The expiration of copyright has never guaranteed you access or rights to the use of primary sources.
In today's age, where almost any media can be digitized (which makes it possible to make the media available to the public), why shouldn't it? It hasn't historically, but back then they didn't have computers and the Internet.
Do you honestly think that companies would invest money to create DRM if piracy had not become so widespread?
Media executive: Hmm... if we put technical restrictions on our content that stops people from using these newfound copying powers that the Internet and personal computers have given them, we can make them buy the same content over and over each time we issue a new format. We can also make them buy a new copy of each bit of media that they want to put on a separate device (iPod, second computer, backup drive, etc). We can also make them upgrade to the newest edition when we stop supporting the old one (this is where Ubisoft shuts down AC2's servers when AC3 comes out).
As another poster said, proving that a game downloaded equals a lost sale is not required.
It is required. If you can't prove that downloaded copy = lost sale, which you can't, you have to demonstrate that the percent of downloaded copies that are lost sales equals a moral and financial justification for throwing millions into DRM schemes that piss off your fans and are easily cracked anyway.
If you can't demonstrate that, you end up with a greedy, immoral software company and a handful of worshipers who routinely chug their Kool-Aid. (This would be you.)
It's that pirates are the problem and they blame the companies.
Right, because Ubisoft et al. have no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. They are being forced to include draconian DRM with their games! They have absolutely no other options... not even, you know, innovating and changing their business model to suit the changing world... or, you know, giving a crap about their customers...
Without pirates, DRM would not be required
Do you honestly believe that Ubisoft, the MPAA, etc would drop DRM if piracy stopped dead? Why would they?
Make-believe lost sales to piracy make up the entire point of your post. "Customers... Oh, too bad there are no customers because everyone stole the game."
I love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any. Pirating is far too widespread. For every person who pirates a game, less games are made for the PC for this very reason. Pirates blame the developers for using DRM, the quality of the game is reduced for actual customers, yet the pirates are the one to blame.
Stop trying to spin the argument, pirates. You're the very reason that this shit happens.
I'm feeding the troll, but... prove that a downloaded copy is a lost sale and I'll concede your point.
(you might also consider the hypothesis that DRM exists not to stop piracy, which it doesn't, but to lock customers to specific devices and/or to get them to re-buy the same content over and over, which it does.)
While I find this story hilarious (if true), according to the article, the actual DRM scheme of requiring constant internet connection has not been cracked. What happened is that Ubisoft chickened out and didn't implement the scheme fully - it included a feature (to be enabled by a patch if necessary) that allowed games to be played without internet connection after all, and this is what has been hacked.
I didn't see that anywhere in TFA. The only place that mentions that is a single, anonymously left comment. Not exactly the most credible source.
If you buy it, you are supporting UbiSoft. You are supporting their game development team, which may be good, but also the boneheads who selected this DRM technology. They will only be reporting on sales to their managers, and if they can spin a story that their decisions, including the DRM, resulted in higher sales, they'll get a pat on the back and a "jolly good, carry on."
So if they release a game with nasty DRM and sales tank, they blame the sales on "piracy" and justify that as an excuse to toughen up the DRM.
If they release a game with nasty DRM and sales soar, or even remain steadyish, they assume that the DRM magically converted pirated copies into actual sales, and toughen up the DRM in the hopes that this trend continues.
I read a FAQ about this DRM scheme on Ubisoft's website. They said they would release a patch if they ever shut down the game servers that lets you play offline.
Speaking of "socially irresponsible," DRM doesn't expire with a copyright, meaning that once a protected work falls into the public domain, people won't be able to use the work according to their rights under copyright law. Unless someone can point me to a clause in the DMCA that allows the circumvention of public domain works, that is. But people shouldn't have to crack public domain works to exercise their rights, whether it's legal to do so or not. (Plus, with anti-circumvention tools blanket-banned by the DMCA... well, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's legal, does it?)
If they have patents, they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing.
And immediately afterward the Linux developers pull the infringing code, denying Microsoft the leverage they currently have that lets them do things like this. So, why would MS disclose the patents?
Honestly, circletimessquare... I've seen plenty of good posts from you in lots of other threads, particularly copyright/IP threads. It makes me sad that you descended to the level of flamebait and trolling in order to get a point across. If you have something to say, say it without being a complete jerk. Otherwise you just damage your position.
If I hack your bank account and move the bits to mine, you are poorer and I am richer. No physical currency has moved, but you are definitely deprived of something. I've only taken the idea, the Intellectual Property, of money from your account, but you feel real world effects all the same.
