My experience with hard drug users (heroin, cocaine, meth, & similar) is that use may start "in control", but at some point spirals out of control, and takes the user's life with it.
to be fair you really would only see the cases where this happens. If I did work for the AA and never went to bars I would almost certainly conclude that everyone who starts drinking ends up addicted to alcohol and that everyone who gets even mildly addicted to alcohol end up destroying their life completely. I can throw out stories of alcoholics eating boot polish(which had some form of alcohol in it) when they couldn't get access to normal alcohol. Does this mean that I shouldn't be allowed go down the pub for a pint? The only difference is the percentage of people who get badly addicted.
Well, increased usage of hard drugs leads to addiction and loss of productivity. People lose jobs because of addictions. They can't afford to support themselves or their families. Yes, if we try to protect those who fall to the bottom of the barrel, the cost to society will increase.
Well if you're going to ban things which hurt productivity then slashdot will be public enemy number one. Should you be made a criminal for taking actions which might hurt you? if you follow this line then just about anything can be banned.
Look at your arguments and then look up the arguments put forward by various priests back in the days of prohibition, they're quite similar and both revolve around the idea that we'd have to wade through a sea of addicts lying on the streets if not for the laws currently in place.
If you truly were a decent, moral person with legitimate reasons for hating DRM, you would want to be doing everything you could to prevent its use, not encouraging it. Right? By claiming that DRM is the reason X% percentage of pirates download games, you basically show that you agree that it's a valid reason in and of itself. You don't even have to agree that it's a legitimate excuse for piracy, all you have to do is agree that it's true, which is what you're doing.
I could also prevent it's use by trying to get my government to recognise it as the scam it is and making it illegal in the same way that a shotgun tied pointed at a door with a string to the trigger is illegal even if it is to protect your property.Or like how snap inspections by landlords are illegal. That would prevent it's use much more effectively. Even if I pushed for it to be made law that companies must give a DRM unlocking mechanism to a legal firm or the government for distribution in case of them going bankrupt(because the last thing they'll care about if their company is going under is having someone write an unlocker.) that would be a step in the right direction.
Of course the simple fact is that it isn't a true statement, it's yet more lies
Look back, you haven't shown this at all. anywhere. you just keep repeating it. repeating it does not make it true.
brought to you by the people who have every reason to say anything they can to legitimise what they do
Can you not understand that some people simply don't like their computer being infected by a virus?
(As an aside, people like yourself don't make very good judges, because all you'd end up doing is letting everyone off. "Oh, he just needed to feed his family, it's ok that he stole that food", "You say you promise you'll pay back the dealership for that car you stole? Well that's good enough for me. Everyone needs a car", "I agree, that guy was being a jerk, he really did deserve to die. No murder setence for you!")
Wow, and people like you make really really awful judges because they make blanket statements about whole groups of people based on a tiny snapshot of their views. "He's black? Lock im up! they're all criminals, they just try to justify their disrespect for the flag and civil disobedience as some kind of 'civil rights movement' when really they just want to stab people in the face for fun" As an aside you know in some more civilised countries stealing food isn't actually a crime if it is for your own consumption. The shop can ban you and get you for trespassing if you come back but if they call the police when someone steals a non-luxury food item they'll be told 'that isn't illegal' Judges often do come back with "No murder setence for you!" when they decide that there really was good reason like your property or life being in danger. DRM endangers my property and so removing it protects my property.(Property, not licensed crap, places with sane laws on the matter reguard copies of games like they reguard copies of books- as your property to buy, sell second hand or if you so wish, eat.) But your blanket assertions cover everything! You can't be wrong in any way!
Because if you legitimise it, you give more reason for more people to do it more often. Which as we know is only going to lead to more invasive DRM - and because no software is perfect, more people who claim DRM wrecked their computer (even if these claims are never backed by evidence); or God forbid prevents them from installing the same game on the 10+ dedicated gaming machines they just happen to have lying around; all frequently used, naturally.
Wow. people like you really exist? so people who's computers are wrecked by DRM should keep quite? People who can't play their games because of poorly written DRM should pretend it all works? People should accept scammers installing software on their machines? and if they do a
How many people who aren't using drugs under the current system would turn around and grab them the second they became legal? Cheap alcohol doesn't make everyone an alcoholic.:D There is quite an industry built up there. Might have to throw in a grandfather clause so they can keep busting down doors and
1: Would it be cheaper than the current system? you're already losing a chunk of your paycheck to pay for the war on drugs, another chunk to higher insurance premiums and possibly a chunk to theft. how expensive is a ton of heroin if produced in bulk with no worries about the law? dirt cheap I'm betting.
2: a very very good point and the only problem people have pointed out which does bother me.
First of all, this means that I, while drug-free and busting my ass to support my family, am also required to support the drug habit (through free govt-supplied drugs) of some addict, ostensibly forever, or until the addict dies. Excuse me, but fuck that. My beer, wine, or bourbon isn't free. Why the hell should his line of coke or shot of heroin be free?
You're already paying. People steal to pay for their habits. Vast amounts of crime are due to this. You pay if you get robbed and in higher insurance premiums.How expensive do you really think producing most street drugs is? compared to the money spent on police to enforce the current laws? A lifetimes supply of heroin would be a tiny fraction of the cost of putting the addict in question in jail.
IF you're going to pay for drugs out of the govt purse (out of MY purse, in other words), you'd better do something first about all the people out there suffering from diseases they didn't inflict on themselves. Kids with cancer, etc. When you do that, you'll find out that it raises my taxes considerably, which I can't afford. I'm pretty sure that after paying for universal healthcare, I sure won't have anything left to fund a addict maintenance program.
you don't seem to get that this way is cheaper than the current way. Want lower taxes? go with my way. well it will probably be wasted on something else but the war on drugs is a massive money hole with no useful results and pleanty of expensive useless results.
