Oooh, ooh, I got one.
What is immoral?
1. Buying a DVD and trying to watch it on your computer only to find out it has DRM on it and then watching it on VLC anyway and now you opened yourself up to a lawsuit for trying to use a product you bought.
I have a question regarding Netflix's pay model to studios, do they just pay a fee or a payment for each movie somebody rents from them? Cause if it was just a monthly fee that Netflix pays, I could see the arguement that as long as netflix has the movie, and you have a netflix account, you should be able to download any movie you wish.
Well you think they would be more likely to want to go towards the higher numbers of piracy. Cause that means that that company is making things that people want, and I bet you there is a direct correlation to how many of something is pirated to how many of it is sold.
Well, it would be nice to be able to make money off something I do, yet I know of nobody except an artist who can make money off of something 100 years after they did the work.
Well, since most artists don't get the rights to their songs...
Patent Law =/= Copyright Law
True, Patents and Copyrights spur technological and social advancement, yet after a certain number of years, they both work to deter advancement. If I created and patented the first Quantum Computer I now have a stranglehold on all technological development for the next 20 years. Good Game.
Also, Adobe has the right of it, they understand that people are going to pirate Photoshop and they don't care cause they know that regular people will never afford the hundreds of dollars it will cost. But they do care that corporations and other companies, the people who have the money to pay for it, do pay for it.
What you still are holding onto is that a pirated copy is a lost sale, which its not. It's been shown time and time again.
First off the IP isn't being stolen, if it was, then I could go around and make all the legal copies of whatever it is I wanted and only the original theft would have been breaking the law.
I don't really know how someone would steal an Intellectual Property though, maybe trick them into signing it over with a contract for less then its worth?
So by Pirating a Copy I download 10 versions of it? You should really work for the MPAA, I bet they would love your number crunching.
I also think you are confusing worth vs value. And neither of which I am affecting. The stocks are not affected by how much people pirate something, its affected by how much profit that the company can bring in and how much profit they are expected to bring in in the future. And since there is no proof that a pirated copy is a lost sale, it should have 0 effect on their value of the company.
Except they misrepresent what the numbers mean. If they tell the shareholders that 100,000 copies of the game were pirated yet only about 10% of those are actually lost sales, then you may have a point, but as long as they consider every pirated copy a lost sale, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Well then I guess Blizzard devs are idiots because that is what they are doing...or maybe by running it through their servers they ensure some amount of unhackability. Still not worth it though, I want LAN play.
No, because I am not taking something I would have bought otherwise. So if I did not take their software, they would have not made any more profit and if I do take it, they don't lose anything.
Which is a far second to them doing it to deter piracy. You would think that all professional scenes would prefer not being connected to Battle.net in case an internet hickup would cause massive problems in the middle of games.
First off, Piracy is not stealing. It's been mentioned time and time again on the Slashdot boards.
Second, DRM does not stop Pirates, they will always get around whatever DRM you add. Starcraft II will come out with LAN play when the Pirates implement it, and at that point, the Pirates will have a superior game to the one Blizzard is selling.
No, when they implement something a certain way to stop Piracy, its DRM. They are not adding LAN play not because it would require more coding, or cause they want to track your stats or any other reason to try and stop piracy. Everything else is them trying to cloud it with smoke and mirrors.
There was a quote up higher in this Message Board dealing with people in Australia, after connection, you still go through the Battle.net servers and the game never becomes local.
Why is that you think? It would be much easier to spoof that initial connection to Battle.net.
The lack of LAN play on Starcraft 2 is the biggest reason why I won't buy it. There are times where me and my fiancee are not in location of an internet connection and I would have loved to be able to play SC2 with her, since I can't, I am not buying the game.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooh, ooh, I got one. What is immoral? 1. Buying a DVD and trying to watch it on your computer only to find out it has DRM on it and then watching it on VLC anyway and now you opened yourself up to a lawsuit for trying to use a product you bought.
Is there any other group of people other then Artists and Writers who can make money off work they did 100 years after the fact?
I think Milton and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra would disagree with you.
I have a question regarding Netflix's pay model to studios, do they just pay a fee or a payment for each movie somebody rents from them? Cause if it was just a monthly fee that Netflix pays, I could see the arguement that as long as netflix has the movie, and you have a netflix account, you should be able to download any movie you wish.
