Yeah, but you know, this like cheering for a soft dictatorship in a harsh, murderous dictatorship. Sure, less people are murdered for their beliefs, yet the result is the same: people are oppressed. So, cheering for an other DRM scheme, which perhaps technically less obtrusive is still nothing, but cheering for a DRM scheme adds up to the consumer price in exchange to take your control away over the products you bought.
It's the same thing, that paying for a club, where you are constantly harassed by the security guys. Just because they are more polite in an other club, it is still harassment.
"Even though the capitalist class may own a large part of the economy, they are in practice rather powerless, since all their influence is ultimately bounded by the law, which in general tends to favour the short-term interests of people that do not invest significant amounts of money quite strongly..."
This part is so wrong on many account, that I have hard time to even choose where should I start.
Ahan. So let's be naive. They only have power in the production, they can lobby, fund politicians, these poor powerless people. But let's be less naive. They can afford bribery, they can bully governments to do what is only in the interest of them. In some countries, they go as far as hire entire gun squads to enforce their ideas. Law only restrict those who can't invest in the law. Anti-union legislation aims exactly to diminish everybody else's lobby power, because hey... it can only be the game of the bosses.
Democracy you say? Where's my equal say on the matters? I'm only asked on which corporate puppet will get a vote in the parliament, or whatever. After that, they do whatever pleases them and mostly it is their pocket. And who can stuff those pockets? Guess what, who can invest in politics.
Short-sightedness my arse. Democracy is when we can have a collective planning over what, how, and for what end are we producing. Money doesn't equal with merit. It's just money, the counter value of human labour.
Yeah, sure. Everybody can starve their family for making an investment on minimum wage. You're just being plain ridiculous.
" all are free to succeed and fail on their merits"
Oh yeah. There's that of course. Because the community provides everybody with the same education, same financial stability up until they grow up. But this is just one aspect. The other one is, that wealth is produced by the collective work of people. But as long as you're working for wage, you are not sharing this new wealth, the wealth is collected by the owner of the business. Thus for those, who collect this new wealth, the opportunity to collect more newly created wealth grows. Mathematically that means that the rest of the people are cut off from this new wealth. It's a zero-sum game that is rigged toward the owners of the capital.
The tragedy is, that the dominant political ideology embraces something similar argument. Sometimes with Jesus, sometimes with some pseudo-darwinist madness.
As if the world consists only of the USA. To my knowledge, manufacturing work is mostly done outside of the USA anyway and most of those people have no stocks, no pension. Just saying, classes aren't defined within a nation.
Also, classes aren't about classifying actual citizens. Classes represent different stakes in society, and that of the capitalist is to getting the most work out of the same amount of money, while the worker's is to get the best money for the same amount of work. Small stocks, and pension saving models blurred the personal class differences, in certain part of the world, that is, the minority of the Planet still, but there was no massive transfer of ownership of the production system to a more distributed model. People with very little stock have no recognizable profit to their wage-income, and have no control over the production either.
You're so out of touch with reality that it amazes me. Yeah, everybody can invest... except that some people, in fact, the majority of people has no money to do so after they paid their living costs. Some people, having more money than their living, and a few of them has far more than a country could spend on food, shelter, basic healthcare and education.
Everybody can invest, the law allow them to do so. But of course, people can also lawfully die in hunger in most of the countries on Earth.
I heard this tired argument so many times. Having a theoretical possibility by some abstract freedom does not translate at all widespread ability to use that freedom. There is a group in society who can afford to invest and thus own basically the entire economy.
There's an "investor class", but that is called more precisely the capitalist class. Because they run the show, they have massive assets at their disposal that produces enough dividend that they can re-invest and thus blocking the access to all newly created wealth. Sometimes there's some reshuffle of course, but socially the class division is untouched.
RTFA. This patent issue has nothing to do with H.264 or its owner (yes, it has an owner, otherwise it couldn't be patented) the MPEG-LA body. Again, the technology wasn't developed or patented by Google, but by On2 before Google bought them off. You claim they are freeloaders, but in fact they paid for the company that owned a bunch of patents that wasn't an issue until Google released it with complete free patent terms.
