It currently isn't a criminal offence (thus not a crime).
Remember earlier when you called me a liar? Well, when you say something false - that's a lie.
It's not a criminal offense to rip a DVD with DVD Shrink, encode it with Divx, and share it with BitTorrent?
"Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes and video discs."
"The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in Federal prison and a fine of $250,000."
It's not a criminal offense to hack software to have no security and share it with BitTorrent?
That's not fair use. It's copyright infringement, and that's a criminal offense, if you do it for private financial gain, or if the total retail value is more than $1,000 in a 180-day period.
How much retail value do you think there was in over 10,000 copies of Doom 3?
(I'm ignoring your other comments, because they are based on the false premise that it's not a crime. It is.)
So, if all of that is true - then why were there over 10,000 *simultaneous* downloads of an illegal version of Doom 3, on BitTorrent?
Everybody knows two things about id:
1) They always release demo versions (this time, unfortunately, at a later date.)
2) They always release the source code, at a later date.
Over 10,000 people broke the law. By your ramblings it was just to see if it would work. But, the demo would prove that.
Or, is it slightly more likely, these people merely felt that there was no danger of being caught?
Is it slightly more likely, that some of these people played the game and never bought a legit copy?
Is it slightly more likely, that one of those 10,000 people would have bought a legal copy, if the illegal one had not been available to them?
It's all about the opportunity to commit a crime. You think it's a victimless crime. You're so convinced it's victimless that you're trying to convince me it's not even a crime. Or that it shouldn't be a crime. And that I should be happy about the free marketing. It's not your choice to give me free marketing by stealing my products.
At least one of those 10,000 people would have bought a legit copy, if they had never had the chance to steal. They probably would have based their decision on a review, word of mouth from a friend, seeing it in action at a friend's, or from being blown away by a demo that they downloaded. But instead, they played an illegal version until they got bored.
And then they shared it with all of their friends at a LAN party. Along with every movie they've ever rented, every song they've ever ripped, and every kind of warez you've ever imagined.
But you think it's some marketing boon for the developers. But what's the difference, in your mind, between an illegal copy and a legal demo? Why would anyone, in your mind, break the law in this case? It makes absolutely no sense. Do you think there's some reason for it?
There is no reason. It's all about opportunity to commit a crime. Oh, and the ability to justify it.
You have every opportunity, and you're clearly able to justify it to yourself. Enjoy your life of crime, buddy. You're the one who is driving legislators to write more laws. Because clearly the ones we have are not effective at stopping jerks like you. They certainly haven't convinced you to stop. Now we're just going to have to force you to stop.
And if we get a little less free marketing? Well, that's our problem, thanks.
So, because something has been historically true, you think it is true forever? That seems to be the brunt of your argument. Or am I missing some subtle point? Things change. And, as I tried so hard to point out, it's possible that this industry is different than the ones you mentioned. BitTorrent changes things. Since you've never once responded when I brought it up, I presume you're using the Ignore It And It Will Go Away argument.
Warez hurt software developers. There are billions of dollars of illegal software being used right now. Not tested to guarantee system compatibility. Not run just as a convenience to bypass a cd check. Just being illegaly used.
Seriously, on the streets in China, as I mentioned before and you never commented on, you can buy almost any piece of software you can imagine. Including software that sells for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, in the U.S. If someone buys one of those copies, instead of a legitimate copy, can't you see that the content producer is harmed?
If someone buys an illegal copy of a DVD, can't you see that the content producer is harmed? (Which is why I brought up DeCSS.)
I'm not claiming (and never have claimed) that the content producer will be harmed so greatly as to wither and die. But you cannot claim that they are not at all harmed. Plus, they've got the law on their side.
I don't work in entertainment. I work in a completely different industry. It's much more than entertainment that's at stake here, and the same tools are used in many situations. (BitTorrent, for instance.)
