Subby: don't listen to this and other snowflakes that will permeate this thread and mark me 'troll.'. You'll get a lot of advice here which amounts to not much more than you subsidizing their greed and limitless expectation.
And you'll also get borderline flamebait replies like this that essentially state that anyone who dares to disagree must be a dirty 'pirate' or an entitled brat. Well done.
Sure, everything will get hacked, but the dirty little secret is DRM works.
Probably 99% of the time it's cracked so fast that it's not even worth spending resources on making it, and pointing to one case (the PS3) doesn't change that.
5. have a thick skin when it comes to entitled snowflakes and the Tech Profits and Futurists who will tell you that DRM is dead, that you should sell T-Shirts but give your app away, that you should FOSS it and live off of the sweet dew of reputation, or any other such idealistic crapola.
In other words, "Tell anyone who disagrees with you trying to control other people's use of the software or disagrees with you harming your own customers to screw off; they're just entitled!"
But if you'd rather harm your own customers with DRM, I guess I can't stop you. I just think it's morally wrong is all. I suggest everyone avoid any products with any form of DRM like the plague and instead use services like Good Old Games and similar.
let's be clear what you are saying: you are saying that the developer must provide EXTRAORDINARY value (life long updates on a $5-$10 product?) for you to consider not pirating it. Behold, the entitled snowflake consumer.
No, he's giving the guy a strategy for getting more people to buy the game. You can whine and cry about copyright infringement all you like, but it's not going to go away, and that is simply the reality of the situation. It has nothing to do with entitlement. If you don't like copyright infringement, about the only thing to do is to try to make your product and product delivery the best they can be.
Well, in the US, it depends on the state. Some states are extremely lenient and others are so strict on people trying to home school that homeschooling is nearly nonexistent.
Oddly enough US schools seem good enough to get high school graduates into the top tier universities and colleges yet the same graduates
Only some of them, and what exactly do they accomplish after that? Even if they go on to these places, there is a very likely chance that they don't go with a true understanding of math, science, or pretty much anything that requires a little bit of thought put into it. I'd say most of the ones who don't simply fail at these universities and colleges (and not all colleges or universities are good, either) probably have to actually learn to understand the concepts, and not just memorize information.
Regardless of any budget problems, throwing more money at schools isn't going to fix the problem of useless standardized tests that test only for rote memorization. And that's just one problem.
As long as the instructors have a desire to teach and a desire to learn, they'll probably do alright. Chances are, homeschooling parents aren't held back by bureaucrats and silly curricula that include a myriad of poorly-made standardized tests that only test for rote memorization.
The kids in the public education system might turn out to be pretty decent Jeopardy players; that is, if they don't forget everything they 'learned' a year after graduating from high school...
Being a good programmer is different from merely being a programmer, and I highly doubt most kids would turn out to be competent programmers to begin with.
I don't know that it "hurt" them; I think people just decided to copy data without giving the music industry money. I don't actually think a loss of potential profit is harmful in the first place.
It will never be manageable to go to court for such petty things. There are simply too many people that ignore copyright law, and the nature of the Internet makes it too difficult to find many of them.
There would be issues in that we'd need some sort of appeals mechanism and wouldn't want to cause too much hassle for the false positives, or make it too easy for a media company to churn out notices like they do with the DMCA.
Given the industry's track record, the end result would very likely be that the burden of proof would be placed on the accused and everything would be made more convenient for the companies trying to extort money out of the supposed infringers.
Although I don't care whether or not it 'hurts' sales, I do find it interesting that we don't even know what the result would be without copyright law and yet we have them in effect.
And it's just as irrelevant to me now as it was then. I believe people should approach this issue from the freedom angle, not the "Well, it doesn't really hurt sales..." angle; anything else misses the point, in my opinion.
but it's hard to argue that parents can be expected to take full responsibility for complex technological restrictions that most people can't understand.
Well, that's really too bad for them then, isn't it? The occasional child getting hurt doesn't make laws like this worthwhile to me in the least.
Getting paid for your labor is a birthright as an American, at least since the 13th Amendment. If the labor is legal, you should be able to get paid.
No one is forcing them to make anything for free; they make things of their own volition, and people who copy things after the fact have nothing to do with their original decisions.
I'm aware of that, but since there seems to be plenty of people who work on free software simply believe they believe that that's what should be done, I think there would be plenty of projects. Companies also wouldn't have any ability to sue people out of existence.
Slashdot Mirror
Subby: don't listen to this and other snowflakes that will permeate this thread and mark me 'troll.'. You'll get a lot of advice here which amounts to not much more than you subsidizing their greed and limitless expectation.
And you'll also get borderline flamebait replies like this that essentially state that anyone who dares to disagree must be a dirty 'pirate' or an entitled brat. Well done.
Sure, everything will get hacked, but the dirty little secret is DRM works.
Probably 99% of the time it's cracked so fast that it's not even worth spending resources on making it, and pointing to one case (the PS3) doesn't change that.
5. have a thick skin when it comes to entitled snowflakes and the Tech Profits and Futurists who will tell you that DRM is dead, that you should sell T-Shirts but give your app away, that you should FOSS it and live off of the sweet dew of reputation, or any other such idealistic crapola.