VP8 isn't not a copy of H.264, but it uses similar technology... surprise, surprise, there are a bunch of software and algorithm out there who resemble to each other, just simply following from the fact that they address the same problem space. In computing (and possibly everywhere else, but I can only speak for computing in my experience), the real drive to the future is development, which is, by definition, incremental. "Innovation" is the operative term of PR departments and politicians for development and has little to do to the actual tech we have. Things are not "innovated" by hundreds of software engineers and researchers/scientist, but gradually developed, built every single step not just simply the previous generation, but every previous component. This makes software products and algorithms reliable, useful and good candidate for becoming a standard.
I don't doubt the technical merits of H.264 but for many it doesn't fit the bill for freeness that we reasonably require for our data. It's similar story as the MP3. You say
Why? Because Jesus told you so? If you were correct, where would the TV industry be today?
Why, you ask. Well, simply because only a completely free algorithm can become really standard, because they are in the public space. Everybody is allowed to create software/hardware to show them/play them for no charge. This opens the door for all who want to contribute, without restriction.
I don't mind a legislation that requires crediting of the developers of the algorithm, in fact I would make it obligatory, not optional depending on contract. We have too much white labels already. But that's a completely different stuff.
You don't seem to understand the point here, do you? In the software world it is perfectly common to come with ideas independently from each other, since the problem space is the same. Patents were invented to protect individual inventors against big corporations. But as it stands now, they are just weapons in the hand of big corporations in general.
It is in the interest of all of us, if the way we store and transmit our documents, videos, audio, whathaveyou in completely free formats, no string attached. Apparently, MPEG-LA and Nokia isn't interested in this, otherwise they would completely release their formats, and there would be no need for VP8 at all. They could still make quality hardware based on these algorithms, they can still offer services and software use their respective codecs, and in addition, they would be Teh Innovator.
Also, don't be pretentious. All programmers, all scientist use other people's work without pay for it. Because they work with ideas. An algorithm is an idea, no more. AFAIK, these claims are also seemingly coming to shut a completely free alternative to the current video codecs, as the algorithm was used and published long before Google acquired it. Let's be completely true to the facts here: Google did pay for the company that developed and patented these codecs, and thus Google was entitled to release it under its own patent license, which is to be free. What we see here is that any resemblance of a software could be a legal case for any company on the field, so Nokia wants to make money this way.
This is so boring, really. I really consider today's tech industry just a huge pile of fraudulent investor. All these patents fights are over a software algorithm shows that there's no real innovation here: just plain old incremental releases that are developed and researched completely different entities (after a certain size, R&D division is like almost a different company) have nothing patentable on them, not in the original intention behind the whole idea of patents. This whole patent-wars are completely wasteful and useless, but the corporate lobby prevent any attempt of legislation that aim to eliminate corporate patents over trivial matters, so we stuck with these companies spending millions of dollars on lawyers and patent fights, for whose benefit? Lawyer benefit.
There has to be a point where it becomes so unbearable the whole idea of patents must be abolished and any company who participated in this fight must be also dismantled and assets to be redistributed.
That may be, but if you would go for a lawsuit, you have a strong case in point: you subscribed to a service, but that service coupled with a software stack, and rendered your completely capable receiving end (Linux computer) unable to playback the service you've paid for. This left for you no option but to download the content. As a paying subscriber to the service, you're entitled to watch the content in question, and if the Netflix haven't provided the means to deliver it to your system, but tied it up with other, paid software solutions that have no operative function other than this, it is an indecent business practice.
I'm not a lawyer, and I generally don't trust in legal systems, but I'm sure that wouldn't be a weak case at all.
Wait, are you saying that there's no such an urban myth among the prime Apple consumers that Apple products can't be infected by malicious software? Or you're saying that it is indeed the case that there are no worms, viruses or ad-ware on on OS-X devices.
