging out on a poorly recorded drum kit. Some listeners actually like to hear a drummer with 30 years experience playing a nicely tuned kit, recorded by a person who's recorded drums for 30 years, with all the nuances and subtleties such experience captures.

Who knows what will happen?

Orchestra's and operas were once "pop" but have been priced into a rich-only experience.

Is that what will happen with recordings? Only rich people will be able to create quality recordings just for themselves? Like a commissioned artwork, or musicians that only played for Kings?

All I know is, piracy has changed all the rules.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

The freakonomics book (ironically) is not free. Was there a particular section you were referring to (such as the blogspot with info. published online) or are you simply recommending people purchase this book?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Territorial issues are important, for revenue generated from imported art can sponsor local art. It's not just about the single artist getting their money, but seeing local artists encouraged to create relevant work.

Otherwise, US culture will run rampant over say, French culture, due to the sheer size of the US, and the resultant revenue it has at it's disposal.

It becomes a vicious cycle. Think about how large the US entertainment industry is, how much money it has, how large it's domestic market is.
Can an unknown Slovakian artist actually compete IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, against the machine driving Beyonce?

You need to demand the shows from entertainment providers in your "territory" so they set up a fair deal with the content providers. Money gained from sales in Slovakia, then goes back into Slovakian made music/tv/movies for example.

Do you see?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

I am recommending people actually purchase the book yes, not the blogspot.
And it's a pun on FREAK, not Free. Freak economics, not free economics.
Many of the situations stats prove are counter-intuitive and unexpected.
Such as the Donut theft. "It's only a Donut" = Donut seller goes out of business, and no more Donuts.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Why would someone go out and buy what they already read for free?

There are loads of popular sites with large audiences struggling to monetize.

Like Wikipedia. Jimbo is practically begging for donations.

Turning a free product into a paid product is a difficult path.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Yes, I know it's a play on "Economics", was poking fun at the whole discussion really, since we're talking about buying vs. stealing and you recommended a purchase.

Actually, I do agree with the "It's only a donut..." assumption, because it is indeed true. As a young child, I went through a phase where I stole small things from stores (like candy or sweets) thinking i'd not get caught because it is something small. I remember my parents pointing the camera's out to me, I was too young to even realize they could see me.

I know a woman to this day, who steals stuff from dollar stores. I laugh at her and shake my head and have said to her "If you're gonna get caught for something, get caught for something big". She rationalizes it with things like "Oh, they're only earrings (the cheap kind) nobody will miss them" or "They won't notice a can of soda". In a way she is right. Most stores do not prosecute if the merchandise stolen is minimal or amounts to under $50. Walmart has such a policy. That does not make it right, of course, and they still call the cops, but it is worth noting that they don't bother with charges if the amount falls below a certain integer.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Yes, and so people think - it's only a 99c song.

Never mind that in days past, a single song would sell an entire $15 album, thus meaning more records could be made, and new musical vocabulary got introduced into the public lexicon via "obscure album tracks" that took time to "grow on you".

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Have you even read the article Yorick? We're not talking about some random guy in his garage, we're talking about one of the biggest Science Fiction publisher, and they have been doing it for nine years. It works. They get more sales from putting books free online. They even distribute DVDs full of novels.

It is like you said; the rules changed and you do not know how to adapt. BAEN seem to have found a way to.

Why would someone buy anything if they can get it for free? Go back and read that quote you tried to discredit. As Eric Flint and BAEN have been doing it successfully for nine years. I think their opinion is pretty much backed up by facts in this case, nine years of it.

It's funny how those taking draconian approaches to fighting off piracy are losing the race and money, while those that chose instead to compete with the pirates are making a bigger profit. Could it be they realized piracy is here to stay and for better or worse pirates are business rivals?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Piracy, banditry, theft. Nothing is new here. The only thing that has changed over time is the tools.

The protection used by those companies is completely overboard, to speak frankly. Especially online registration. I can understand checking a CD key and, though those can be replicated by software nowadays, it was a simple procedure that generally ensured you had bought the game. The keyword is "Online". If I'm going to buy a single player game for some trip into the middle of nowhere with no speakable internet connection, I want to know. Especially since any Single Player game generally isn't expected to *have* to be connected to the interwebs to work.