I brought up DeCSS as a counter-example of how sometimes industry cannot respond to threats to ownership. *I* brought it up. I never once insinuated that you brought it up, and you've never once attempted to disarm the point - merely calling me a liar. A liar? *I* brought it up, you moron. And it's not a non-sequitur. It's a new technology (much like radio, VCRs, etc.), but this time, it doesn't help the industry - it *clearly* hurts it. The point? Not all new technologies are as clean as the preacher's sheets. Some suck, and only hurt people. They are (and should be) illegal to use.
all the lies told for years
Lies? You think it's a lie that warez hurt software developers? You think it's a lie?
there can never be any analogies drawn between them?
There can be anologies drawn between them, but they are just that - analogies. So, they are not perfect. When you bring them up, it's not the conversational coup de grace that you think it is. When I point out that it's AT ALL possible that there's a difference, I'm pointing out a chink in the armor of your argument.
Next time, try reading what I write
Next time, try reading what I write. I *never said* you said anything about DeCSS. I brought it up as a counter-example. It's a simple conversational mechanism, but apparently you can't follow it. You still haven't responded to any of my points, other than to call me a liar and to throw some psychobabble bullshit about how I've got emotional issues.
the industry might survive, despite piracy
I never claimed it wouldn't survive (despite piracy). That doesn't make piracy right. That doesn't mean piracy should be legal. That doesn't mean that people should stop trying to fight piracy.
you are so scared about losing your livelyhood
Good one. That's pretty funny. I'm doing just fine, bucky boy - and I'm also willing and able to use both software tricks and the law to defend my rights. You're on the wrong side on this one, but you're on the winning side. Piracy is making gains, as the tools (BitTorrent, for instance) become more widespread. There is no legitimate use for sharing warez, and I'm going to attack the people who do it (or defend those dickheads) at every turn.
I will absolutely answer your question by saying that in all of those cases that you mentioned, the owners were able to take advantage of the new markets, and eventually benefited from them. I will also point out to you that the incremental cost of each of those products ranged between free and about $20. The software *I* make for a living costs much more. So, I take it seriously. If you can paint for me the picture of how I can take advantage of the new market of software theft, I'm all ears.
The DeCSS point was not a non sequitur - and I didn't need to accuse you of lying to make my point. I was trying to illustrate to you that *not all* mechanisms for dissipating the control of content has benefited the content producer. Can't you see that? DeCSS has *clearly* not helped the movie industry. I would argue that any other copy protection defeating mechanism is similarly harmful to some content producer, and not all of them recover. Some do. I absolutely acknowledge that. But it's not your choice about whether they should *try* to defend themselves or not. It's their choice, and the rest of it, while interesting philosophically, has no impact on practice. In practice, people will spend blood, sweat and tears making products, and idiot fuckwads will do everything they can to avoid paying for it.
Have you the heard of the Internet? Have you heard of BitTorrent? Do you write software for a living? Do you make money off of copyrights and licensing? Have you had your multi-thousand dollar software stolen, and sold on the streets in China for dollars? Have you ever written copy protection software? Have you ever caught users stealing your software, based on the fact that your copy protection was smarter than the pirates were?
I have.
Is it AT ALL possible that this industry is different than the ones you mentioned? Because if you think it's not AT ALL possible, then I think you're being intellectually dishonest - it is possible, and I think you know it. And if you admit that it is AT ALL possible then all of your arguments are bullshit - because you keep bringing up content and technologies that have basically nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
You don't win this one, buddy.
Happy Thanksgiving. I particularly enjoyed it when you called me a liar.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
2. b. the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use piracy of programming signals -- United States v. Harrell, 983 Federal Reporter, Second Series 36 (1993)>
How many pirates do I have to prove are foiled by verification?
One?
Alright - my cousin's friend is a chickenshit who bought it, because he was paranoid that he'd get caught using an illegal version. Caught by the game developer, that is.
Finally. Thank god, we can finally lay this to rest. My anectdotal evidence of one dude I kind of know, sort of, has settled this dispute once and for all.:)
Really - it's a question of: 1) Can the developer do it? 2) Does the developer feel more secure? 3) Is there a better mechanism than CD Keys, Physical Defects, or Online Verification - better by *everyone's* standards.