If any of these two, I would call you ignorant fool my self.
You can always keep around a video card that has a VGA output because I don't think it would be an issue anywhere in the near future that players will deny to play on VGA ports.
And as the other reply suggest too, it shouldn't be too hard to fake on the other side of the DVI/HDMI output that it isn't a recording device but of course, that would be an additional hassle. On the positive side, one need to do it once, and the content can be distributed easily after for many. The thing is that as long as you posses a hardware, the hardware will be exposed to clever hacks anyway to circumvent any protection. The whole point of course of DRM is to make it as hard as possible, but it requires exactly a single time to rip the desired data out of the hardware, and then it is free to go without DRM for anybody who wants it and that's why it is a fight against windmills IMHO.
The only question here is the existence of a culture of sharing. At the moment is thriving, and it would take a major policing and legal enforcement to break this culture which could possibly prove to be counter-productive, and would fuel more resistance, and escalation of the sharing culture. While it looks quite bleak at the moment, in the long run I'm quite optimistic that the whole politics of information will be forced to change.
You could just simply publish your source code with your binaries with a free software license. Announce a donation scheme that would classify donors as customers and deal with their complaints and feature requests. If you product is really useful, people would copy it and use it, whether you like it or not. But getting new features means work for you, and if there are people who really want to use those features, they would pay for them.
Dude, check the reality around you. Disk space is cheap as dirt. I mean it. For the price of one month internet service, you get a hdd that could store more FLAC than you will ever need. And tell man, how do you stream offline really?
Also, for your information, the thing that you need to do for having a downloaded music on your machine is just the same as streaming, as streaming downloads the song to your computer, but then it deletes immediately. Not because you have low HDD space, but because you are not allowed to have it there. There's no more convenience in streaming services, in fact, with crappy connection, it is a hassle.
Gee. People just don't get do they? These pesky nerds can't understand that economics of of physical copies must be preserved at all cost. Because economics doesn't change, does it? It is the same as it was in a century or two ago. Or a thousand years ago.
Wake up man! Things are changing all the time. If people don't get your "economics" perhaps it is so because it is not beneficial or useful any more. I guess, the world of computers must be scary for you. All those copy with not price tag on them. Gee.
Sure, but we're talking about a recording of a song, not the song itself. The song obviously belongs to the artist as long as her copyright holds, but the copies of the recording is a different matter. It is produced by no additional cost, no additional effort by the artist. It is not produced and not distributed by the artist, so she can't claim rights over it.
2) DRM isn't about the artists anyway, but about big publishers who has the budget to pay for such a abomination (both for the legislation and buying the technology) and the legal department to enforce it. DRM is supposed to bring back the scarcity of physical items in to the world of copying, that is, digital technology. It is breakable, but it reduces the users computer in to a shopping mall terminal. This fills any computer nerd like me with a growing anger that the average user don't understand the basic concept of digital computing, and that is being exploited here. This is akin to illiteracy, that would be supported, lobbied and legally enforced by large corporations only for their profit motif.
3) "Artists actually want to qualify their buyers. " Well, what they want, and what they deserve is two thing. As long as the item they are trying to sell contains their own effort, that's their choice. However, once they release something in the public, like putting a painting on public square, it would be just stupid if they seek court order against people taking photos of it. Similarly, once they release their music, film, book in the public in any form, it's just as ridiculous to try to control copies of the original.
4) "We now get to the core value proposition to you of why an artist made that song, and why you feel he should continue to make songs."
No, that is not at core of this issue. I don't think anybody minds if musicians get paid for what they are doing as longs as it is valued by their audience. The problem is twofold here:
First, making free copies paid for, and for this goal, misleading the general public, pushing through laws that deny the nature of a technology, cripple devices is criminal, deceptive and wasteful. The only people who benefit of this are the publishers and their consumers are, consciously or not, but on the bad end of the deal.
