Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
From my understanding they lock your account and would monitor any attempt at future registration.
If your files get shared, and not by you, I believe it would depend on the circumstances - but I don't personally know that. Have I shared their files with friends? Yes, with a few select friends who I wanted to show something who were not in the same room as me (who I would have just handed the book if they were) but I do this out of trust with the full knowledge that if my friend were to screw me and share what I had showed them we would no longer be friends and I would likely lose access to those documents.
I would be mad at my ex-friend, not the company who said "don't distribute our documents for us - that's our job and we would like it done in a certain way."
Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
Yes, that is what I mean - but there are many here who see "copy protection" and think "DRM." They are not one in the same.
And honestly, I often find Steam too onerous. I have had a hell of a time using it in off-line mode while traveling for work... and that I why I agree that "copy protection" is too onerous, but DRM in some forms is not.
But I see shades of grey where many here see only black.
Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
"Yes. All DRM exists solely to restrict what you can do with a product you legally bought. The fact that some are less obtrusive than others doesn't change that fact."
Ah, so all restrictions on what I do with something I have legally purchased are inappropriate? Do you honestly feel that if you buy one copy of something and then set up a free site to give that away to everyone that you should be allowed to do that because you purchased one copy?
"Until the day that your laptop is stolen or the friend you sent a copy to leaks it online and you get prosecuted as a criminal as a result because your watermark was on the pirate copy. If that's the result, you're supporting a removal of your rights. If not, it's utterly useless."
What I am supporting is their right to know how their product is being distributed. Do you honestly not think that you deserve to know what is being done in your name? If my laptop was stolen, I would file a police report. That report would show that through no action of my own their content was released. You assume they are Nazi's out to get everyone - because you assume that anyone who uses copyright/DRM/etc. is an evil piece of scum and villainy. I choose to assume that they worked hard and they would like to at the very least be paid a fair wage - something they wouldn't get if their product was always distributed for free. They would have to resort to going back to physical books for everything, and then people would complain that they didn't have digital...
They work hard to make a good product, they are not draconian in the manner they go about selling it, and I choose to support them. I also don't believe that what they produce should just be spread willy-nilly all over the internet because someone thinks if something is digital, it should be "free."
I hear a lot of arguments for removing DRM that prevents the use of a product you purchase - and I 100%, wholeheartedly agree. If I bought it, I had better have access to it. But then I hear the "all DRM is evil" arguments and I just don't buy it. It's like saying "all speed limits are bad." I believe that there is a balance to be struck - where that balance is I do leave open to debate, but taking all DRM off the table is not where I stand. I see both good and bad in it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
I'm not a huge supporter or a huge detractor. I'm one of those people who doesn't take the American stand on things (you know.. the "your either with us or against, no sitting on the side lines for you!" approach...) and thinks that blanket statements aren't always the best choice.
Well, I happen to disagree that all of those benefits are available with a non-DRMed copy. They don't support their files in a non-DRMed format, so it isn't available. They don't update non-DRMed versions on a regular basis, nor would they send me an email telling me they have made an update to one of the products that I purchased and advising me to download an updated version.
You are asking for something for free - which means "free to you" and not truly free as in "without cost to anyone."
As a side-note - they actually offer their core product in a purely text version, for free, and updated by them.
So I support their version of DRM because I don't find it offensive, obtrusive, onerous or any other o-adjective.
Hold on - that's a pretty blanket statement. All DRM is onerous? I disagree with that.
A publisher that I purchase a fair amount of product from (Paizo) has DRM in the form of watermarking. They "personalize" the digital products you buy from them with a watermark of your account name on the PDF. You can share it as much as you want, but if it makes its way into general distribution they will revoke your access. This takes about 10 seconds whenever I download a new PDf from them. I don't even notice it other than I see the watermark at the top or bottom of the pages (not covering any content - and it is very faint text).
I think that is entirely fair and decent DRM. They get paid and I don't get punished and if I want to send a PDF to a friend so he can read a particular line or look at a particular image they don't object - it's the same as someone reading over your shoulder. It certainly doesn't make me feel like a criminal.
I got it - I thought it was excellent trolling, and resistant to flame (related to another post that was blaming D&D for violence... I'm plenty violent but it has nothing to do with my literacy or creativity... but nerds are scary... true...)
Quick question - how did they get the phone in the first place?