I know of a more expensive one - dongles - and I feel like Steam (Valve) should consider a high-priced ($10 extra, maybe) dongle-activated version, but by no means should they have to offer it, just because whiney hackers on SlashDot bitched about it.
So, a CD Key isn't stolen if you produce one through unauthorized mechanisms?
A credit card number isn't stolen if you produce one through unauthorized mechanisms?
A social security number isn't stolen, if someone infringed on the copyright of your birth certificate?
The *whole point* of this article was theft of, drum roll, CD KEYS. We are not talking about someone infringing copyright by copying the CDs - we are talking about theft of a CD KEY. I don't remember anyone claiming *copyright violation* for the CD KEY, here.
And, disabling the CD KEY mechanism is protected, not for copyright's sake (although it is in the DMCA, I'll grant you that), but because of disabling a security device.
The people that can do it and want to do it will. The rest of you go find something else to do.
Okay, I chose for Valve to develop it, and I chose to buy it. Why do you keep posting in this article?
Your paranoid ramblings about Valve wanting there to be TERROR of software pirates is entertaining, but not based in fact or reason. They want people to stop stealing their software. They're pretty sure that bringing attention to the fact that pirates are getting caught will reduce the chances of a random user downloading an illegal copy.
Again - why do you care if a company makes software that I want to buy, if it doesn't harm you?
Not true. We've had video games for long before this junk.
Okay - that's the price you pay for having *new* video games. Some of them, at least. Like this one. So, that's the price we pay, for being able to have this video game.
There is a better system. Face reality. Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws. Deal with it. Evolve your business model without the aid of legal thuggery or silly online registration.
So, what? You still haven't explained how this will work in practice. How does the software get written and the artwork get created? By fan contributions? Find a single game made by fans for free that comes *close* to any of the FPS's that have come out.
Face reality. Different products come at different costs, and HL2 comes with a price tag you don't like. Fine, don't buy it.
So many leaks happen before the original release... why is it a taxpayer burden to clean up their mess if they can't safeguard their product before release?
Taxpayer burden? What the hell are you talking about?
Copyright law? Are you serious? The defense of copyright law is what you're talking about? Valve could have taken each of these 20,000 pirates to criminal court - but they didn't. They're doing everything they can to keep copyright law and taxpayers out of it, and still earn money as a business. And then you go pissing all over them for it.
What, are you against businesses? Or money?
It sounds to me like their internal business model is severely flawed.
Are you high? They make money, and people enjoy their products. What's the flaw? The fact that *you* don't like them? Hell, dude, I don't like the fact that Disney puts their videos in the Disney Vault, but I'm not going to make an absurd statement like "their internal business model is severely flawed." Your logic is flawed.
There is no convincing argument that developers need to go to these lengths even if the pirate argument is given the benefit of the doubt.
People stole their fucking source code. Do you have any idea of how many people downloaded it? Now, do you want to start over with your assesment that they don't need to go to some lengths to defend themselves?
One wonders how the software industry ever made it through the 80s and 90s if online registration were a necessary extreme.
Hmmm... What invention proliferated in the late 90s that could have made it necessary for developers to make it harder for people to steal their software. Hmmm... If only I could think of some device that made it possible for huge numbers of people to pirate software in a fell swoop.
The Internet, you idiot. This is not rocket science. BitTorrent traffic is what, 35% of everything on the Internet. You want to bet how much of that content is ILLEGAL?
Software developers are responding to that technology the best way they know how. Again, get over it.
They develop products, and you can buy them or not. Beyond than that, you're just pissing in the wind.
Are you serious? How the hell do you want the developers to not get screwed?
Seriously? If it "makes no sense whatsoever," then I must not have any sense, because it makes sense to me.
Please help restore sanity into my life by telling me what the developers *should* do in this case, because there's apparently a sensible alternative that everyone in the world is missing, but you have figured out that it makes no sense whatsoever.
Intention 1: skip the cd check. Action: pay for the software, and defeat cd check.
Intention 2: steal the software. Action: don't pay for the software, and defeat cd check.
So, when the developers figure out that you've defeated the cd check, it will be seen as you trying to cheat them out of compensation for their work, because (drum roll) they can't know for sure that you have payed money for the product.