Also, I saw that you mentioned "to people already addicted", which I take to mean that you would NOT be providing drugs to non-addicts, correct? Who determines who is an addict? The user? A doctor? Is there anything preventing a non-addict from claiming they are an addict and getting a govt-paid dose of a drug they have an itch to try? If you give the drugs only to certified addicts, then there still remains a "vacuum" of non-addicted, curious, rebellious, risk-taking thrill seeker kids who want to know what "high" feels like, and are a ripe market for illicit drug use.
there's little reason to limit it to addicts but even if you do for some sort of "moral" or "think of the children" reasons then you still kill the primary market for drugs and drop the price through the floor neatly removing the whole criminal element or leaving the trade in a situation where drug barons would earn more money working at burger king. No more getting your car window broken by someone looking to fence your stereo for drug money.
You cannot eliminate the black market for drugs. Human curiosity and peer pressure will still drive new illicit use.
If you don't limit it to people already addicted then you do eliminate the whole market. all of it. gone. peer pressure and curiosity will still cause some people to try drugs but that happens anyway under the current system. it's (literally) childsplay to get drugs.
Also, I would expect that existing addicts will experience craving will drive the demand side of the illicit supply/demand equation, and sustain or create a new black market for drugs. (You've already been to the clinic today, and had your dose, but the craving came back before you're allowed more... better find that dealer again.) A crack high is gone within minutes, and the need to use again comes back fast. If you supply it as fast as the addict wants it, well, you're going to be busy. Not to mention that your crackhead is going to be useless to society.
Because they're so useful as it it. where did I say anything about limiting supply. Give em all they want. sure some will overdose but this isn't about their well being. This is about everyone elses well being.
rest assured that the addict will share/sell/distribute some to others
Who would be perfectly free to come in themselves and get some. I'm not that bothered by the ODing thing.
Not to mention that this only works with drugs you can reasonably maintain yourself on. I don't see this working with a raging meth addict.
On that we can most certainly agree. I just tend to be of the opinion that if you remove all financial motivations to get others addicted then the number of new users will go down as well even if you handle it right. (after an initial "hey this is legal now!" period) there will always be a core of people who choose to take drugs anyway but if you can find a solution to that then call be back.
did you read it properly? Right now the suppliers have a vested interest in increasing userbase.
My way the ones giving out the drugs(government) have a vested interest in decreasing their user base since they're also dealing with the fallout.
I'm not talking about legalization in the normal sense where there are still groups with a financial interest in getting more users (it's just legitimate tax paying companies).
I'm talking about making drugs worth nothing so nobody will have an interest in getting other people to get addicted.
If they step in and jack up the price then you're not following the simple steps.
Where did I say anything about having drug companies come in with high prices?
And they'd have problems with that since they have no patent on pot: other drug companies would just sell for cheaper until the price was just above the cost of production.
legalize and regulate if you just want to cut down on the crime. Gets rid of the crime but if part of your goal is to lower drug use then this has the downside that there's still a group with a vested intrest in increasing the market for their product. Give away free only if your goal is to cut down on the number of addicts.
Your money is already spent in a futile attempt to lock them up. This way is just cheaper.
The sad thing is people actually believe what you say. And it's even more depressing how easy it would be to solve all those problems.
If I was currently selling illegal drugs in the US and wanted to continue to rake in giant piles of money I'd be making political donations to whoever was pushing the "tough on drugs" laws with a little note along the lines of "keep up the good work mate". Why? Well if it was legalised I'd be ruined!
Who was hurt most by the ending of prohibition? The mob of course, they wanted it to never end. Legal distributors selling safer cheaper drugs would push them out of the market entirely.
The best thing that can happen for them is for a competitor to be busted, they can just expand into their former market overnight. Sure they might be busted themselves but the organisations which survive and grow will be the ones which are best at avoiding getting caught.
I've heard that during prohibition foreign alcohol producers quietly lobbied to keep prohibition since consumption didn't go down, the American producers were pushed out of business and import taxes went the way of the morning mist.
Few people seem to be able to graps this, drug laws just create a situation where there's a group of people distributing drugs with a large financial incentive to expand their market.
Want to get rid of the drug dealers? It only takes a few easy and cheap steps. Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted with no criminal penalties or consequences to people who come forward and ask for them. Step 2: You're basicly done, you've knocked the bottom out of the drug buisness, you are now the distributor and you have no reason to try to get more people addicted. Drug dealers can no longer make any profit out of getting kids addicted since they just go to you when it starts costing money.
Much much much much cheaper than the massive failure that the war on drugs is.
Roundabout logic like "you need oxyge to live", "ducks go quack" and "DRM pisses off legitimate consumers, does nothing useful and is never even encountered by pirates"
Funny how people can be too thick to understand simple ideas like that.
Evidence? Of course not. As I said before, it's paranoia that drives your argument.
You've provided none for your view. You're the one pushing the paranoid "ze hackers will ruin us all" line, not me.
No, but if you stop making excuses for piracy, society won't have this view that piracy is good because everybody does it and nobody gets caught (as it does now), thus piracy will decrease, thus DRM measures will decrease.
Hah! You forgot the second hand games market. DRM is great for killing this market. Why should copyright holders of games have any more right to prevent me selling my games on than book publishers have to stop me selling my books second hand?
And they're a multi-billion dollar company (recent economic downturns, rabid piracy advocat-sponsored anti-DRM slander campaigns, and losses of piracy notwithstanding). Or is that simple logic beyond you?
Hmm. EA makes a move towards more and more DRM over the last few years, has a disaster with some more recent games and backlash from over the top DRM, starts having problems to the point that they have to start dropping a fuckload of employees. And it's the pirates fault. Right. When sane people look at this they see : The store just pissed off too many customers by having security guards who treat the legit customers like crap. Or is that simple logic beyond you?
Because you have just enough morals to believe stealing physical property is wrong, but not enough to believe stealing intangible property is wrong, even though they both required the same amount of labor and resources to produce (in fact, often more so in the case of intangible property).