Second, it isn't really the artist and his income that we're talking about. But publishers reducing their cost converging to zero, and they lobby laws in order to keep up with the revenue stream. This is called fraudulent behaviour, it is distortion of the market, indeed, it is a money they get for only successful lobbying, not for what they are producing. And compared to the income need of a single artist, or a band, or even a film, they are massively needy middleman without any justification. The whole idea of instant communication makes them completely useless: artist can promote their work for their potential audience so easily, that they could do it even without using external labour. So they turned in to a massive legal department to maintain a revenue stream without doing any worthy labour. They are indeed socially counter-productive just like any mafia that collects protection money from shopkeepers and they are no better.
But 99% of people don't give a toss about DRM or their software being "unencumbered."
I don't think you have that number. Rather, most of the consumers aren't aware that their individual actions could turn the industry for the better. It's the same for everything. People don't believe that there could be life outside of the two-party system, so they continue to vote to the 2 major parties. Many of them aware of the problem, but with their vote, they create a massive sense of dead-end, hence it becomes dead-end.
However, if things go rather bad after while, such as, legit gamers are struggling to be able to play, because of all the DRM, copy-protection, server-down issues in single-player games, then there's more than just ideological argument, and more people start acting against these practices. When business practices strangle the enjoyment, the functioning of the industry, as they do seem to do that, perhaps you'll see more people complaining about how it goes. It has happened before.
But I will stop if it becomes impossible to pirate anymore - say if the majority of games are hosted on cloud servers and so cracks are impossible. But if that happens I'll probably just give up gaming entirely.
I don't think we would ever get there. There always be developers who make their work freely available, without the need of resorting to these practices, "piracy" (how I hate this term really).
Slashdot Mirror
Check out your Windows EULA then. You're in for a surprise.
Yeah, but you know, this like cheering for a soft dictatorship in a harsh, murderous dictatorship. Sure, less people are murdered for their beliefs, yet the result is the same: people are oppressed. So, cheering for an other DRM scheme, which perhaps technically less obtrusive is still nothing, but cheering for a DRM scheme adds up to the consumer price in exchange to take your control away over the products you bought.
It's the same thing, that paying for a club, where you are constantly harassed by the security guys. Just because they are more polite in an other club, it is still harassment.
When I bought a game, I always made an ISO image of it in the first day. That way, you don't worry about scratches, and you won't loose it.
"Even though the capitalist class may own a large part of the economy, they are in practice rather powerless, since all their influence is ultimately bounded by the law, which in general tends to favour the short-term interests of people that do not invest significant amounts of money quite strongly..."
This part is so wrong on many account, that I have hard time to even choose where should I start.
Ahan. So let's be naive. They only have power in the production, they can lobby, fund politicians, these poor powerless people. But let's be less naive. They can afford bribery, they can bully governments to do what is only in the interest of them. In some countries, they go as far as hire entire gun squads to enforce their ideas. Law only restrict those who can't invest in the law. Anti-union legislation aims exactly to diminish everybody else's lobby power, because hey... it can only be the game of the bosses.
Democracy you say? Where's my equal say on the matters? I'm only asked on which corporate puppet will get a vote in the parliament, or whatever. After that, they do whatever pleases them and mostly it is their pocket. And who can stuff those pockets? Guess what, who can invest in politics.
Short-sightedness my arse. Democracy is when we can have a collective planning over what, how, and for what end are we producing. Money doesn't equal with merit. It's just money, the counter value of human labour.
Yeah, sure. Everybody can starve their family for making an investment on minimum wage. You're just being plain ridiculous.
" all are free to succeed and fail on their merits"
Oh yeah. There's that of course. Because the community provides everybody with the same education, same financial stability up until they grow up. But this is just one aspect. The other one is, that wealth is produced by the collective work of people. But as long as you're working for wage, you are not sharing this new wealth, the wealth is collected by the owner of the business. Thus for those, who collect this new wealth, the opportunity to collect more newly created wealth grows. Mathematically that means that the rest of the people are cut off from this new wealth. It's a zero-sum game that is rigged toward the owners of the capital.
