I wouldn't. There is market for them. That much is proved. They just need to agglutinate around someone else who still can serve as a symbol of what they fight for.
The problem is that it is not easy and often impossible to measure the gain or loss of money because of DRM even at short term. At medium and long term it is certainly impossible.
If any money is made with DRM it is not because piracy is deterred by it, but because companies manage to enforce standards and lock people inside their ecosystems, in effect generating an artificial monopoly, which arguably should not be legally allowed.
THQ is hardly a "smaller publisher". Only its last game made 5 million dollars in sells. Humble Bundle sold out. Plainly as that.No matter how much you want it to be otherwise. It is better that they go away and someone else who really cares for independents, EFF and anti-DRM takes their place.
When you become too ideological diverse you have no ideology at all. All the music and books sold were DRM free, thus following the same set of rules established by the brand. This is the first time they deviated from it, and betrayed all the loyal supporters they acquired. Many won't go back there to buy again, rest assured, and will stop recommending it. The end result is still to be seen, but I hope they sink.
You are pathetic. You give away your freedom for basically nothing and cannot see why other people refuse to do so. Not only that, but you have the nerve of criticize them for doing so. You let other people decide if and when you can use stuff you bought. You give people power to take away everything you paid for at a whim and see nothing wrong about it. You are one of the countless spineless coward sheep that make this world so pitiful.
RMS was right about everything he said in the last 30 years or so. Many many things he said and people called insanity back them are reality now. Server sided DRM, like Steam, was one of them. He may not be a good example of sociability or even personal hygiene, but his ideas are solid, unlike yours.
It doesn't matter how much this bundle sells. Loyal customers are hard to get and easy to lose. They won't get another desperate big label so soon. Lets see how well they do in the next bundles.
The aim is not to make money for charities, otherwise ALL the money or at least most of it would go to charities by default. The aim is to give a chance to developers that do not have proper means of distribution while allowing customers to get DRM free content. Charity is just something they thought about to help with the publicity.
It was a manifesto, it was by this principle that they've built the name they are trying their best to destroy now. Lets see how it works out for them at long term.
Amem to that. I have been buying bundles for a long time and paying 50 or more for each, but I won't buy this bundle just to have to download all the games cracked again to have real non DRM copies. For all that I care THQ may go to hell.
You can find endless differences and similarities between any two things in existence, but for anything that matters legally both sites provide exactly the same service and take similar measures (and all that is legally required) against people who use their services for illegal ends.
Unlike what you suggest Megaupload was used (and meant to be used) for legal ends. There is a huge market for cloud storage and legal file sharing. File Sharing is not inherently illegal. File sharing is very useful to transmit legal data between a group of people.
DotCom and Youtube are exactly the same. They are neutral services and both services obeyed DCMA take down notices. FBI just decided that obeying DCMA notes wasn't enough to Megaupload and decided to, illegally, take down DotCom service and all his user's data, and weren't able even to make a case against him.
So CRIA will start suing end users in the same way RIAA did in US, accomplishing probably the same results regarding piracy deterrence: none. Good idea...
Open Source is well, open source. If the source code is not provided it is not open source. Again the open source philosophy has nothing to do with developer's rights. It is a movement whose purpose is to protect user rights. It does not necessarily need to be antagonistic to any developer right, and may sometimes even help them, but on occasion it may as well antagonize their interests, which is perfectly fine.
As I said, you are right about that statement not being true, but which version would be more pirated if the DRM and the Non-DRM were launched at the same time for the same price is still irrelevant as an argument for or against DRM.
That is besides the point. There are two points here:
1) The DRM version was widely pirated despite the DRM, and, therefore DRM served nothing but to irritate the people who really bought the game and make some DRM company richier.
2) The non-DRM version sold by GOG sold very well even without any DRM and being a year old game.
The lesson here is: If you do something people judge worthy they will pay for it, at least enough of them to make the endeavor profitable. And no, it doesn't really matter how much you could make if the whole humankind decided to pay you for it, and you are not entitled to become a billionary just because you created something.
The Open Source philosophy defends the user's freedom who, accordingly to it, should have the right to be aware about everything a given program is doing in his system, it has nothing to do with developer freedom.
But when you have an inferior product when you pay for it, than when you pirate it, you will certainly pirate it. DRM makes a pain, and most times plainly impossible, to do simple things as for example transfer your media between devices. Many times I would have paid for something and ended downloading it because I couldn't find a non-DRM version to buy.
GOG proves you can sell games (probably the most pirated media) and be successful without hostilities your clients by treating them as criminals, so even the need or the positive effects of DRM are at question here.
You fail to grasp the definition of "tantrum". Tantrum is a very vocal, very sound demonstration of dissatisfaction without any real power behind it. Samsung rose the A6 price (not fabrication cost) because it can, because it has the power to do so and Apple can do nothing about it but pay. It is practically the opposite of a tantrum.
Tantrum is the pattern of Apple's decisions lately though, from this episode to the couple of childish pranks they tried to get away with when ordered by a judge to publicly apologize to Samsung on their webpage.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably a bit more than most corporation owned newspapers out there...
I wouldn't. There is market for them. That much is proved. They just need to agglutinate around someone else who still can serve as a symbol of what they fight for.