Wow, can you even read? Remember back where I said I made the mistake of buying a legit copy of spore? I buy my software and hence I am one of the people who is hurt by DRM. It helps me in no way shape or form and only makes me look like a chump next to people who had the sense to get DRM-free copies. If legit copies had any advantages over pirated ones then I might not feel so cheated but since they're worse I'm being pushed away from the legit market. People like you who push for more DRM encourage piracy more than any social acceptance ever could.
Actually, considering how many sales were made in those weeks, yes.
Because 100% of sales are due to the lovely DRM. Many would say those sales are in spite of the DRM, not because of it.
How many users would have pirated it without DRM? 1% 2%? possibly more but then what percentage don't buy it who would have otherwise because of DRM? 2%? 3%%? probably more considering the amazon ratings.
Then look harder, and do your best to overcome that confirmation bias. like my confirmation bias that the ocean is wet.
not to mention the countless evidence on torrent sites of software without DRM that still gets uploaded
Not having DRM is not a magic bullet, your software will end up on the torrent sites either way but if you spend 10% of your dev budget on DRM which gets broken days after release then you have wasted a great deal of money.
So you're saying that piracy has absolutely no financial impact on the developers? And what about internally-developed DRM systems? Are companies like Valve and Stardock scamming themselves?
Oh I'm sure it has an impact, much much less than the impact of shoplifting on shops but sure there's a discernable impact there. What I'm saying is that DRM has zero or worse net impact on piracy. How many sales do you gain from having DRM?
Those willing to pirate it know very well that every game gets cracked in a few days or weeks so unless they want it in the first hours after release they'll just wait until the crack comes out. They won't havr to wait long. Hardly any sales are gained by stopping the game from hitting the torrent sites for a few hours and while you still have DRM on the game you lose a small portion of sales by people who are offended by that model of software control. You can't claim that the huge cost of DRM is justified when it isn't going to increase your profits or stop them from being decreased.
You seem to be incapable of simple human logic. Are you sure you aren't a bot? Because you just failed the turing test. Making the point that pirates don't see DRM, while true, is invalid because the logic that surrounds it - that if something doesn't work 100% of the time and isn't the most convenient for the end user, we should give up on it
In no way have you shown this logis to be invalid. And it isn't a case of not working 100% of the time. it's a case of working 0% of the time. I never ever ever ever works. No matter how many programmers you have building your DRM there's a hundred times that number of bored, skilled teenagers and adults out there all willing to break it for fun to prove that they can. People who will spend hours, days, weeks or months working hard every night to find holes in your system because they can and they enjoy it.
You can either piss into the wind trying to beat them or you can accept that they will beat you and save yourself time and money and run your buisness like a sensible real world buisness. Walmart doesn't shackle everyone who buys their products for fear of shoplifters, they accept a certain ammount of loss to shoplifters on the basis that they lose more sales from legitimate customers who get pissed off if they get treated like criminals.
one of these things is not like the others... Hmm. no, not matter how much bullshit you spew DRM doesn't fit in with those others.
- is completely invalid. Providing hospitals is an inconvenience because it costs money. And people still die anyway. Therefore by your logic we shouldn't have hospitals.
If hospitals never kept anyone alive more than an extra week or so then this would be quite true. If DRM ever held for decades then you might have a point. but it doesn't.ever. It gets broken much faster than it gets written.
Wow a whole 3 hits that aren't related to the search subject!
and if I ass "purple monkey dish washer" to the search I get zero hits! It's funny how adding uncommon phrases cuts down the number of results. It's fairly funny that you still got results even after adding that. As an experiment I tried "red ring of death""irrefutable evidence" just to see how many hits I got for that phrase along with something which isn't disputed as being a fairly major problem. I only get 5 hits. So would this mean it's killed half as much hardware as the well known the red ring of death?
And if I buy games online, I even get to have them backed up as long as the company exists, and that's not even a fair use right! Which part of my right to fair use is being violated by DRM?
Well lets see. DRM isn't just on games, you'll find it on music and videos too. Stunning isn't it. Only decent example of this I can think of is steam and they had to add a great deal of carrot and remove a lot of the DRM stick for that to really become popular. So the only examples you have of DRM being less than an utter and complete fuckup is with the absolutely least offensive forms of DRM or the absolutely best behaved companies?
"unstable internet connection"
I have a perfectly stable internet connection. I can still connect to my shell accounts, I can still ping any server I want, but some system laid on top of IP goes offline and for some reason I can't play my games.
maybe it says something different on the.jpg box cover that came with yours?
You really are slow grasping this. I got the legit version of spore and got screwed royaly. I should have grabbed a cracked copy since I wouldn't have had to deal with all the shit from the DRM. it would have been less hassel to be an illegal user. If I had a jpg box cover I would have had an easy time and no shit from DRM but unfortunatly I'm a fool for trying to use legitimate software.
This is the "up to spec laptop" that doesn't have a stable internet connection and thus doesn't meet the requirements, right? Or perhaps you had some other reason to spend 2 hours on an international phone call that you'd like to mention?
Have you been living under a rock? 3 activations then you have to call with "please sir, can I have some more sir".My internet connection is perfectly stable. my local DNS is fine most of the time but that isn't my internet connection.
No it's like your condition of renting the property is they can't have any more than 3 guests at a time which they have agreed to, but every day they come inside the house with a different guest, and you never see any of those guests coming out, then whinge when you want to come in and have a look to confirm there are only 3 guests in there, but they bitch that that's invading their privacy, even though they already agreed to that condition, because if they're tenants, it's technically your property.
Be funny if you were a landlord. Here and in most western countries if you tried that your tennent could take you to court and roast you over a fire and could sue you. For a lot of money. Any such clause in the contract would be very very illegal. who said anything about guests? Last time I checked the agreements for most games said "no guests". You yourself unlock the door to the house you have bought and after doing that 3 times you then get locked out until you call the builders and beg their permission to get back in.