What they sold you was a marker that was redeemable for a license. The marker is the CD Key. This isn't complicated stuff, legally.
And why do we go through this? Because nobody wants to send their computer to Valve to have them install HL2 for them.
That's the price we pay, for being able to have video games.
When you come up with a better mechanism, patent it, and license it out dirt cheep to game developers, so we won't have this problem any more.
Until then, that's how the system works. If pirates didn't steal games (say, 20,000 of them in the first month of a game coming out), then developers wouldn't go to these extremes.
...that looked like the sarcastic quotation mark symbol to me.
DNA evidence is not contrarian, and that's what I thought your post implied.
When an O.J. Simpson juror reported that O.J.'s DNA being found at the murder site didn't bother him, because a lot of people have the same DNA type, I just about blew a fuse. He meant blood type. Apparently the prosecution had done such a horrible job that a juror thought that matching DNA meant the match was about a one in seven thing, not a one in four billion thing.
I never really knew what lipstick on a pig looked like before.
The article explaining that dinosaur tracks are mostly in a straight line, so that means they were running away from the great flood was particularly delusional.
Oh, and this gem on the speed of light was just amazing.
When you talk about the Holocaust, a journalist who tries to inject "balance" into his story has to represent the KKK's view that the Holocaust never happened.
Slashdot Mirror
It currently isn't a criminal offence (thus not a crime).
Remember earlier when you called me a liar? Well, when you say something false - that's a lie.
It's not a criminal offense to rip a DVD with DVD Shrink, encode it with Divx, and share it with BitTorrent?
"Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, video tapes and video discs."
"The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in Federal prison and a fine of $250,000."
It's not a criminal offense to hack software to have no security and share it with BitTorrent?
That's not fair use. It's copyright infringement, and that's a criminal offense, if you do it for private financial gain, or if the total retail value is more than $1,000 in a 180-day period.
How much retail value do you think there was in over 10,000 copies of Doom 3?
(I'm ignoring your other comments, because they are based on the false premise that it's not a crime. It is.)
I really liked The Bench. I wish they would do that again. I think I contributed three cartoons for The Bench, and one of them was even funny. =)
So, if all of that is true - then why were there over 10,000 *simultaneous* downloads of an illegal version of Doom 3, on BitTorrent?
Everybody knows two things about id:
1) They always release demo versions (this time, unfortunately, at a later date.)
2) They always release the source code, at a later date.
Over 10,000 people broke the law. By your ramblings it was just to see if it would work. But, the demo would prove that.
Or, is it slightly more likely, these people merely felt that there was no danger of being caught?
Is it slightly more likely, that some of these people played the game and never bought a legit copy?
Is it slightly more likely, that one of those 10,000 people would have bought a legal copy, if the illegal one had not been available to them?
It's all about the opportunity to commit a crime. You think it's a victimless crime. You're so convinced it's victimless that you're trying to convince me it's not even a crime. Or that it shouldn't be a crime. And that I should be happy about the free marketing. It's not your choice to give me free marketing by stealing my products.
At least one of those 10,000 people would have bought a legit copy, if they had never had the chance to steal. They probably would have based their decision on a review, word of mouth from a friend, seeing it in action at a friend's, or from being blown away by a demo that they downloaded. But instead, they played an illegal version until they got bored.
And then they shared it with all of their friends at a LAN party. Along with every movie they've ever rented, every song they've ever ripped, and every kind of warez you've ever imagined.
But you think it's some marketing boon for the developers. But what's the difference, in your mind, between an illegal copy and a legal demo? Why would anyone, in your mind, break the law in this case? It makes absolutely no sense. Do you think there's some reason for it?
There is no reason. It's all about opportunity to commit a crime. Oh, and the ability to justify it.
You have every opportunity, and you're clearly able to justify it to yourself. Enjoy your life of crime, buddy. You're the one who is driving legislators to write more laws. Because clearly the ones we have are not effective at stopping jerks like you. They certainly haven't convinced you to stop. Now we're just going to have to force you to stop.
And if we get a little less free marketing? Well, that's our problem, thanks.