The tragedy is, that the dominant political ideology embraces something similar argument. Sometimes with Jesus, sometimes with some pseudo-darwinist madness.
As if the world consists only of the USA. To my knowledge, manufacturing work is mostly done outside of the USA anyway and most of those people have no stocks, no pension. Just saying, classes aren't defined within a nation.
Also, classes aren't about classifying actual citizens. Classes represent different stakes in society, and that of the capitalist is to getting the most work out of the same amount of money, while the worker's is to get the best money for the same amount of work. Small stocks, and pension saving models blurred the personal class differences, in certain part of the world, that is, the minority of the Planet still, but there was no massive transfer of ownership of the production system to a more distributed model. People with very little stock have no recognizable profit to their wage-income, and have no control over the production either.
You're so out of touch with reality that it amazes me. Yeah, everybody can invest... except that some people, in fact, the majority of people has no money to do so after they paid their living costs. Some people, having more money than their living, and a few of them has far more than a country could spend on food, shelter, basic healthcare and education.
Everybody can invest, the law allow them to do so. But of course, people can also lawfully die in hunger in most of the countries on Earth.
I heard this tired argument so many times. Having a theoretical possibility by some abstract freedom does not translate at all widespread ability to use that freedom. There is a group in society who can afford to invest and thus own basically the entire economy.
There's an "investor class", but that is called more precisely the capitalist class. Because they run the show, they have massive assets at their disposal that produces enough dividend that they can re-invest and thus blocking the access to all newly created wealth. Sometimes there's some reshuffle of course, but socially the class division is untouched.
RTFA. This patent issue has nothing to do with H.264 or its owner (yes, it has an owner, otherwise it couldn't be patented) the MPEG-LA body. Again, the technology wasn't developed or patented by Google, but by On2 before Google bought them off. You claim they are freeloaders, but in fact they paid for the company that owned a bunch of patents that wasn't an issue until Google released it with complete free patent terms.
VP8 isn't not a copy of H.264, but it uses similar technology... surprise, surprise, there are a bunch of software and algorithm out there who resemble to each other, just simply following from the fact that they address the same problem space. In computing (and possibly everywhere else, but I can only speak for computing in my experience), the real drive to the future is development, which is, by definition, incremental. "Innovation" is the operative term of PR departments and politicians for development and has little to do to the actual tech we have. Things are not "innovated" by hundreds of software engineers and researchers/scientist, but gradually developed, built every single step not just simply the previous generation, but every previous component. This makes software products and algorithms reliable, useful and good candidate for becoming a standard.
I don't doubt the technical merits of H.264 but for many it doesn't fit the bill for freeness that we reasonably require for our data. It's similar story as the MP3. You say
Why? Because Jesus told you so? If you were correct, where would the TV industry be today?
Why, you ask. Well, simply because only a completely free algorithm can become really standard, because they are in the public space. Everybody is allowed to create software/hardware to show them/play them for no charge. This opens the door for all who want to contribute, without restriction.
I don't mind a legislation that requires crediting of the developers of the algorithm, in fact I would make it obligatory, not optional depending on contract. We have too much white labels already. But that's a completely different stuff.
You don't seem to understand the point here, do you? In the software world it is perfectly common to come with ideas independently from each other, since the problem space is the same. Patents were invented to protect individual inventors against big corporations. But as it stands now, they are just weapons in the hand of big corporations in general.
It is in the interest of all of us, if the way we store and transmit our documents, videos, audio, whathaveyou in completely free formats, no string attached. Apparently, MPEG-LA and Nokia isn't interested in this, otherwise they would completely release their formats, and there would be no need for VP8 at all. They could still make quality hardware based on these algorithms, they can still offer services and software use their respective codecs, and in addition, they would be Teh Innovator.