Money in a bank account does not fall under copyright, trademark or patent laws. Neither does the information used to access it. They're totally irrelevant in a discussion about intellectual property.
Oh well that's a perfectly OK form of harassment because it's a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies who deserve it.
Now on the other hand if it was a bunch of reactionary right wing fundies harassing gay activists well then that'd be a major human rights violation and require immediate action to be taken on the part of state and federal agencies.
Yes I'm being sarcastic but if a "progressive" were spouting the same nonsense they'd do so with a perfectly straight face.
There's no reason whatsoever why an ipod should exclusively be locked to itunes for data transfers.
It's not. I use Rockbox now, but when I used Apple's firmware on my 2G Nano, I transferred my files with gtkpod on Linux. Other programs can add and remove music from your iPod just as well as iTunes.
Okay, looks like.mp3s cannot, in fact, be DRMd. But the argument about.ogg being natively supported still stands-.mp3 is a patented format, after all, and they can't include support for it in Ubuntu by default due to licensing issues.
And as for using.ogg, get them however you can. Rip CDs to.ogg. Buy.mp3s and then get.ogg or FLAC from BitTorrent. Use sites that allow direct download of.ogg tracks, like Jamendo. Hell, even convert your.mp3s to.ogg. I personally prefer.ogg whenever I can get it because I don't like the fact that.mp3 is patent-encumbered.
This is true. But unless the artist has given his permission for his work to be thus distributed, you are actually cheating him of the royalties to which he is *entitled*. Sure, lots of (or most) recording companies are predatory, but that is simply no excuse.
That has nothing to do with the technical merits and faults of BitTorrent, the topic at hand.
Basically, get only mp3s. They don't include any drm, and just about everything that plays music supports them.
One, I was under the impression that.mp3s could be DRMd. Am I mistaken in this?
Two, if we're talking about Linux, it's technically better to just go with.ogg or another free/open file format..mp3 requires, in the case of Ubuntu, ubuntu-restricted-extras to work. Ubuntu plays.ogg files right out of the box with Totem and Rhythmbox, but you have to install the restricted-extras package to be able to play.mp3s. (Or just use VLC, which includes.mp3 support by default, but again, this is just talking about a freshly installed system.)
I don't think rights holders implement DRM to curb piracy (which it doesn't). I think rights holders implement DRM to make customers pay for the same media multiple times, and/or to tie them to specific devices, software or services. Why else would they be pushing it despite the fact that all DRM is cracked sooner or later? "Piracy" is just a convenient excuse.
As an Ubuntu/Debian user I just stay away from any and all DRM. It gets between me and my content, and is illegal to break. I don't need to put up with that hassle, not with the existence of freely licensed alternatives (part of why I run Linux).
No reason? Bullshit. Maintaining a tracker is not trivial, particularly if you're a small project. It's extra work, extra server resources, and another avenue for potential security problems. Putting up a trackerless torrent (or using a public tracker) with a webseed takes almost zero effort.
Yet according to TFA, one percent of files available in the sample were non-infringing. So I don't think this method is quite as popular as you imply.
Besides, if you really can't afford a tracker, there's always OpenBitTorrent. And since torrents with trackers are arguably more efficient than purely DHT-based torrents, why not use a tracker like OBT in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
In today's age, where almost any media can be digitized (which makes it possible to make the media available to the public), why shouldn't it? It hasn't historically, but back then they didn't have computers and the Internet.
Media executive: Hmm... if we put technical restrictions on our content that stops people from using these newfound copying powers that the Internet and personal computers have given them, we can make them buy the same content over and over each time we issue a new format. We can also make them buy a new copy of each bit of media that they want to put on a separate device (iPod, second computer, backup drive, etc). We can also make them upgrade to the newest edition when we stop supporting the old one (this is where Ubisoft shuts down AC2's servers when AC3 comes out).
If lost sales aren't the problem, then what the hell are you whining about?
It is required. If you can't prove that downloaded copy = lost sale, which you can't, you have to demonstrate that the percent of downloaded copies that are lost sales equals a moral and financial justification for throwing millions into DRM schemes that piss off your fans and are easily cracked anyway.
If you can't demonstrate that, you end up with a greedy, immoral software company and a handful of worshipers who routinely chug their Kool-Aid. (This would be you.)
Right, because Ubisoft et al. have no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. They are being forced to include draconian DRM with their games! They have absolutely no other options... not even, you know, innovating and changing their business model to suit the changing world... or, you know, giving a crap about their customers...