Well you think they would be more likely to want to go towards the higher numbers of piracy. Cause that means that that company is making things that people want, and I bet you there is a direct correlation to how many of something is pirated to how many of it is sold.
Actually there was a time before Copyright Law and people still wrote books. True it was hundreds of years ago, but there was a time.
Well, it would be nice to be able to make money off something I do, yet I know of nobody except an artist who can make money off of something 100 years after they did the work.
Well, since most artists don't get the rights to their songs...
Patent Law =/= Copyright Law
True, Patents and Copyrights spur technological and social advancement, yet after a certain number of years, they both work to deter advancement. If I created and patented the first Quantum Computer I now have a stranglehold on all technological development for the next 20 years. Good Game.
Also, Adobe has the right of it, they understand that people are going to pirate Photoshop and they don't care cause they know that regular people will never afford the hundreds of dollars it will cost. But they do care that corporations and other companies, the people who have the money to pay for it, do pay for it.
What you still are holding onto is that a pirated copy is a lost sale, which its not. It's been shown time and time again.
First off the IP isn't being stolen, if it was, then I could go around and make all the legal copies of whatever it is I wanted and only the original theft would have been breaking the law.
I don't really know how someone would steal an Intellectual Property though, maybe trick them into signing it over with a contract for less then its worth?
So by Pirating a Copy I download 10 versions of it? You should really work for the MPAA, I bet they would love your number crunching.
I also think you are confusing worth vs value. And neither of which I am affecting. The stocks are not affected by how much people pirate something, its affected by how much profit that the company can bring in and how much profit they are expected to bring in in the future. And since there is no proof that a pirated copy is a lost sale, it should have 0 effect on their value of the company.
Well if Intellectual Property was actually Property. The only difference between IP and Thoughts is one got written down.
There is only one me though, there are thousands and thousands of copies of computer games. That is a huge difference that invalidates your argument.
Except they misrepresent what the numbers mean. If they tell the shareholders that 100,000 copies of the game were pirated yet only about 10% of those are actually lost sales, then you may have a point, but as long as they consider every pirated copy a lost sale, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Well then I guess Blizzard devs are idiots because that is what they are doing...or maybe by running it through their servers they ensure some amount of unhackability. Still not worth it though, I want LAN play.
No, because I am not taking something I would have bought otherwise. So if I did not take their software, they would have not made any more profit and if I do take it, they don't lose anything.
Piracy isn't stealing because you are not taking something away from somebody.
Identity Theft is stealing because you are taking away somebody's ability to get Credit and taking away a good credit score.
Which is a far second to them doing it to deter piracy. You would think that all professional scenes would prefer not being connected to Battle.net in case an internet hickup would cause massive problems in the middle of games.
It is when the sole reason for them to remove LAN play was to deter piracy.
First off, Piracy is not stealing. It's been mentioned time and time again on the Slashdot boards.
Second, DRM does not stop Pirates, they will always get around whatever DRM you add. Starcraft II will come out with LAN play when the Pirates implement it, and at that point, the Pirates will have a superior game to the one Blizzard is selling.
I know an area where all they get is satellite internet, good luck them every playing Starcraft II.
Or...the thief can just steal your car anyway...last I heard, keys didn't stop them.
No, when they implement something a certain way to stop Piracy, its DRM. They are not adding LAN play not because it would require more coding, or cause they want to track your stats or any other reason to try and stop piracy. Everything else is them trying to cloud it with smoke and mirrors.
There was a quote up higher in this Message Board dealing with people in Australia, after connection, you still go through the Battle.net servers and the game never becomes local.
Why is that you think? It would be much easier to spoof that initial connection to Battle.net.
Its their lack of LAN play in my opinion that is the most Restrictive DRM feature on the New SC2.
You are forgetting the lack of LAN play. Lack of LAN play is DRM too cause they are not implementing it in a vain attempt to stop Piracy.
The lack of LAN play on Starcraft 2 is the biggest reason why I won't buy it. There are times where me and my fiancee are not in location of an internet connection and I would have loved to be able to play SC2 with her, since I can't, I am not buying the game.
DRM ruins good games.