The point of this is to annoy pirates who play the games, not the crackers.
Trying to outsmart crackers is not a fallacy. PS3 piracy has been difficult for crackers due to how tightly the security is tied to games and PSN. If they had simply burned bare games onto Blu-rays the PS3 would have much higher piracy rates.
Not if you make the game extremely hard halfway through and then use a time delay to botch the game after the reviews are out. Regional releases would help out here as well.
That study looks at music and is shoddy since it relies on asking pirates if they buy music.
Why should we assume that someone who doesn't want to pay $1 for a legit purchase is actually purchasing legitimately elsewhere? It doesn't make any sense. Pirates by definition are not paying customers.
People that cannot afford $1 games don't even buy smartphones. Why are you making excuses for Android pirates? Does it just pain you to know that a lot of pirates can afford the software but are just being assholes? PC gaming has been this way for years.
I hate having the taskbar on the bottom when there is so much widescreen that can be used. When you work with a dozen extra long file names it gets really annoying.
Collectively the end result is the same which less money for developers. Instead of choosing a game on the market the pirate downloads one illegally. Which game he would have bought really doesn't matter since when piracy rates are that high it is likely that another pirate at least would have.
You can't argue that those pirates would have paid the premium for Android but would never have bought any $1 games if piracy wasn't an option. The games are obviously of value to them and relative to the monthly fee they can clearly afford them.
The same problem exists in pc gaming where people are pirating games that require high-end gaming rigs. Excuses for pirates are really getting old and only condone the behavior. It's not just teenagers and third worlders that are doing it, there are a lot of pirates with jobs that are just being assholes.
I am somewhat interested in how many people will actually pay for a license; this might be a good way to estimate how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place.
You really can't make any assumptions with this case given the nature of the software. It's security software that has to be constantly updated so there is more of an incentive to keep a legit copy.
When Android games are 1 dollar and still pirated heavily it is hard to believe that those pirates would have paid for the data plan but not bought any games. Pirates should not be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to software that is affordable.
but didn't have enough money after giving so much to charity. Since you can't prove me wrong that most pirates give generously to charity we should assume that they do.
where lots of software doesn't get ported because software companies can't make a profit due to the high piracy.
But yes piracy isn't a problem because of this one case. Nevermind how this would benefit software that only needs to be updated once per year like a utility or software that is only used for a month like a game. We just need to find 2 or 3 more cases like this one to show that copyright laws aren't needed.
Some software is just plain boring to work on and will always attract far less developers than other projects, even if there are an endless amount of users.
It was shown a while back that most of the commits were from Sun employees even though OO has had over a hundred million downloads. If they only charged $5 to fund developers it would be far more a competitor with MS Office.
Gimp actually works OK compared to the competition but the same can not be said for video editors. What is your answer there? Tell users to wait another decade for open source software to get to where proprietary video editing software was in 1999? The open source ideology clearly has problems, it's time to admit it. I think a good balance might be to have the OS open source but the applications proprietary.
I, personally, have no problem with these developers being paid. Open source is not always free and vice versa. I think what's important is the code remaining accessible.
Why is that important in areas where no one even cares about looking at the code? You want to spend you weekend stepping through TurboTax? Open source can make sense where the profit is in hardware or support but not applications that where the value to the user is entirely in the software.
As long as the code that is developed is submitted back to the open source community, that ethos is satisfied. How or even if the developer is paid is not really relevant.
That is really the problem. There is no accounting for how software like Black Ops is to be funded. It's like a religion where Open Source is the answer before the question is asked. That might make you feel indignant but doesn't explain how open source is supposed to compete with games that have 50 million dollar budgets.
The most paid F/OSS developers there are, the best for everyone. If there is demand, F/OSS developers salaries will raise, which will make more people interested in working in the field. The result will be better software for everyone.
I guess we all can dream...
There has long been demand for open source video editing software and yet none exists. Stop dreaming the sugarcandy mountain crap that Stallman came up with and accept that both open source and proprietary software business models are needed.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows GUI programs can be created entirely with a text editor, but only an idiot would forgo a modern IDE.
not sure how that is an epic fail.
But I'm sure the 5 guys who use it for homebrew will be happy along with millions of pirates.
Yep. Both have legal rights.
No one has been able to prove that having a registry slows the system down.
It isn't ye olden days when searching for a string was a costly expenditure.
The point of this is to annoy pirates who play the games, not the crackers.