At no point did he say DRM was an excuse for piracy. In fact you confirmed the point he was making.
I'm revising my throught that you're an employee of a company which provides DRM... Are you really a bot set to respond with certain arguments whenever a keyword is used?
Or would you rather just keep making the backwards claim that piracy only happens because of DRM?
I never said that, I did say that it happens more because of DRM.
people have problems with having to spend all of 30 seconds entering a key code. Some people are just really lazy and stupid.
And people have problems with the games they own not working because the DRM servers have been switched off or are offline because of a new release by the company or the DRM doesn't like their hardware setup. Anyone who hates DRM is real lazy and stupid.right...
The way to get rid of it of course, is to stop encouraging piracy or making excuses for it.
OK you've wandered away from all logic here. So if I stop saying that DRM is snake oil then it will go away? You might as well claim that shoplifting will go away if you clap your hands and believe! Believe with all your heart!
I could walk into my local supermarket and walk out with hundreds of euro worth of items and there would be fuck all chance of getting caught yet I don't. Why? Because I like the majority of humanity will line up and pay of their own free will.
Wow, subtly trying to imply that I'm a pirate are you? I'm saying that DRM is a scam, not that piracy is ok. I am saying that piracy is encouraged by DRM since people prefer to avoid the crapware. Those statements are distinct. like saying "poking someone in they eye makes them more likely to kill you" isn't the same as saying "it's ok to kill you".
several weeks to crack
Wow! weeks? so worth the massive investment and pissing off legit customers. So I guess the company will be releasing a patch to remove the DRM on that game now that it serves no purpose? it's already broken and on the torrents so why are we fucking over legitimate users?
"going to crack it, but couldn't, so caved in and bought it".
I have never ever ever seen that written on slashdot. I have on the other hand seen many many examples of "wouldn't work so I donwloaded the crack", "wouldn't work because of the DRM and will never buy from that company again", "The DRM fucked up my system, can I sue them?", "I've seen so many people telling me how the DRM fucked things up that I'm just going to download the cracked version of TPB"
Anecdotal evidence suggests very very strongly that DRM puts off at least as many if not many more than it causes to buy the software.
I thought the correlation was pretty obvious. Piracy causes DRM.
Execs knowing sweet fuck all about computers and being taken advantage of by scammers causes DRM.Piracy is just a bogey man the salesmen pull out to scare the execs.
Yes, because we should just throw out all logic and make the widespread claims that if you have to spend 30 seconds worth of your time to do something legitimately, it's not worth it and the system is broken. Well, it takes me a month of hard work to earn money to eat, therefore the system must broken and clearly, by your fantabulous logic, I should be robbing banks and stealing from supermarkets instead.
You know you didn't deal with the point raised at all.You seem to have responed to a different post entirely, did you have the wrong window open? Pirates never ever see DRM. it takes zero time out of their day, it never prevents them from playing. The company running the DRM servers going belly up doesn't screw them over.
just know you won't accept that anyone outside the DRM industry could possibly disagree with piracy.
Oh lots of people disagree with piracy, but nobody outside the DRM industry who has a clue about computers could think DRM works.
Funny, I don't remember getting physically or permanently harmed when entering a CD key incorrectly
Pleanty of people get finacially harmed when drm intentionally or otherwise damages their property. Google -drm "broke my"- and you get thousands of hits.
Like slander destroys my freedom or speech, or jaywalking and trespassing laws make me a criminal just for walking somewhere. Outrageous!
DRM is shitty code sold by scam artists. You're talking about laws. You know it is illegal in the UK to block a public right of way even if you own the land? Fair use is the IP version of public rights of way yet shysters still try to block it.
That's weird, I've never had a problem playing any of my DRM-protected games when I'm temporarily disconnected from the net.
I have. You must never have acutally used anything with DRM.
But strangely enough, the requirements on the game box say "Internet connection required". No internet connection means you're not meeting the system requirements.
Or I can have a perfectly good internet connection but my ISP's DNS system cuts out occasionally. I meet every requirement on the box but they haven't given every requirement. Of course if I was in the buisness of infecting peoples systems with virus code I wouldn't want to tell everyone the details of the code either.
Like how that stupid evil DRM prevents me from playing Crysis on my Atari 2600, those bastards.
Or stops me playing my legitimate copy of spore on my completely up to spec laptop util I spend 2 hours on an international phone call to their support line. Real great that.
It's more like locking your tenants out of their rooms when they don't have the key, won't show you their ID, and look absolutely nothing like the tenants you rented the property out to.
No it's like locking out your tennents when they have the key, are the people who rented the room. Got a haircut and have tried to unlock their door more than 3 times since they last called you for your permission to get at their property which they have paid for.
"You consented to it when you installed the game, since the DRM is part of the game, and you've shown no legal or logical reason to believe otherwise."
And you've shown no logical difference between a piece of freeware which (without notifiying me) installs along with a game I download a piece of virus code which I can't remove without significant knowledge (drm) piece of freeware which (without notifiying me) installs along with a game I download a piece of virus code which I can't remove without significant knowledge(a keylogger, a piece of spyware or a piece of adware). Both of which harm me. both of which only help the virus writer.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience with hard drug users (heroin, cocaine, meth, & similar) is that use may start "in control", but at some point spirals out of control, and takes the user's life with it.
to be fair you really would only see the cases where this happens. If I did work for the AA and never went to bars I would almost certainly conclude that everyone who starts drinking ends up addicted to alcohol and that everyone who gets even mildly addicted to alcohol end up destroying their life completely.
I can throw out stories of alcoholics eating boot polish(which had some form of alcohol in it) when they couldn't get access to normal alcohol. Does this mean that I shouldn't be allowed go down the pub for a pint? The only difference is the percentage of people who get badly addicted.