I, for one, welcome our new Comet Temple Overlords.
So, because something has been historically true, you think it is true forever? That seems to be the brunt of your argument. Or am I missing some subtle point? Things change. And, as I tried so hard to point out, it's possible that this industry is different than the ones you mentioned. BitTorrent changes things. Since you've never once responded when I brought it up, I presume you're using the Ignore It And It Will Go Away argument.
Warez hurt software developers. There are billions of dollars of illegal software being used right now. Not tested to guarantee system compatibility. Not run just as a convenience to bypass a cd check. Just being illegaly used.
Seriously, on the streets in China, as I mentioned before and you never commented on, you can buy almost any piece of software you can imagine. Including software that sells for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, in the U.S. If someone buys one of those copies, instead of a legitimate copy, can't you see that the content producer is harmed?
If someone buys an illegal copy of a DVD, can't you see that the content producer is harmed? (Which is why I brought up DeCSS.)
I'm not claiming (and never have claimed) that the content producer will be harmed so greatly as to wither and die. But you cannot claim that they are not at all harmed. Plus, they've got the law on their side.
Was there something else you wanted to add?
I don't work in entertainment. I work in a completely different industry. It's much more than entertainment that's at stake here, and the same tools are used in many situations. (BitTorrent, for instance.)
I brought up DeCSS as a counter-example of how sometimes industry cannot respond to threats to ownership. *I* brought it up. I never once insinuated that you brought it up, and you've never once attempted to disarm the point - merely calling me a liar. A liar? *I* brought it up, you moron. And it's not a non-sequitur. It's a new technology (much like radio, VCRs, etc.), but this time, it doesn't help the industry - it *clearly* hurts it. The point? Not all new technologies are as clean as the preacher's sheets. Some suck, and only hurt people. They are (and should be) illegal to use.
all the lies told for years
Lies? You think it's a lie that warez hurt software developers? You think it's a lie?
there can never be any analogies drawn between them?
There can be anologies drawn between them, but they are just that - analogies. So, they are not perfect. When you bring them up, it's not the conversational coup de grace that you think it is. When I point out that it's AT ALL possible that there's a difference, I'm pointing out a chink in the armor of your argument.
Next time, try reading what I write
Next time, try reading what I write. I *never said* you said anything about DeCSS. I brought it up as a counter-example. It's a simple conversational mechanism, but apparently you can't follow it. You still haven't responded to any of my points, other than to call me a liar and to throw some psychobabble bullshit about how I've got emotional issues.
the industry might survive, despite piracy
I never claimed it wouldn't survive (despite piracy). That doesn't make piracy right. That doesn't mean piracy should be legal. That doesn't mean that people should stop trying to fight piracy.
you are so scared about losing your livelyhood
Good one. That's pretty funny. I'm doing just fine, bucky boy - and I'm also willing and able to use both software tricks and the law to defend my rights. You're on the wrong side on this one, but you're on the winning side. Piracy is making gains, as the tools (BitTorrent, for instance) become more widespread. There is no legitimate use for sharing warez, and I'm going to attack the people who do it (or defend those dickheads) at every turn.
I will absolutely answer your question by saying that in all of those cases that you mentioned, the owners were able to take advantage of the new markets, and eventually benefited from them. I will also point out to you that the incremental cost of each of those products ranged between free and about $20. The software *I* make for a living costs much more. So, I take it seriously. If you can paint for me the picture of how I can take advantage of the new market of software theft, I'm all ears.
The DeCSS point was not a non sequitur - and I didn't need to accuse you of lying to make my point. I was trying to illustrate to you that *not all* mechanisms for dissipating the control of content has benefited the content producer. Can't you see that? DeCSS has *clearly* not helped the movie industry. I would argue that any other copy protection defeating mechanism is similarly harmful to some content producer, and not all of them recover. Some do. I absolutely acknowledge that. But it's not your choice about whether they should *try* to defend themselves or not. It's their choice, and the rest of it, while interesting philosophically, has no impact on practice. In practice, people will spend blood, sweat and tears making products, and idiot fuckwads will do everything they can to avoid paying for it.