Trying to outsmart crackers is not a fallacy. PS3 piracy has been difficult for crackers due to how tightly the security is tied to games and PSN. If they had simply burned bare games onto Blu-rays the PS3 would have much higher piracy rates.
and likely added a time delay so pirates thought they cracked it without problems.
Not if you make the game extremely hard halfway through and then use a time delay to botch the game after the reviews are out. Regional releases would help out here as well.
as do the people that own them.
That study looks at music and is shoddy since it relies on asking pirates if they buy music.
Why should we assume that someone who doesn't want to pay $1 for a legit purchase is actually purchasing legitimately elsewhere? It doesn't make any sense. Pirates by definition are not paying customers.
People that cannot afford $1 games don't even buy smartphones. Why are you making excuses for Android pirates? Does it just pain you to know that a lot of pirates can afford the software but are just being assholes? PC gaming has been this way for years.
That's why I require fasttask when using Windows 7 http://www.crdware.com/fasttask
I hate having the taskbar on the bottom when there is so much widescreen that can be used. When you work with a dozen extra long file names it gets really annoying.
but he provided a view that no one else was offering. A blog by a Linux programmer who hates Linux.
Collectively the end result is the same which less money for developers. Instead of choosing a game on the market the pirate downloads one illegally. Which game he would have bought really doesn't matter since when piracy rates are that high it is likely that another pirate at least would have.
You can't argue that those pirates would have paid the premium for Android but would never have bought any $1 games if piracy wasn't an option. The games are obviously of value to them and relative to the monthly fee they can clearly afford them.
The same problem exists in pc gaming where people are pirating games that require high-end gaming rigs. Excuses for pirates are really getting old and only condone the behavior. It's not just teenagers and third worlders that are doing it, there are a lot of pirates with jobs that are just being assholes.
I am somewhat interested in how many people will actually pay for a license; this might be a good way to estimate how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place.
You really can't make any assumptions with this case given the nature of the software. It's security software that has to be constantly updated so there is more of an incentive to keep a legit copy.
When Android games are 1 dollar and still pirated heavily it is hard to believe that those pirates would have paid for the data plan but not bought any games. Pirates should not be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to software that is affordable.
Even mom and pop stores can get a commission from anti-virus subscriptions. There is a free version of avast, why would they not install it instead?
but didn't have enough money after giving so much to charity. Since you can't prove me wrong that most pirates give generously to charity we should assume that they do.
where lots of software doesn't get ported because software companies can't make a profit due to the high piracy.
But yes piracy isn't a problem because of this one case. Nevermind how this would benefit software that only needs to be updated once per year like a utility or software that is only used for a month like a game. We just need to find 2 or 3 more cases like this one to show that copyright laws aren't needed.
while Android will continue to be popular. That is the real difference.
Some software is just plain boring to work on and will always attract far less developers than other projects, even if there are an endless amount of users.
instead of waiting for software that may never get finished. We've seen how lousy donations are for OSS. Your solution is simple but unrealistic.
doing the work, not companies. If it had worked the way he wanted then HURD would not be flatlined.
It was shown a while back that most of the commits were from Sun employees even though OO has had over a hundred million downloads. If they only charged $5 to fund developers it would be far more a competitor with MS Office.
Gimp actually works OK compared to the competition but the same can not be said for video editors. What is your answer there? Tell users to wait another decade for open source software to get to where proprietary video editing software was in 1999? The open source ideology clearly has problems, it's time to admit it. I think a good balance might be to have the OS open source but the applications proprietary.
I, personally, have no problem with these developers being paid. Open source is not always free and vice versa. I think what's important is the code remaining accessible.
Why is that important in areas where no one even cares about looking at the code? You want to spend you weekend stepping through TurboTax? Open source can make sense where the profit is in hardware or support but not applications that where the value to the user is entirely in the software.
As long as the code that is developed is submitted back to the open source community, that ethos is satisfied. How or even if the developer is paid is not really relevant.
That is really the problem. There is no accounting for how software like Black Ops is to be funded. It's like a religion where Open Source is the answer before the question is asked. That might make you feel indignant but doesn't explain how open source is supposed to compete with games that have 50 million dollar budgets.
The most paid F/OSS developers there are, the best for everyone. If there is demand, F/OSS developers salaries will raise, which will make more people interested in working in the field. The result will be better software for everyone.
I guess we all can dream...
There has long been demand for open source video editing software and yet none exists. Stop dreaming the sugarcandy mountain crap that Stallman came up with and accept that both open source and proprietary software business models are needed.