Who would that be? There are a number of parties that want to change the system, or at least parts of it. But I'm sure they could, perhaps, be persuaded to change other things as well.
How did the patriot act pass? People who didn't value their privacy thought it was okay for the government to take it away if they combated someone they perceived as a threat. If there's as many people as I suspect that hate pirates for their own illogical reasons and they are unaware of what the bill really is, they may end up agreeing with it. Politicians have been making decisions that clearly breach the constitution for a while now.
"If you don't want to pay money for a product, this is fine. But that doesn't mean it is okay to use it for free then."
Using it for free has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. How are they inflicting harm upon these artists/companies? How does it hurt them if you use it for free if you don't even take anything from them? If you're not going to at least use a "potential profit" argument, you have nothing. You're basically just saying "they copied data and somehow this is wrong, so it's bad." Using it without their permission? This would only hurt them if you actively took something from them. I'm not against giving people money if you want to. That's nice. But, piracy really doesn't harm anyone. What harms people is our illogical capitalistic society that forces you to earn worthless paper to participate in it. If anything is 'harming' these artists and keeping them from continuing to fulfill their dreams and make more creations, it is that. Not competition between businesses, consumer choice, piracy, or word of mouth.
"If you can afford it"
I'd rather spend my money on things that aren't in an infinite supply. Things that I can't simply effortlessly copy without damaging anyone (technically, that would apply to everything you could copy).
"and you desire it enough to go through the effort of pirating it"
It takes no effort for me. I usually am just able to download it and use a crack. For software or music, it is even more simple. It's certainly worth the small amount of effort it takes to me.
No. I did not say it wasn't impressive or that it wasn't extremely difficult. I merely meant to say that, compared to some other things that an AI could be made to do, it wouldn't be as difficult. I did not mean to imply that it wasn't impressive or incredibly difficult. I know that it is.
"In this case, Blizzard uses their DRM to let you download the game to any computer, as many times as you like"
Sorry, but what? Do you mean download as in download the game from the internet, or do you mean install? If you mean install, then I can do that with... pretty much all of my games that have no DRM present in them.
" Does the AI in the first vehicle know it's winter and black ice may interfere with braking? Does the AI know that turning out of the other vehicle's path toward the mountainside may result in the vehicle flipping? Does the AI know that if it turns away from the mountain to avoid the other vehicle that it could cause it to plummet to its doom?"
Obviously, it should. I didn't underestimate the problem. I knew exactly what you were trying to say. I mean, sure, it will require more knowledge of AI than what we have now, but I don't really consider that "groundbreaking."
Yet still, the number of accidents caused by human drivers is staggering. An AI, if made properly (as you said), would outdo a human and make far fewer mistakes. I really don't think that absolutely groundbreaking AI is needed for this, though.
"Why isn't DRM worth the trade off for added features, if it doesn't hamper gameplay?"
It restricts what I can and can't do with the game I bought. Pirated copies don't have this problem. Extra features? Okay. Why aren't they optional instead of forced (you said yourself that they're tied to DRM).
"How is pirating something, flat out, okay?"
Pirates don't actually take anything from anyone.
"but not flat out theft (I generally hate that mapping, but in this case it is pretty close to accurate, since you are getting something for nothing, for no perceivable reason outside of greed)."
There is no theft here. To do that means to deprive someone of something, and pirates aren't doing that. How hard is this to understand?
Oh, and, before you say "potential profit," let me say that it is impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is what 'stealing' potential profit really means). Also, absolutely everyone on the planet is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
Every single time you decide to exercise your right as a consumer to not buy a product, you're 'stealing' profit that the artist/business could, potentially, have had if you would have bought it. That's just one example. I have many, many more.
Imagine that someone recently bought a product from a store and decided to, for whatever reason, tell their friends (who were originally going to buy the product) not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to. They would have bought it otherwise (sort of similar to how a pirate might have if piracy didn't exist). Therefore, profit that the store could, potentially, have had was 'stolen'.
This effectively means that consumer choice, certain parts of speech, and competition between businesses should all be banned because it allows for people to 'steal' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
"Are you one of those people who hate DRM because it hurts your ability to pirate things"
No, because by the time I decide to pirate something, there's already thousands of working cracks for the game, making the DRM virtually pointless.
"Basically, DRM wouldn't exist without people like that."
Yet all it does is hurt the paying customers. Funny, that.
Actually, there was supposedly a crack for online play, but it was 'fixed' by Blizzard pretty quickly. It can be done, and people are currently working on it.
Even if they did only get a campaign, there was and still are many people pirating it.
Why? Since when does slightly more control over your game as opposed to slightly less with other forms of DRM equal good? It's better, sure, but far from good.
Uh, no. How many of Blizzard's customers (not just the ones on the forums, they have many more who aren't registered) support this decision? Why should people cheating in single player be banned?