In other words, "Tell anyone who disagrees with you trying to control other people's use of the software or disagrees with you harming your own customers to screw off; they're just entitled!"
But if you'd rather harm your own customers with DRM, I guess I can't stop you. I just think it's morally wrong is all. I suggest everyone avoid any products with any form of DRM like the plague and instead use services like Good Old Games and similar.
let's be clear what you are saying: you are saying that the developer must provide EXTRAORDINARY value (life long updates on a $5-$10 product?) for you to consider not pirating it. Behold, the entitled snowflake consumer.
No, he's giving the guy a strategy for getting more people to buy the game. You can whine and cry about copyright infringement all you like, but it's not going to go away, and that is simply the reality of the situation. It has nothing to do with entitlement. If you don't like copyright infringement, about the only thing to do is to try to make your product and product delivery the best they can be.
I have a better idea: no DRM at all.
3. He said the CIA had presented evidence that Iraq had been pursuing WMD.
I'm not really sure why that would be a reason to go to war with them. Oh, that's right; we're the world police.
Well, in the US, it depends on the state. Some states are extremely lenient and others are so strict on people trying to home school that homeschooling is nearly nonexistent.
Yes, if all HS grads went to top tier universities, would they be considered top tier?
Probably not. And?
Do you have any evidence that this is a bigger problem in the US than elsewhere?
I didn't say that it is. To me, it's a travesty that it's happening anywhere, but I choose to focus on my home country.
Oddly enough US schools seem good enough to get high school graduates into the top tier universities and colleges yet the same graduates
Only some of them, and what exactly do they accomplish after that? Even if they go on to these places, there is a very likely chance that they don't go with a true understanding of math, science, or pretty much anything that requires a little bit of thought put into it. I'd say most of the ones who don't simply fail at these universities and colleges (and not all colleges or universities are good, either) probably have to actually learn to understand the concepts, and not just memorize information.
Regardless of any budget problems, throwing more money at schools isn't going to fix the problem of useless standardized tests that test only for rote memorization. And that's just one problem.
As long as the instructors have a desire to teach and a desire to learn, they'll probably do alright. Chances are, homeschooling parents aren't held back by bureaucrats and silly curricula that include a myriad of poorly-made standardized tests that only test for rote memorization.
The kids in the public education system might turn out to be pretty decent Jeopardy players; that is, if they don't forget everything they 'learned' a year after graduating from high school...
Being a good programmer is different from merely being a programmer, and I highly doubt most kids would turn out to be competent programmers to begin with.
Isn't that what currently happens anyway?
So either they need to be better educated about the existence of copyright law and the (moral) reasons for respecting copyright law
There's no guarantee that they'll agree with the laws even if one tries to 'educate' (in this case, it would probably amount to brainwashing) them.
or the law should be changed to what the people can accept and obey.
But hey, people in the US accept and obey the TSA, so I don't exactly have high hopes for them.
I don't know that it "hurt" them; I think people just decided to copy data without giving the music industry money. I don't actually think a loss of potential profit is harmful in the first place.
Only commercial piracy should be illegal
I disagree. I believe that copyright in general should just vanish entirely.
Everyone understands that it's wrong when a commercial outfit pirates and sells music or films for their own profit.
I don't understand that, so your statement that "everyone" understands it's wrong is false.
Only they themselves would object to it being illegal.
Ah, so anyone who disagrees is on the Bad Guy Team.
We only need to keep the problem manageable.
It will never be manageable to go to court for such petty things. There are simply too many people that ignore copyright law, and the nature of the Internet makes it too difficult to find many of them.
There would be issues in that we'd need some sort of appeals mechanism and wouldn't want to cause too much hassle for the false positives, or make it too easy for a media company to churn out notices like they do with the DMCA.
Given the industry's track record, the end result would very likely be that the burden of proof would be placed on the accused and everything would be made more convenient for the companies trying to extort money out of the supposed infringers.
Although I don't care whether or not it 'hurts' sales, I do find it interesting that we don't even know what the result would be without copyright law and yet we have them in effect.
But... I just had to buy the newest shiny, drm-infested game! I can't live without it! Clearly this DRM problem has nothing to do with me.
Your opinion of a product has nothing to whether you should be allowed to violate an owner's copyright without compensation.
It very well might be relevant for some people.
And it's just as irrelevant to me now as it was then. I believe people should approach this issue from the freedom angle, not the "Well, it doesn't really hurt sales..." angle; anything else misses the point, in my opinion.
but it's hard to argue that parents can be expected to take full responsibility for complex technological restrictions that most people can't understand.
Well, that's really too bad for them then, isn't it? The occasional child getting hurt doesn't make laws like this worthwhile to me in the least.
You sound young.
You sound young.
Getting paid for your labor is a birthright as an American, at least since the 13th Amendment. If the labor is legal, you should be able to get paid.
No one is forcing them to make anything for free; they make things of their own volition, and people who copy things after the fact have nothing to do with their original decisions.
I'm aware of that, but since there seems to be plenty of people who work on free software simply believe they believe that that's what should be done, I think there would be plenty of projects. Companies also wouldn't have any ability to sue people out of existence.
Why only non-commercial file sharing? Just get rid of copyright entirely.