Also, don't be pretentious. All programmers, all scientist use other people's work without pay for it. Because they work with ideas. An algorithm is an idea, no more. AFAIK, these claims are also seemingly coming to shut a completely free alternative to the current video codecs, as the algorithm was used and published long before Google acquired it. Let's be completely true to the facts here: Google did pay for the company that developed and patented these codecs, and thus Google was entitled to release it under its own patent license, which is to be free. What we see here is that any resemblance of a software could be a legal case for any company on the field, so Nokia wants to make money this way.
This is so boring, really. I really consider today's tech industry just a huge pile of fraudulent investor. All these patents fights are over a software algorithm shows that there's no real innovation here: just plain old incremental releases that are developed and researched completely different entities (after a certain size, R&D division is like almost a different company) have nothing patentable on them, not in the original intention behind the whole idea of patents. This whole patent-wars are completely wasteful and useless, but the corporate lobby prevent any attempt of legislation that aim to eliminate corporate patents over trivial matters, so we stuck with these companies spending millions of dollars on lawyers and patent fights, for whose benefit? Lawyer benefit.
There has to be a point where it becomes so unbearable the whole idea of patents must be abolished and any company who participated in this fight must be also dismantled and assets to be redistributed.
That may be, but if you would go for a lawsuit, you have a strong case in point: you subscribed to a service, but that service coupled with a software stack, and rendered your completely capable receiving end (Linux computer) unable to playback the service you've paid for. This left for you no option but to download the content. As a paying subscriber to the service, you're entitled to watch the content in question, and if the Netflix haven't provided the means to deliver it to your system, but tied it up with other, paid software solutions that have no operative function other than this, it is an indecent business practice.
I'm not a lawyer, and I generally don't trust in legal systems, but I'm sure that wouldn't be a weak case at all.
Obvious answer is a good configure script :)
Wait, are you saying that there's no such an urban myth among the prime Apple consumers that Apple products can't be infected by malicious software? Or you're saying that it is indeed the case that there are no worms, viruses or ad-ware on on OS-X devices.
If any of these two, I would call you ignorant fool my self.
You can always keep around a video card that has a VGA output because I don't think it would be an issue anywhere in the near future that players will deny to play on VGA ports.
And as the other reply suggest too, it shouldn't be too hard to fake on the other side of the DVI/HDMI output that it isn't a recording device but of course, that would be an additional hassle. On the positive side, one need to do it once, and the content can be distributed easily after for many. The thing is that as long as you posses a hardware, the hardware will be exposed to clever hacks anyway to circumvent any protection. The whole point of course of DRM is to make it as hard as possible, but it requires exactly a single time to rip the desired data out of the hardware, and then it is free to go without DRM for anybody who wants it and that's why it is a fight against windmills IMHO.
The only question here is the existence of a culture of sharing. At the moment is thriving, and it would take a major policing and legal enforcement to break this culture which could possibly prove to be counter-productive, and would fuel more resistance, and escalation of the sharing culture. While it looks quite bleak at the moment, in the long run I'm quite optimistic that the whole politics of information will be forced to change.
You could just simply publish your source code with your binaries with a free software license. Announce a donation scheme that would classify donors as customers and deal with their complaints and feature requests. If you product is really useful, people would copy it and use it, whether you like it or not. But getting new features means work for you, and if there are people who really want to use those features, they would pay for them.
Dude, check the reality around you. Disk space is cheap as dirt. I mean it. For the price of one month internet service, you get a hdd that could store more FLAC than you will ever need. And tell man, how do you stream offline really?
Also, for your information, the thing that you need to do for having a downloaded music on your machine is just the same as streaming, as streaming downloads the song to your computer, but then it deletes immediately. Not because you have low HDD space, but because you are not allowed to have it there. There's no more convenience in streaming services, in fact, with crappy connection, it is a hassle.
Alternatively, you can use torrent and watch exactly the same content, without any problem. All those films just play fine on VLC, guess what.
Well, the VGA cable or the audio output is always there to capture. This is a battle against windmills.
Also, 90% of the DRMed stuff is crap too. DRM has nothing to do with quality.