Well, increased usage of hard drugs leads to addiction and loss of productivity. People lose jobs because of addictions. They can't afford to support themselves or their families. Yes, if we try to protect those who fall to the bottom of the barrel, the cost to society will increase.
Well if you're going to ban things which hurt productivity then slashdot will be public enemy number one.
Should you be made a criminal for taking actions which might hurt you? if you follow this line then just about anything can be banned.
Look at your arguments and then look up the arguments put forward by various priests back in the days of prohibition, they're quite similar and both revolve around the idea that we'd have to wade through a sea of addicts lying on the streets if not for the laws currently in place.
If you truly were a decent, moral person with legitimate reasons for hating DRM, you would want to be doing everything you could to prevent its use, not encouraging it. Right? By claiming that DRM is the reason X% percentage of pirates download games, you basically show that you agree that it's a valid reason in and of itself. You don't even have to agree that it's a legitimate excuse for piracy, all you have to do is agree that it's true, which is what you're doing.
I could also prevent it's use by trying to get my government to recognise it as the scam it is and making it illegal in the same way that a shotgun tied pointed at a door with a string to the trigger is illegal even if it is to protect your property.Or like how snap inspections by landlords are illegal. That would prevent it's use much more effectively. Even if I pushed for it to be made law that companies must give a DRM unlocking mechanism to a legal firm or the government for distribution in case of them going bankrupt(because the last thing they'll care about if their company is going under is having someone write an unlocker.) that would be a step in the right direction.
Of course the simple fact is that it isn't a true statement, it's yet more lies
Look back, you haven't shown this at all. anywhere. you just keep repeating it. repeating it does not make it true.
brought to you by the people who have every reason to say anything they can to legitimise what they do
Can you not understand that some people simply don't like their computer being infected by a virus?
(As an aside, people like yourself don't make very good judges, because all you'd end up doing is letting everyone off. "Oh, he just needed to feed his family, it's ok that he stole that food", "You say you promise you'll pay back the dealership for that car you stole? Well that's good enough for me. Everyone needs a car", "I agree, that guy was being a jerk, he really did deserve to die. No murder setence for you!")
Wow, and people like you make really really awful judges because they make blanket statements about whole groups of people based on a tiny snapshot of their views. "He's black? Lock im up! they're all criminals, they just try to justify their disrespect for the flag and civil disobedience as some kind of 'civil rights movement' when really they just want to stab people in the face for fun"
As an aside you know in some more civilised countries stealing food isn't actually a crime if it is for your own consumption. The shop can ban you and get you for trespassing if you come back but if they call the police when someone steals a non-luxury food item they'll be told 'that isn't illegal'
Judges often do come back with "No murder setence for you!" when they decide that there really was good reason like your property or life being in danger. DRM endangers my property and so removing it protects my property.(Property, not licensed crap, places with sane laws on the matter reguard copies of games like they reguard copies of books- as your property to buy, sell second hand or if you so wish, eat.) But your blanket assertions cover everything! You can't be wrong in any way!
Because if you legitimise it, you give more reason for more people to do it more often. Which as we know is only going to lead to more invasive DRM - and because no software is perfect, more people who claim DRM wrecked their computer (even if these claims are never backed by evidence); or God forbid prevents them from installing the same game on the 10+ dedicated gaming machines they just happen to have lying around; all frequently used, naturally.
Wow. people like you really exist? so people who's computers are wrecked by DRM should keep quite? People who can't play their games because of poorly written DRM should pretend it all works? People should accept scammers installing software on their machines? and if they do a
How many people who aren't using drugs under the current system would turn around and grab them the second they became legal? :D
Cheap alcohol doesn't make everyone an alcoholic.
There is quite an industry built up there. Might have to throw in a grandfather clause so they can keep busting down doors and
1: Would it be cheaper than the current system? you're already losing a chunk of your paycheck to pay for the war on drugs, another chunk to higher insurance premiums and possibly a chunk to theft.
how expensive is a ton of heroin if produced in bulk with no worries about the law? dirt cheap I'm betting.
2: a very very good point and the only problem people have pointed out which does bother me.
First of all, this means that I, while drug-free and busting my ass to support my family, am also required to support the drug habit (through free govt-supplied drugs) of some addict, ostensibly forever, or until the addict dies. Excuse me, but fuck that. My beer, wine, or bourbon isn't free. Why the hell should his line of coke or shot of heroin be free?
You're already paying. People steal to pay for their habits. Vast amounts of crime are due to this. You pay if you get robbed and in higher insurance premiums.How expensive do you really think producing most street drugs is? compared to the money spent on police to enforce the current laws? A lifetimes supply of heroin would be a tiny fraction of the cost of putting the addict in question in jail.
IF you're going to pay for drugs out of the govt purse (out of MY purse, in other words), you'd better do something first about all the people out there suffering from diseases they didn't inflict on themselves. Kids with cancer, etc. When you do that, you'll find out that it raises my taxes considerably, which I can't afford. I'm pretty sure that after paying for universal healthcare, I sure won't have anything left to fund a addict maintenance program.
you don't seem to get that this way is cheaper than the current way. Want lower taxes? go with my way. well it will probably be wasted on something else but the war on drugs is a massive money hole with no useful results and pleanty of expensive useless results.
Also, I saw that you mentioned "to people already addicted", which I take to mean that you would NOT be providing drugs to non-addicts, correct? Who determines who is an addict? The user? A doctor? Is there anything preventing a non-addict from claiming they are an addict and getting a govt-paid dose of a drug they have an itch to try? If you give the drugs only to certified addicts, then there still remains a "vacuum" of non-addicted, curious, rebellious, risk-taking thrill seeker kids who want to know what "high" feels like, and are a ripe market for illicit drug use.
there's little reason to limit it to addicts but even if you do for some sort of "moral" or "think of the children" reasons then you still kill the primary market for drugs and drop the price through the floor neatly removing the whole criminal element or leaving the trade in a situation where drug barons would earn more money working at burger king. No more getting your car window broken by someone looking to fence your stereo for drug money.