The problem is that it is not easy and often impossible to measure the gain or loss of money because of DRM even at short term. At medium and long term it is certainly impossible.
If any money is made with DRM it is not because piracy is deterred by it, but because companies manage to enforce standards and lock people inside their ecosystems, in effect generating an artificial monopoly, which arguably should not be legally allowed.
I don't think it is beyond anyone to do charity fraud. To think someone wouldn't do that, I need a very high degree of trust in the person.
I don't trust them enough anymore to be reasonably confident that this will really happen.
THQ is hardly a "smaller publisher". Only its last game made 5 million dollars in sells. Humble Bundle sold out. Plainly as that.No matter how much you want it to be otherwise. It is better that they go away and someone else who really cares for independents, EFF and anti-DRM takes their place.
Humble Bundle parent company became very rich selling bundles. That is hardly "paying the bills".
When you become too ideological diverse you have no ideology at all. All the music and books sold were DRM free, thus following the same set of rules established by the brand. This is the first time they deviated from it, and betrayed all the loyal supporters they acquired. Many won't go back there to buy again, rest assured, and will stop recommending it. The end result is still to be seen, but I hope they sink.
Keep thinking like this, sheep.
You are pathetic. You give away your freedom for basically nothing and cannot see why other people refuse to do so. Not only that, but you have the nerve of criticize them for doing so. You let other people decide if and when you can use stuff you bought. You give people power to take away everything you paid for at a whim and see nothing wrong about it. You are one of the countless spineless coward sheep that make this world so pitiful.
RMS was right about everything he said in the last 30 years or so. Many many things he said and people called insanity back them are reality now. Server sided DRM, like Steam, was one of them. He may not be a good example of sociability or even personal hygiene, but his ideas are solid, unlike yours.
It doesn't matter how much this bundle sells. Loyal customers are hard to get and easy to lose. They won't get another desperate big label so soon. Lets see how well they do in the next bundles.
The aim is not to make money for charities, otherwise ALL the money or at least most of it would go to charities by default. The aim is to give a chance to developers that do not have proper means of distribution while allowing customers to get DRM free content. Charity is just something they thought about to help with the publicity.
It was a manifesto, it was by this principle that they've built the name they are trying their best to destroy now. Lets see how it works out for them at long term.
Amem to that. I have been buying bundles for a long time and paying 50 or more for each, but I won't buy this bundle just to have to download all the games cracked again to have real non DRM copies. For all that I care THQ may go to hell.
You can find endless differences and similarities between any two things in existence, but for anything that matters legally both sites provide exactly the same service and take similar measures (and all that is legally required) against people who use their services for illegal ends.
Unlike what you suggest Megaupload was used (and meant to be used) for legal ends. There is a huge market for cloud storage and legal file sharing. File Sharing is not inherently illegal. File sharing is very useful to transmit legal data between a group of people.
Yes, he is a douchebag, but evenso he wasn't at error here, in this specific case.
DotCom and Youtube are exactly the same. They are neutral services and both services obeyed DCMA take down notices. FBI just decided that obeying DCMA notes wasn't enough to Megaupload and decided to, illegally, take down DotCom service and all his user's data, and weren't able even to make a case against him.
So CRIA will start suing end users in the same way RIAA did in US, accomplishing probably the same results regarding piracy deterrence: none. Good idea...
Open Source is well, open source. If the source code is not provided it is not open source. Again the open source philosophy has nothing to do with developer's rights. It is a movement whose purpose is to protect user rights. It does not necessarily need to be antagonistic to any developer right, and may sometimes even help them, but on occasion it may as well antagonize their interests, which is perfectly fine.
As I said, you are right about that statement not being true, but which version would be more pirated if the DRM and the Non-DRM were launched at the same time for the same price is still irrelevant as an argument for or against DRM.
That is besides the point. There are two points here:
1) The DRM version was widely pirated despite the DRM, and, therefore DRM served nothing but to irritate the people who really bought the game and make some DRM company richier.
2) The non-DRM version sold by GOG sold very well even without any DRM and being a year old game.
The lesson here is: If you do something people judge worthy they will pay for it, at least enough of them to make the endeavor profitable. And no, it doesn't really matter how much you could make if the whole humankind decided to pay you for it, and you are not entitled to become a billionary just because you created something.
The Open Source philosophy defends the user's freedom who, accordingly to it, should have the right to be aware about everything a given program is doing in his system, it has nothing to do with developer freedom.
But when you have an inferior product when you pay for it, than when you pirate it, you will certainly pirate it. DRM makes a pain, and most times plainly impossible, to do simple things as for example transfer your media between devices. Many times I would have paid for something and ended downloading it because I couldn't find a non-DRM version to buy.
GOG proves you can sell games (probably the most pirated media) and be successful without hostilities your clients by treating them as criminals, so even the need or the positive effects of DRM are at question here.
You fail to grasp the definition of "tantrum". Tantrum is a very vocal, very sound demonstration of dissatisfaction without any real power behind it. Samsung rose the A6 price (not fabrication cost) because it can, because it has the power to do so and Apple can do nothing about it but pay. It is practically the opposite of a tantrum.
Tantrum is the pattern of Apple's decisions lately though, from this episode to the couple of childish pranks they tried to get away with when ordered by a judge to publicly apologize to Samsung on their webpage.