Gee. People just don't get do they? These pesky nerds can't understand that economics of of physical copies must be preserved at all cost. Because economics doesn't change, does it? It is the same as it was in a century or two ago. Or a thousand years ago.
Wake up man! Things are changing all the time. If people don't get your "economics" perhaps it is so because it is not beneficial or useful any more. I guess, the world of computers must be scary for you. All those copy with not price tag on them. Gee.
What free market are you talking about? DRM is not a technical concept, it is a legal one thus has more to do to politics than to market.
Let me break down for you:
1) "You have never owned a song."
Sure, but we're talking about a recording of a song, not the song itself. The song obviously belongs to the artist as long as her copyright holds, but the copies of the recording is a different matter. It is produced by no additional cost, no additional effort by the artist. It is not produced and not distributed by the artist, so she can't claim rights over it.
2) DRM isn't about the artists anyway, but about big publishers who has the budget to pay for such a abomination (both for the legislation and buying the technology) and the legal department to enforce it. DRM is supposed to bring back the scarcity of physical items in to the world of copying, that is, digital technology. It is breakable, but it reduces the users computer in to a shopping mall terminal. This fills any computer nerd like me with a growing anger that the average user don't understand the basic concept of digital computing, and that is being exploited here. This is akin to illiteracy, that would be supported, lobbied and legally enforced by large corporations only for their profit motif.
3) "Artists actually want to qualify their buyers. "
Well, what they want, and what they deserve is two thing. As long as the item they are trying to sell contains their own effort, that's their choice. However, once they release something in the public, like putting a painting on public square, it would be just stupid if they seek court order against people taking photos of it. Similarly, once they release their music, film, book in the public in any form, it's just as ridiculous to try to control copies of the original.
4) "We now get to the core value proposition to you of why an artist made that song, and why you feel he should continue to make songs."
No, that is not at core of this issue. I don't think anybody minds if musicians get paid for what they are doing as longs as it is valued by their audience. The problem is twofold here:
First, making free copies paid for, and for this goal, misleading the general public, pushing through laws that deny the nature of a technology, cripple devices is criminal, deceptive and wasteful. The only people who benefit of this are the publishers and their consumers are, consciously or not, but on the bad end of the deal.
Second, it isn't really the artist and his income that we're talking about. But publishers reducing their cost converging to zero, and they lobby laws in order to keep up with the revenue stream. This is called fraudulent behaviour, it is distortion of the market, indeed, it is a money they get for only successful lobbying, not for what they are producing. And compared to the income need of a single artist, or a band, or even a film, they are massively needy middleman without any justification. The whole idea of instant communication makes them completely useless: artist can promote their work for their potential audience so easily, that they could do it even without using external labour. So they turned in to a massive legal department to maintain a revenue stream without doing any worthy labour. They are indeed socially counter-productive just like any mafia that collects protection money from shopkeepers and they are no better.
Dude, you're just sick if you defend this scheme.
But 99% of people don't give a toss about DRM or their software being "unencumbered."
I don't think you have that number. Rather, most of the consumers aren't aware that their individual actions could turn the industry for the better. It's the same for everything. People don't believe that there could be life outside of the two-party system, so they continue to vote to the 2 major parties. Many of them aware of the problem, but with their vote, they create a massive sense of dead-end, hence it becomes dead-end.
However, if things go rather bad after while, such as, legit gamers are struggling to be able to play, because of all the DRM, copy-protection, server-down issues in single-player games, then there's more than just ideological argument, and more people start acting against these practices. When business practices strangle the enjoyment, the functioning of the industry, as they do seem to do that, perhaps you'll see more people complaining about how it goes. It has happened before.
But I will stop if it becomes impossible to pirate anymore - say if the majority of games are hosted on cloud servers and so cracks are impossible. But if that happens I'll probably just give up gaming entirely.
I don't think we would ever get there. There always be developers who make their work freely available, without the need of resorting to these practices, "piracy" (how I hate this term really).