You cannot eliminate the black market for drugs. Human curiosity and peer pressure will still drive new illicit use.
If you don't limit it to people already addicted then you do eliminate the whole market. all of it. gone. peer pressure and curiosity will still cause some people to try drugs but that happens anyway under the current system. it's (literally) childsplay to get drugs.
Also, I would expect that existing addicts will experience craving will drive the demand side of the illicit supply/demand equation, and sustain or create a new black market for drugs. (You've already been to the clinic today, and had your dose, but the craving came back before you're allowed more ... better find that dealer again.) A crack high is gone within minutes, and the need to use again comes back fast. If you supply it as fast as the addict wants it, well, you're going to be busy. Not to mention that your crackhead is going to be useless to society.
Because they're so useful as it it.
where did I say anything about limiting supply.
Give em all they want. sure some will overdose but this isn't about their well being. This is about everyone elses well being.
rest assured that the addict will share/sell/distribute some to others
Who would be perfectly free to come in themselves and get some.
I'm not that bothered by the ODing thing.
Not to mention that this only works with drugs you can reasonably maintain yourself on. I don't see this working with a raging meth addict.
only if you care if they die.
On that we can most certainly agree.
I just tend to be of the opinion that if you remove all financial motivations to get others addicted then the number of new users will go down as well even if you handle it right. (after an initial "hey this is legal now!" period) there will always be a core of people who choose to take drugs anyway but if you can find a solution to that then call be back.
did you read it properly?
Right now the suppliers have a vested interest in increasing userbase.
My way the ones giving out the drugs(government) have a vested interest in decreasing their user base since they're also dealing with the fallout.
I'm not talking about legalization in the normal sense where there are still groups with a financial interest in getting more users (it's just legitimate tax paying companies).
I'm talking about making drugs worth nothing so nobody will have an interest in getting other people to get addicted.
If they step in and jack up the price then you're not following the simple steps.
Where did I say anything about having drug companies come in with high prices?
And they'd have problems with that since they have no patent on pot: other drug companies would just sell for cheaper until the price was just above the cost of production.
legalize and regulate if you just want to cut down on the crime. Gets rid of the crime but if part of your goal is to lower drug use then this has the downside that there's still a group with a vested intrest in increasing the market for their product.
Give away free only if your goal is to cut down on the number of addicts.
Your money is already spent in a futile attempt to lock them up.
This way is just cheaper.
http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php
Started as a 1 man project and now with a team of 8 people working in their spare time.
watch a few of the videos.
watch the high quality version right to the end.
http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=93
there are some other fantastic videos up.
Yes graphics have improved but the tools have improved too. 1 man can do a lot more now than 20 years ago.
The sad thing is people actually believe what you say.
And it's even more depressing how easy it would be to solve all those problems.
If I was currently selling illegal drugs in the US and wanted to continue to rake in giant piles of money I'd be making political donations to whoever was pushing the "tough on drugs" laws with a little note along the lines of "keep up the good work mate".
Why? Well if it was legalised I'd be ruined!
Who was hurt most by the ending of prohibition? The mob of course, they wanted it to never end.
Legal distributors selling safer cheaper drugs would push them out of the market entirely.
The best thing that can happen for them is for a competitor to be busted, they can just expand into their former market overnight. Sure they might be busted themselves but the organisations which survive and grow will be the ones which are best at avoiding getting caught.
I've heard that during prohibition foreign alcohol producers quietly lobbied to keep prohibition since consumption didn't go down, the American producers were pushed out of business and import taxes went the way of the morning mist.
Few people seem to be able to graps this, drug laws just create a situation where there's a group of people distributing drugs with a large financial incentive to expand their market.
Want to get rid of the drug dealers? It only takes a few easy and cheap steps.
Step 1: Provide free high quality drugs to people already addicted with no criminal penalties or consequences to people who come forward and ask for them.
Step 2: You're basicly done, you've knocked the bottom out of the drug buisness, you are now the distributor and you have no reason to try to get more people addicted. Drug dealers can no longer make any profit out of getting kids addicted since they just go to you when it starts costing money.
Much much much much cheaper than the massive failure that the war on drugs is.
"exact same roundabout logic"
Roundabout logic like "you need oxyge to live", "ducks go quack" and "DRM pisses off legitimate consumers, does nothing useful and is never even encountered by pirates"
Funny how people can be too thick to understand simple ideas like that.
And DRM happens more because of piracy.
You miss spelled "idiocy" there.
Evidence? Of course not. As I said before, it's paranoia that drives your argument.
You've provided none for your view. You're the one pushing the paranoid "ze hackers will ruin us all" line, not me.
No, but if you stop making excuses for piracy, society won't have this view that piracy is good because everybody does it and nobody gets caught (as it does now), thus piracy will decrease, thus DRM measures will decrease.
Hah!
You forgot the second hand games market. DRM is great for killing this market. Why should copyright holders of games have any more right to prevent me selling my games on than book publishers have to stop me selling my books second hand?
And they're a multi-billion dollar company (recent economic downturns, rabid piracy advocat-sponsored anti-DRM slander campaigns, and losses of piracy notwithstanding).
Or is that simple logic beyond you?
Hmm. EA makes a move towards more and more DRM over the last few years, has a disaster with some more recent games and backlash from over the top DRM, starts having problems to the point that they have to start dropping a fuckload of employees.
And it's the pirates fault. Right.
When sane people look at this they see : The store just pissed off too many customers by having security guards who treat the legit customers like crap.
Or is that simple logic beyond you?
Because you have just enough morals to believe stealing physical property is wrong, but not enough to believe stealing intangible property is wrong, even though they both required the same amount of labor and resources to produce (in fact, often more so in the case of intangible property).