"an awful lot of people care about and want achievements."
However, do an awful lot of people care about another persons offline achievements so much so that they would want them banned if they cheated to get them?
"Your only limitation is running two copies at the same time "
Yes, that is a limitation. Any DRM is bad DRM. Besides that, I heard that it has to verify itself online once every thirty days, leaving people without an internet connection helpless. I also heard that you can only have a single Battle.net account. Are either of those true?
"so calling it "harmful" is patently ridiculous, histrionic nonsense."
Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's bad. 'Good' is highly subjective. I think sports are idiotic because it consists of people throwing/hitting random objects around on fields. Does that mean I think that anyone who likes them is an idiot or are wrong? No. It's just my opinion, like that is yours.
You don't? You monitored every torrent website in existence and were able to determine how many people are pirating Starcraft 2 and how many people pirated it in the past but stopped seeding? I know that when I searched for a torrent, I saw quite a few people pirating it. Millions, in fact. Now, they still probably got a lot of sales because the number of people who don't pirate is still quite large, but that doesn't mean that more people didn't pirate it because of the DRM. I know that if a promising game had highly restrictive DRM in it and I wanted to play it badly enough, I'd just pirate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Who would that be? There are a number of parties that want to change the system, or at least parts of it. But I'm sure they could, perhaps, be persuaded to change other things as well.
"How can he bypass Congress to implement it?"
How did the patriot act pass? People who didn't value their privacy thought it was okay for the government to take it away if they combated someone they perceived as a threat. If there's as many people as I suspect that hate pirates for their own illogical reasons and they are unaware of what the bill really is, they may end up agreeing with it. Politicians have been making decisions that clearly breach the constitution for a while now.
"The sum of everything he's done since he's been in office is: more power to government, less freedom for the individual."
Like every politician in existence? Oh, and money, too.
"If you don't want to pay money for a product, this is fine. But that doesn't mean it is okay to use it for free then."
Using it for free has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. How are they inflicting harm upon these artists/companies? How does it hurt them if you use it for free if you don't even take anything from them? If you're not going to at least use a "potential profit" argument, you have nothing. You're basically just saying "they copied data and somehow this is wrong, so it's bad." Using it without their permission? This would only hurt them if you actively took something from them. I'm not against giving people money if you want to. That's nice. But, piracy really doesn't harm anyone. What harms people is our illogical capitalistic society that forces you to earn worthless paper to participate in it. If anything is 'harming' these artists and keeping them from continuing to fulfill their dreams and make more creations, it is that. Not competition between businesses, consumer choice, piracy, or word of mouth.
"If you can afford it"
I'd rather spend my money on things that aren't in an infinite supply. Things that I can't simply effortlessly copy without damaging anyone (technically, that would apply to everything you could copy).
"and you desire it enough to go through the effort of pirating it"
It takes no effort for me. I usually am just able to download it and use a crack. For software or music, it is even more simple. It's certainly worth the small amount of effort it takes to me.
I know. I meant that when it becomes available and has been tested.
No. I did not say it wasn't impressive or that it wasn't extremely difficult. I merely meant to say that, compared to some other things that an AI could be made to do, it wouldn't be as difficult. I did not mean to imply that it wasn't impressive or incredibly difficult. I know that it is.
"Even if they reduced accidents by 80%."
Yeah, humans are illogical like that. Now to wait until the people against technological advancement die off...
"In this case, Blizzard uses their DRM to let you download the game to any computer, as many times as you like"
Sorry, but what? Do you mean download as in download the game from the internet, or do you mean install? If you mean install, then I can do that with... pretty much all of my games that have no DRM present in them.
" Does the AI in the first vehicle know it's winter and black ice may interfere with braking? Does the AI know that turning out of the other vehicle's path toward the mountainside may result in the vehicle flipping? Does the AI know that if it turns away from the mountain to avoid the other vehicle that it could cause it to plummet to its doom?"
Obviously, it should. I didn't underestimate the problem. I knew exactly what you were trying to say. I mean, sure, it will require more knowledge of AI than what we have now, but I don't really consider that "groundbreaking."
"A human still has to program the sucker."
Yes, and while humans do make mistakes, that is precisely why it would be rigorously tested before mass producing it.
"And I would much rather have a human I could watch and monitor than an AI concealed in an opaque chip that I would just have to trust implicitly."
The AI would do exactly as it was told. In reality, there would likely be far fewer accidents if it was, again, made properly.
"The problem with autonomous vehicles is not what they can do successfully, it's what happens when they fail."
I wonder what people do in the many, many occasions when human drivers make a severe error...
Yet still, the number of accidents caused by human drivers is staggering. An AI, if made properly (as you said), would outdo a human and make far fewer mistakes. I really don't think that absolutely groundbreaking AI is needed for this, though.