Do you honestly believe that Ubisoft, the MPAA, etc would drop DRM if piracy stopped dead? Why would they?
Your post is called "You're all dicks."
Make-believe lost sales to piracy make up the entire point of your post. "Customers... Oh, too bad there are no customers because everyone stole the game."
I'm feeding the troll, but... prove that a downloaded copy is a lost sale and I'll concede your point.
(you might also consider the hypothesis that DRM exists not to stop piracy, which it doesn't, but to lock customers to specific devices and/or to get them to re-buy the same content over and over, which it does.)
I didn't see that anywhere in TFA. The only place that mentions that is a single, anonymously left comment. Not exactly the most credible source.
The DRM developers are doing that a lot more effectively than the DRM crackers are.
So if they release a game with nasty DRM and sales tank, they blame the sales on "piracy" and justify that as an excuse to toughen up the DRM.
If they release a game with nasty DRM and sales soar, or even remain steadyish, they assume that the DRM magically converted pirated copies into actual sales, and toughen up the DRM in the hopes that this trend continues.
In other words, we're boned either way.
I read a FAQ about this DRM scheme on Ubisoft's website. They said they would release a patch if they ever shut down the game servers that lets you play offline.
Not that I believe it, of course. Just sayin'.
Speaking of "socially irresponsible," DRM doesn't expire with a copyright, meaning that once a protected work falls into the public domain, people won't be able to use the work according to their rights under copyright law. Unless someone can point me to a clause in the DMCA that allows the circumvention of public domain works, that is. But people shouldn't have to crack public domain works to exercise their rights, whether it's legal to do so or not. (Plus, with anti-circumvention tools blanket-banned by the DMCA... well, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's legal, does it?)
And immediately afterward the Linux developers pull the infringing code, denying Microsoft the leverage they currently have that lets them do things like this. So, why would MS disclose the patents?
Honestly, circletimessquare... I've seen plenty of good posts from you in lots of other threads, particularly copyright/IP threads. It makes me sad that you descended to the level of flamebait and trolling in order to get a point across. If you have something to say, say it without being a complete jerk. Otherwise you just damage your position.
Or the sun?
Money in a bank account does not fall under copyright, trademark or patent laws. Neither does the information used to access it. They're totally irrelevant in a discussion about intellectual property.
*whoosh*
Unlike, say, The Pirate Bay, Newzbin.com will apparently cooperate with takedown requests. Yet they're getting sued anyway.
Way to be a shining example of rationality there, MPA.
It's not. I use Rockbox now, but when I used Apple's firmware on my 2G Nano, I transferred my files with gtkpod on Linux. Other programs can add and remove music from your iPod just as well as iTunes.
Okay, looks like .mp3s cannot, in fact, be DRMd. But the argument about .ogg being natively supported still stands- .mp3 is a patented format, after all, and they can't include support for it in Ubuntu by default due to licensing issues.
And as for using .ogg, get them however you can. Rip CDs to .ogg. Buy .mp3s and then get .ogg or FLAC from BitTorrent. Use sites that allow direct download of .ogg tracks, like Jamendo. Hell, even convert your .mp3s to .ogg. I personally prefer .ogg whenever I can get it because I don't like the fact that .mp3 is patent-encumbered.
That has nothing to do with the technical merits and faults of BitTorrent, the topic at hand.
One, I was under the impression that .mp3s could be DRMd. Am I mistaken in this?
.ogg or another free/open file format. .mp3 requires, in the case of Ubuntu, ubuntu-restricted-extras to work. Ubuntu plays .ogg files right out of the box with Totem and Rhythmbox, but you have to install the restricted-extras package to be able to play .mp3s. (Or just use VLC, which includes .mp3 support by default, but again, this is just talking about a freshly installed system.)
Two, if we're talking about Linux, it's technically better to just go with
I don't think rights holders implement DRM to curb piracy (which it doesn't). I think rights holders implement DRM to make customers pay for the same media multiple times, and/or to tie them to specific devices, software or services. Why else would they be pushing it despite the fact that all DRM is cracked sooner or later? "Piracy" is just a convenient excuse.
As an Ubuntu/Debian user I just stay away from any and all DRM. It gets between me and my content, and is illegal to break. I don't need to put up with that hassle, not with the existence of freely licensed alternatives (part of why I run Linux).
Yet according to TFA, one percent of files available in the sample were non-infringing. So I don't think this method is quite as popular as you imply.
Besides, if you really can't afford a tracker, there's always OpenBitTorrent. And since torrents with trackers are arguably more efficient than purely DHT-based torrents, why not use a tracker like OBT in the first place?