Wow, can you even read? Remember back where I said I made the mistake of buying a legit copy of spore? I buy my software and hence I am one of the people who is hurt by DRM. It helps me in no way shape or form and only makes me look like a chump next to people who had the sense to get DRM-free copies. If legit copies had any advantages over pirated ones then I might not feel so cheated but since they're worse I'm being pushed away from the legit market.
People like you who push for more DRM encourage piracy more than any social acceptance ever could.
I see nothing you have refuted in any sensible way.
Teach me for not re reading this properly or running spell checker.
*have not havr
*"sales to people" not "sales by people"
*logic not logis
*"It never ever" not "I never ever"
*"no matter" not "not matter "
Actually, considering how many sales were made in those weeks, yes.
Because 100% of sales are due to the lovely DRM. Many would say those sales are in spite of the DRM, not because of it.
How many users would have pirated it without DRM? 1% 2%? possibly more but then what percentage don't buy it who would have otherwise because of DRM? 2%? 3%%? probably more considering the amazon ratings.
Then look harder, and do your best to overcome that confirmation bias.
like my confirmation bias that the ocean is wet.
not to mention the countless evidence on torrent sites of software without DRM that still gets uploaded
Not having DRM is not a magic bullet, your software will end up on the torrent sites either way but if you spend 10% of your dev budget on DRM which gets broken days after release then you have wasted a great deal of money.
So you're saying that piracy has absolutely no financial impact on the developers? And what about internally-developed DRM systems? Are companies like Valve and Stardock scamming themselves?
Oh I'm sure it has an impact, much much less than the impact of shoplifting on shops but sure there's a discernable impact there. What I'm saying is that DRM has zero or worse net impact on piracy. How many sales do you gain from having DRM?
Those willing to pirate it know very well that every game gets cracked in a few days or weeks so unless they want it in the first hours after release they'll just wait until the crack comes out. They won't havr to wait long. Hardly any sales are gained by stopping the game from hitting the torrent sites for a few hours and while you still have DRM on the game you lose a small portion of sales by people who are offended by that model of software control. You can't claim that the huge cost of DRM is justified when it isn't going to increase your profits or stop them from being decreased.
You seem to be incapable of simple human logic. Are you sure you aren't a bot? Because you just failed the turing test.
Making the point that pirates don't see DRM, while true, is invalid because the logic that surrounds it - that if something doesn't work 100% of the time and isn't the most convenient for the end user, we should give up on it
In no way have you shown this logis to be invalid.
And it isn't a case of not working 100% of the time. it's a case of working 0% of the time. I never ever ever ever works. No matter how many programmers you have building your DRM there's a hundred times that number of bored, skilled teenagers and adults out there all willing to break it for fun to prove that they can. People who will spend hours, days, weeks or months working hard every night to find holes in your system because they can and they enjoy it.
You can either piss into the wind trying to beat them or you can accept that they will beat you and save yourself time and money and run your buisness like a sensible real world buisness. Walmart doesn't shackle everyone who buys their products for fear of shoplifters, they accept a certain ammount of loss to shoplifters on the basis that they lose more sales from legitimate customers who get pissed off if they get treated like criminals.
(like working, earning money, authenticating software, providing police...)
one of these things is not like the others...
Hmm. no, not matter how much bullshit you spew DRM doesn't fit in with those others.
- is completely invalid. Providing hospitals is an inconvenience because it costs money. And people still die anyway. Therefore by your logic we shouldn't have hospitals.
If hospitals never kept anyone alive more than an extra week or so then this would be quite true. If DRM ever held for decades then you might have a point. but it doesn't.ever. It gets broken much faster than it gets written.
"if you're trying to kill someone, you should expect them to defend themselves by poking you in the eye"
No no, DRM it!
"if you're trying to kill someone, you should expect them to defend themselves by poking EVERYONE EXCEPT THE ATTACKER in the eye"
Wow a whole 3 hits that aren't related to the search subject!
and if I ass "purple monkey dish washer" to the search I get zero hits! It's funny how adding uncommon phrases cuts down the number of results. It's fairly funny that you still got results even after adding that.
As an experiment I tried "red ring of death""irrefutable evidence" just to see how many hits I got for that phrase along with something which isn't disputed as being a fairly major problem. I only get 5 hits. So would this mean it's killed half as much hardware as the well known the red ring of death?
And if I buy games online, I even get to have them backed up as long as the company exists, and that's not even a fair use right! Which part of my right to fair use is being violated by DRM?
Well lets see. DRM isn't just on games, you'll find it on music and videos too. Stunning isn't it.
Only decent example of this I can think of is steam and they had to add a great deal of carrot and remove a lot of the DRM stick for that to really become popular.
So the only examples you have of DRM being less than an utter and complete fuckup is with the absolutely least offensive forms of DRM or the absolutely best behaved companies?
"unstable internet connection"
I have a perfectly stable internet connection. I can still connect to my shell accounts, I can still ping any server I want, but some system laid on top of IP goes offline and for some reason I can't play my games.
maybe it says something different on the .jpg box cover that came with yours?
You really are slow grasping this. I got the legit version of spore and got screwed royaly. I should have grabbed a cracked copy since I wouldn't have had to deal with all the shit from the DRM. it would have been less hassel to be an illegal user. If I had a jpg box cover I would have had an easy time and no shit from DRM but unfortunatly I'm a fool for trying to use legitimate software.
This is the "up to spec laptop" that doesn't have a stable internet connection and thus doesn't meet the requirements, right? Or perhaps you had some other reason to spend 2 hours on an international phone call that you'd like to mention?
Have you been living under a rock? 3 activations then you have to call with "please sir, can I have some more sir".My internet connection is perfectly stable. my local DNS is fine most of the time but that isn't my internet connection.
No it's like your condition of renting the property is they can't have any more than 3 guests at a time which they have agreed to, but every day they come inside the house with a different guest, and you never see any of those guests coming out, then whinge when you want to come in and have a look to confirm there are only 3 guests in there, but they bitch that that's invading their privacy, even though they already agreed to that condition, because if they're tenants, it's technically your property.