Have you the heard of the Internet? Have you heard of BitTorrent? Do you write software for a living? Do you make money off of copyrights and licensing? Have you had your multi-thousand dollar software stolen, and sold on the streets in China for dollars? Have you ever written copy protection software? Have you ever caught users stealing your software, based on the fact that your copy protection was smarter than the pirates were?
I have.
Is it AT ALL possible that this industry is different than the ones you mentioned? Because if you think it's not AT ALL possible, then I think you're being intellectually dishonest - it is possible, and I think you know it. And if you admit that it is AT ALL possible then all of your arguments are bullshit - because you keep bringing up content and technologies that have basically nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.
You don't win this one, buddy.
Happy Thanksgiving. I particularly enjoyed it when you called me a liar.
Tell me how DeCSS is helping the movie industry.
Tell me how warez are helping the software industry.
Ah, you don't care.
They should care what your opinion is, but you don't care what their opinion is.
Got it.
Good luck telling that to the judge.
Also, you're wrong...
piracy
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
2. b. the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use piracy of programming signals -- United States v. Harrell , 983 Federal Reporter, Second Series 36 (1993)>
Do you want to reconsider the lecture, professor?
Well, "Internet connection required" should be your first clue.
The dozen articles on Slashdot should have been your second.
The reviews on all of the game sites should have been your third.
Caveat emptor.
How many pirates do I have to prove are foiled by verification?
:)
One?
Alright - my cousin's friend is a chickenshit who bought it, because he was paranoid that he'd get caught using an illegal version. Caught by the game developer, that is.
Finally. Thank god, we can finally lay this to rest. My anectdotal evidence of one dude I kind of know, sort of, has settled this dispute once and for all.
Really - it's a question of: 1) Can the developer do it? 2) Does the developer feel more secure? 3) Is there a better mechanism than CD Keys, Physical Defects, or Online Verification - better by *everyone's* standards.
I know of a more expensive one - dongles - and I feel like Steam (Valve) should consider a high-priced ($10 extra, maybe) dongle-activated version, but by no means should they have to offer it, just because whiney hackers on SlashDot bitched about it.
So, a CD Key isn't stolen if you produce one through unauthorized mechanisms?
A credit card number isn't stolen if you produce one through unauthorized mechanisms?
A social security number isn't stolen, if someone infringed on the copyright of your birth certificate?
The *whole point* of this article was theft of, drum roll, CD KEYS. We are not talking about someone infringing copyright by copying the CDs - we are talking about theft of a CD KEY. I don't remember anyone claiming *copyright violation* for the CD KEY, here.
And, disabling the CD KEY mechanism is protected, not for copyright's sake (although it is in the DMCA, I'll grant you that), but because of disabling a security device.
What?!?
I'm the one without a clue?
We've had new video games for decades without online verification.
Times change. The Internet pretty much changed all of that.
No one's demonstrated that online verification prevents unauthorized sharing.
Are you insane?
The people that can do it and want to do it will. The rest of you go find something else to do.
Okay, I chose for Valve to develop it, and I chose to buy it. Why do you keep posting in this article?
Your paranoid ramblings about Valve wanting there to be TERROR of software pirates is entertaining, but not based in fact or reason. They want people to stop stealing their software. They're pretty sure that bringing attention to the fact that pirates are getting caught will reduce the chances of a random user downloading an illegal copy.
Again - why do you care if a company makes software that I want to buy, if it doesn't harm you?
Not true. We've had video games for long before this junk.
Okay - that's the price you pay for having *new* video games. Some of them, at least. Like this one. So, that's the price we pay, for being able to have this video game.
There is a better system. Face reality. Wake up tomorrow and there are no copyright laws. Deal with it. Evolve your business model without the aid of legal thuggery or silly online registration.
So, what? You still haven't explained how this will work in practice. How does the software get written and the artwork get created? By fan contributions? Find a single game made by fans for free that comes *close* to any of the FPS's that have come out.
Face reality. Different products come at different costs, and HL2 comes with a price tag you don't like. Fine, don't buy it.
