Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorick
Guys the argument that locks/protection only affects honest people and not those who succeed in bypassing them is circular logic. It really shouldn't be used on the principle that it goes without saying that someone who bypasses a lock has not been restricted access.
The point is it creates even a token barrier to everyone, some who bypass it, others who don't. The fact is, if it prevents one person from stealing, it's worked. Determining numbers of preventions is impossible. Are people going to suddenly own up and say "yes well I tried to steal that car/game/donut but was deterred by the protection device"??????
Give it a rest please,  use that energy to find another justification other than "only honest people are affected" it's proven to be moot. |
Howdy Yorick
I don't think there are any absolutes in this world, especially when it comes to differing opinions. Of course there will be exceptions for just about any point of view (a scientist with a string of letters after their name and a limited purview of the universe excluded)
I've been inconvenienced by locked buildings too - sometimes because I haven't noticed the big 'CLOSED' sign, usually because someone in security hasn't unlocked the %^&@#! doors on time (running late, too busy, forgot, etc). Regardless, these situations usually seem to result from human error, and there's no way of predicting or accounting for that
As I said in the first post, I don't have a problem with a company using any type of reliable copy protection they want - they're entitled to a fair return for their investment.
OTOH if they want to persist with crappy/buggy/troublesome systems, limited activations, in-game advertising or online patching let me know so I can leave it (game/music/whatever) on the shelf