But... there's a still that small chance! Therefore, technology is bad and we should get rid of those newfangled computer things!
"Why isn't DRM worth the trade off for added features, if it doesn't hamper gameplay?"
It restricts what I can and can't do with the game I bought. Pirated copies don't have this problem. Extra features? Okay. Why aren't they optional instead of forced (you said yourself that they're tied to DRM).
"How is pirating something, flat out, okay?"
Pirates don't actually take anything from anyone.
"but not flat out theft (I generally hate that mapping, but in this case it is pretty close to accurate, since you are getting something for nothing, for no perceivable reason outside of greed)."
There is no theft here. To do that means to deprive someone of something, and pirates aren't doing that. How hard is this to understand?
Oh, and, before you say "potential profit," let me say that it is impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is what 'stealing' potential profit really means). Also, absolutely everyone on the planet is 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
Every single time you decide to exercise your right as a consumer to not buy a product, you're 'stealing' profit that the artist/business could, potentially, have had if you would have bought it. That's just one example. I have many, many more.
Imagine that someone recently bought a product from a store and decided to, for whatever reason, tell their friends (who were originally going to buy the product) not to buy it. They ultimately decide not to. They would have bought it otherwise (sort of similar to how a pirate might have if piracy didn't exist). Therefore, profit that the store could, potentially, have had was 'stolen'.
This effectively means that consumer choice, certain parts of speech, and competition between businesses should all be banned because it allows for people to 'steal' profit that others could, potentially, have had.
"Are you one of those people who hate DRM because it hurts your ability to pirate things"
No, because by the time I decide to pirate something, there's already thousands of working cracks for the game, making the DRM virtually pointless.
"Basically, DRM wouldn't exist without people like that."
Yet all it does is hurt the paying customers. Funny, that.
Actually, there was supposedly a crack for online play, but it was 'fixed' by Blizzard pretty quickly. It can be done, and people are currently working on it.
Even if they did only get a campaign, there was and still are many people pirating it.
"I disagree."
Why? Since when does slightly more control over your game as opposed to slightly less with other forms of DRM equal good? It's better, sure, but far from good.
Uh, no. How many of Blizzard's customers (not just the ones on the forums, they have many more who aren't registered) support this decision? Why should people cheating in single player be banned?
About this particular decision? Most of them probably don't even know about it or care enough to make a big deal out of it.
"an awful lot of people care about and want achievements."
However, do an awful lot of people care about another persons offline achievements so much so that they would want them banned if they cheated to get them?
"Your only limitation is running two copies at the same time "
Yes, that is a limitation. Any DRM is bad DRM. Besides that, I heard that it has to verify itself online once every thirty days, leaving people without an internet connection helpless. I also heard that you can only have a single Battle.net account. Are either of those true?
"so calling it "harmful" is patently ridiculous, histrionic nonsense."
It's harmful because it's pointless.
"Lurk any set of Starcraft 2 forums for a week (Blizzard's or otherwise) and I don't think you could dispute that's the prevailing opinion."
All of their customers post on the forums? Or are they just the loudest?
"I'll readily concede that my claim is not scientifically backed by rigorous double-blind research"
You can't conclude that it is true for sure, then.
Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's bad. 'Good' is highly subjective. I think sports are idiotic because it consists of people throwing/hitting random objects around on fields. Does that mean I think that anyone who likes them is an idiot or are wrong? No. It's just my opinion, like that is yours.
You don't? You monitored every torrent website in existence and were able to determine how many people are pirating Starcraft 2 and how many people pirated it in the past but stopped seeding? I know that when I searched for a torrent, I saw quite a few people pirating it. Millions, in fact. Now, they still probably got a lot of sales because the number of people who don't pirate is still quite large, but that doesn't mean that more people didn't pirate it because of the DRM. I know that if a promising game had highly restrictive DRM in it and I wanted to play it badly enough, I'd just pirate it.
"The convenience is worth the trade off."
No, it's not.
"DRM in itself isn't inherently wrong if implemented right"
Yes, it is. It's pointless and only hurts paying customers.
"But then again I owned tons of games with REALLY annoying DRM"
Any DRM is bad DRM.
"Who actually buys used PC games anyways?"
People who want to buy used PC games. Although, I've never really heard of a store allowing this.
"If your that value conscious why not just hit up The Pirate Bay?"
I already do.
"I do this, and feel no moral qualms."
There's no moral qualms to be had even if the game was valued at a single cent.
"Wait, your refusing to play a game just because of things that don't affect gameplay."
No, I'm refusing to buy it. If I did decide to play it, I would pirate it. But that goes without saying.
It was their choice to implement those useless offline achievements. In reality, they are nothing, and anyone who cares about them is a lost cause.