So many leaks happen before the original release... why is it a taxpayer burden to clean up their mess if they can't safeguard their product before release?
Taxpayer burden? What the hell are you talking about?
Copyright law? Are you serious? The defense of copyright law is what you're talking about? Valve could have taken each of these 20,000 pirates to criminal court - but they didn't. They're doing everything they can to keep copyright law and taxpayers out of it, and still earn money as a business. And then you go pissing all over them for it.
What, are you against businesses? Or money?
It sounds to me like their internal business model is severely flawed.
Are you high? They make money, and people enjoy their products. What's the flaw? The fact that *you* don't like them? Hell, dude, I don't like the fact that Disney puts their videos in the Disney Vault, but I'm not going to make an absurd statement like "their internal business model is severely flawed." Your logic is flawed.
There is no convincing argument that developers need to go to these lengths even if the pirate argument is given the benefit of the doubt.
People stole their fucking source code. Do you have any idea of how many people downloaded it? Now, do you want to start over with your assesment that they don't need to go to some lengths to defend themselves?
One wonders how the software industry ever made it through the 80s and 90s if online registration were a necessary extreme.
Hmmm... What invention proliferated in the late 90s that could have made it necessary for developers to make it harder for people to steal their software. Hmmm... If only I could think of some device that made it possible for huge numbers of people to pirate software in a fell swoop.
The Internet, you idiot. This is not rocket science. BitTorrent traffic is what, 35% of everything on the Internet. You want to bet how much of that content is ILLEGAL?
Software developers are responding to that technology the best way they know how. Again, get over it.
They develop products, and you can buy them or not. Beyond than that, you're just pissing in the wind.
The fact that they install anything on your hard drive is just because they're trying to make it faster. The CD is the master.
The GameBoy analogy is perfect.
Makes no sense whatsoever?
Are you serious? How the hell do you want the developers to not get screwed?
Seriously? If it "makes no sense whatsoever," then I must not have any sense, because it makes sense to me.
Please help restore sanity into my life by telling me what the developers *should* do in this case, because there's apparently a sensible alternative that everyone in the world is missing, but you have figured out that it makes no sense whatsoever.
Please educate us.
Intention 1: skip the cd check. Action: pay for the software, and defeat cd check.
Intention 2: steal the software. Action: don't pay for the software, and defeat cd check.
So, when the developers figure out that you've defeated the cd check, it will be seen as you trying to cheat them out of compensation for their work, because (drum roll) they can't know for sure that you have payed money for the product.
Their actions are reasonable. Get over it.
What they sold you was a marker that was redeemable for a license. The marker is the CD Key. This isn't complicated stuff, legally.
And why do we go through this? Because nobody wants to send their computer to Valve to have them install HL2 for them.
That's the price we pay, for being able to have video games.
When you come up with a better mechanism, patent it, and license it out dirt cheep to game developers, so we won't have this problem any more.
Until then, that's how the system works. If pirates didn't steal games (say, 20,000 of them in the first month of a game coming out), then developers wouldn't go to these extremes.
I bought a phone, and it didn't work.
Turns out I need some special "phone company" to turn on my service.
Bastards.
proved by the new "evidence" (DNA).
DNA evidence is not contrarian, and that's what I thought your post implied.
When an O.J. Simpson juror reported that O.J.'s DNA being found at the murder site didn't bother him, because a lot of people have the same DNA type, I just about blew a fuse. He meant blood type. Apparently the prosecution had done such a horrible job that a juror thought that matching DNA meant the match was about a one in seven thing, not a one in four billion thing.
Wow. Just - wow.
I never really knew what lipstick on a pig looked like before.
The article explaining that dinosaur tracks are mostly in a straight line, so that means they were running away from the great flood was particularly delusional.
Oh, and this gem on the speed of light was just amazing.
A newspaper reporter is not going to be the one who discovers the next Galileo. They should stop trying.
Keep this in mind:
When you talk about the Holocaust, a journalist who tries to inject "balance" into his story has to represent the KKK's view that the Holocaust never happened.
Was it Dilbert who asked, "When did ignorance become a point of view?"