So then, I try to return it, but lo and behold, I can't, because the box has already been opened, or other such "tampering". I very much agree with the original post that they should put it on the box, but I also agree that they should find an alternate way to do it. (Anti piracy, that is)

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

These so called "free" hacked or pirated versions are often less stable with numerous bugs that do NOT appear in the legally licensed version. So what exactly is the pirate getting?

As a full time moderator for dedicated NWN2 fansite, I can assure you that I have seen numerous examples of various strange bugs, (e.g. the crafting system failure in the OC, various spawn and script failures in both the OC and MotB) that are SOLELY related to trying to play a torrented copy of the game. In many cases those bugs make the torrented copy unplayable beyond certain points. I won't even debate the point as I KNOW it's true. Not surprisingly, a significant number of those users with strange bugs seem to come from singapore and se asia - hotbeds for pirating activities.

So tell me again how the DRM systems do NOT inhibit piracy?

I'm afraid I'm squarely in Yorick's corner on this one. Your arguments about second hand sales DON'T provide a valid argument for dispensing with DRM schemes. In essence, when you buy a game you are buying a LICENSE to the software, nothing more, and as such you do NOT have the right to re-sell the software. Read the EULAs some time.

You may not like that argument, which is your right, and it's also your right NOT to buy a license to software that restricts your usage and prohibits your resale of the license. In that case, you can express your displeasure with your wallet.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Stardock is a another example of a software company that bucks the DRM/copyright paranoia trend and remains a success despite the challenges.

EZ to respect a company who decides that 0% of their legit customers will run into problems using software because of an imperfect scheme. DRM type schemes will remain anti-customer so long as even one legit customer couldn't use the product because of it.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

You are misinformed on the subject, Micah. A handful of pirated games do run into a couple of problems on the first couple of days they get pirated. But those gets fixed in a matter of days. Now if the version of the game in question is an early beta copy that is different, but it as simple to fix for a pirate as waiting for the retail version to get out and download that.

Just go to megagames.com. All these no-cd cracks? That's the hacks. There is nothing more, nothing less. Go install one for Neverwinter Night 2 and see if you get any new bugs. You won't.

Pirate groups like Reloaded pretty much spend all their time on piracy. They are the ones who released the Sims 3 early, as well as countless other games. You may run into problems running a no-cd patch from a random independent guy, but Reloaded get their things straight. So do the other big pirates groups. They do make a mistake every once in a while, but a new patch is available in the next day or two.

I know for a fact because every single game I install I get a no-cd patch for it. Yes, I even did for Neverwinter Nights 2 and Mask of the Betrayer. A quick count through my program files tells me I have 41 games installed. Do you really think I'm going to swap cds all the time?

As Chewbacca said Stardock sold all their games using only a simple serial number and they are doing quite well. It's more than enough to keep an honest customer honest. You won't stop the dishonest customer from dropping by megagames.com if he wants to.

Tell me. How at all is a limited number of installations going to have any effect in stopping piracy? Give me one example where it will prevent a pirate from downloading a no-cd crack. And how about online activation? How is it preventing anyone from using a crack?

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

So you're presenting ONE BOOK as proof?
Ok well, lets look at declining Newspaper sales, as people get their news online for free, declining CD sales, let's look at how piracy affected sales of Wolverine. Sorry man, but one exception bucking the trend proves the rule.

I repeat - why would someone buy a thing they already own for free?
Be that a song, a book, an experience, a movie, a meal.
Answer the question, don't go parading one exception, for it remains the point.

So let me help you out and give one possible answer: gratuitous charity.
Like people giving money to a busker for playing, after they've already enjoyed the experience for free.
And let me tell you, more people do NOT pay the busker than do. It's a hard hard slog.

Re: Anti-piracy or anti-customer ?
 

Funny how those countries that had internationally agreed copyright protection laws that protected intellectual property, which then enabled artists to become professional and thus create more art are now being populated by uneducated children who do not understand the concepts of intellectual property and copyright and so are diminishing their culture's ability to create art.

Meanwhile, those Asian countries that had no copyright laws, which had tiny amounts of art being produced due to rampant piracy of CDs and movies, have no realised stringent legal protection is the only way to ensure a local artistic industry thrives, and so are now ENACTING copyright laws.

Sorry man. But I side with prosecuting people who walk up to an artist, steal their work and then either sell it or keep it. Just as I side with prosecuting anyone who steals from another person. Because protection of personal property is a foundation upon which our society rests.

Similarly, professional art's very existence rests on artists' intellectual property being protected by law.