Be funny if you were a landlord. Here and in most western countries if you tried that your tennent could take you to court and roast you over a fire and could sue you. For a lot of money. Any such clause in the contract would be very very illegal.
who said anything about guests? Last time I checked the agreements for most games said "no guests".
You yourself unlock the door to the house you have bought and after doing that 3 times you then get locked out until you call the builders and beg their permission to get back in.
CD keys are one of the most mild forms of DRM.
You ignore the ones which datamine, call home, screw up settings etc etc.
Only holds for the first generation.
The kids of those hard working rich get all the benefits and none of the work.
At no point did he say DRM was an excuse for piracy.
In fact you confirmed the point he was making.
I'm revising my throught that you're an employee of a company which provides DRM... Are you really a bot set to respond with certain arguments whenever a keyword is used?
Or would you rather just keep making the backwards claim that piracy only happens because of DRM?
I never said that, I did say that it happens more because of DRM.
people have problems with having to spend all of 30 seconds entering a key code. Some people are just really lazy and stupid.
And people have problems with the games they own not working because the DRM servers have been switched off or are offline because of a new release by the company or the DRM doesn't like their hardware setup.
Anyone who hates DRM is real lazy and stupid.right...
The way to get rid of it of course, is to stop encouraging piracy or making excuses for it.
OK you've wandered away from all logic here. So if I stop saying that DRM is snake oil then it will go away?
You might as well claim that shoplifting will go away if you clap your hands and believe! Believe with all your heart!
I could walk into my local supermarket and walk out with hundreds of euro worth of items and there would be fuck all chance of getting caught yet I don't. Why? Because I like the majority of humanity will line up and pay of their own free will.
Guess it's time to go on a shopping spree!
Wow, subtly trying to imply that I'm a pirate are you?
I'm saying that DRM is a scam, not that piracy is ok.
I am saying that piracy is encouraged by DRM since people prefer to avoid the crapware.
Those statements are distinct.
like saying "poking someone in they eye makes them more likely to kill you" isn't the same as saying "it's ok to kill you".
several weeks to crack
Wow! weeks? so worth the massive investment and pissing off legit customers. So I guess the company will be releasing a patch to remove the DRM on that game now that it serves no purpose? it's already broken and on the torrents so why are we fucking over legitimate users?
"going to crack it, but couldn't, so caved in and bought it".
I have never ever ever seen that written on slashdot.
I have on the other hand seen many many examples of
"wouldn't work so I donwloaded the crack",
"wouldn't work because of the DRM and will never buy from that company again",
"The DRM fucked up my system, can I sue them?",
"I've seen so many people telling me how the DRM fucked things up that I'm just going to download the cracked version of TPB"
Anecdotal evidence suggests very very strongly that DRM puts off at least as many if not many more than it causes to buy the software.
I thought the correlation was pretty obvious. Piracy causes DRM.
Execs knowing sweet fuck all about computers and being taken advantage of by scammers causes DRM.Piracy is just a bogey man the salesmen pull out to scare the execs.
Yes, because we should just throw out all logic and make the widespread claims that if you have to spend 30 seconds worth of your time to do something legitimately, it's not worth it and the system is broken. Well, it takes me a month of hard work to earn money to eat, therefore the system must broken and clearly, by your fantabulous logic, I should be robbing banks and stealing from supermarkets instead.
You know you didn't deal with the point raised at all.You seem to have responed to a different post entirely, did you have the wrong window open?
Pirates never ever see DRM. it takes zero time out of their day, it never prevents them from playing. The company running the DRM servers going belly up doesn't screw them over.
just know you won't accept that anyone outside the DRM industry could possibly disagree with piracy.
Oh lots of people disagree with piracy, but nobody outside the DRM industry who has a clue about computers could think DRM works.
Funny, I don't remember getting physically or permanently harmed when entering a CD key incorrectly
Pleanty of people get finacially harmed when drm intentionally or otherwise damages their property.
Google -drm "broke my"- and you get thousands of hits.
Like slander destroys my freedom or speech, or jaywalking and trespassing laws make me a criminal just for walking somewhere. Outrageous!
DRM is shitty code sold by scam artists. You're talking about laws.
You know it is illegal in the UK to block a public right of way even if you own the land?
Fair use is the IP version of public rights of way yet shysters still try to block it.
That's weird, I've never had a problem playing any of my DRM-protected games when I'm temporarily disconnected from the net.
I have. You must never have acutally used anything with DRM.
But strangely enough, the requirements on the game box say "Internet connection required". No internet connection means you're not meeting the system requirements.
Or I can have a perfectly good internet connection but my ISP's DNS system cuts out occasionally. I meet every requirement on the box but they haven't given every requirement.
Of course if I was in the buisness of infecting peoples systems with virus code I wouldn't want to tell everyone the details of the code either.
Like how that stupid evil DRM prevents me from playing Crysis on my Atari 2600, those bastards.
Or stops me playing my legitimate copy of spore on my completely up to spec laptop util I spend 2 hours on an international phone call to their support line. Real great that.
It's more like locking your tenants out of their rooms when they don't have the key, won't show you their ID, and look absolutely nothing like the tenants you rented the property out to.
No it's like locking out your tennents when they have the key, are the people who rented the room. Got a haircut and have tried to unlock their door more than 3 times since they last called you for your permission to get at their property which they have paid for.
"You consented to it when you installed the game, since the DRM is part of the game, and you've shown no legal or logical reason to believe otherwise."
And you've shown no logical difference between a piece of freeware which (without notifiying me) installs along with a game I download a piece of virus code which I can't remove without significant knowledge (drm) piece of freeware which (without notifiying me) installs along with a game I download a piece of virus code which I can't remove without significant knowledge(a keylogger, a piece of spyware or a piece of adware). Both of which harm me. both of which only help the virus writer.