I ask because looking at what is said these techniques require retention of the information or device to access/analyze. The search of the person doesn't allow for retention as far as I know - if they search you and see that you have a piece of paper with information on it, they don't get to take that and then photocopy it - they can see it, but not keep it as far as I understand.
Is this incident to arrest? That would be a different matter but then they couldn't retain anything or use it afterwards unless you were actually convicted is my understanding.
I hope someone can clarify this for me because it's a little foggy to me.
I think for me that I just don't see how piracy in an of itself can be a "good thing."
I think it can certainly lead to good things if people are observant - like other commentators have stated - it is a symptom of a bad system.
I certainly agree that so many people blow it out of proportion and treat it as the most evil and vile form of theft (yeah, I know... can't steal it - I get it I get it... I'm just using their words).
One of the key things for me is that if the content is too hard to get legally, it probably isn't worth getting "illegally" either. I would rather not support them in any form, being it with money or positive word of mouth. I would rather they wither into obscurity with only themselves to blame.
"So they managed to catch clueless average joes/janes. Where are the hardcore pirates eh?"
Exactly. The average person isn't really the problem but they are the ones they are catching. They built a trap that only the stupid mice get caught it - meanwhile the smart ones are shitting in their cereal.
One thing that should come out of this the next time they sue some kid for downloading songs - there is absolutely no way that kid or his parents would actually be aware of the fines that will be imposed because they are so incomparable to the offence that the rational brain doesn't actually associate them.
It would be like thinking - if I take this candy bar the army will come by and shoot me and my family. It is so out of whack as to be completely incomprehensible.
That is what it feels like there are doing with all this crap. Sending the army to deal with a kid who stole some rich douche's candy.
"Do you have tunnel vision, seeing copyright ownership solely as a tool for litigation and shutting down websites?"
Huh?
Don't know where you got that from, buddy.
I just don't think copyright in and of itself is an evil thing that needs to be abolished. I think what many people do with it is ridiculous (such as suing everything that moves just because it looked at a picture they took and didn't pay them etc.).
I do think that content creators should be rewarded and I do think that copyright is supposed to be a mechanism to help facilitate that, but I certainly don't think that just because you create something means you have or should have absolute control over it in every way imaginable.
I'm just not on either of the bandwagons that seem to be present here around copyright (the 'it must go' or 'it must be strictly enforced' camps).
I like your thinking, James. But you are missing the point they are always trying to make - when you bought those things you were entering into a contract with them that only you could watch/listen to those discs (notice I didn't say "enjoy" because they take no responsibility if they create tripe and you are a sucker who buys it based on a well-made trailer or sound-clip). You would be stealing from them if you denied them the right to make more money off of me. You must be a pirate.
This is about the use of his music - not his personality specifically endorsing anything. Yes, he can make very good money for endorsing a product but if they were only to use his music, as it is, without any further action required by him (such as sitting for a commercial and recording any dialog or additional tracks), then what is his direct compensation?
I'm not saying he cannot gain additional wealth through indirect compensation (such as when your music is heard and people buy your CD or see you perform etc.).
On the post: Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'
Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
If your files get shared, and not by you, I believe it would depend on the circumstances - but I don't personally know that. Have I shared their files with friends? Yes, with a few select friends who I wanted to show something who were not in the same room as me (who I would have just handed the book if they were) but I do this out of trust with the full knowledge that if my friend were to screw me and share what I had showed them we would no longer be friends and I would likely lose access to those documents.
I would be mad at my ex-friend, not the company who said "don't distribute our documents for us - that's our job and we would like it done in a certain way."
On the post: Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'
Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
And honestly, I often find Steam too onerous. I have had a hell of a time using it in off-line mode while traveling for work... and that I why I agree that "copy protection" is too onerous, but DRM in some forms is not.
But I see shades of grey where many here see only black.
On the post: Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'
Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
Ah, so all restrictions on what I do with something I have legally purchased are inappropriate? Do you honestly feel that if you buy one copy of something and then set up a free site to give that away to everyone that you should be allowed to do that because you purchased one copy?
"Until the day that your laptop is stolen or the friend you sent a copy to leaks it online and you get prosecuted as a criminal as a result because your watermark was on the pirate copy. If that's the result, you're supporting a removal of your rights. If not, it's utterly useless."
What I am supporting is their right to know how their product is being distributed. Do you honestly not think that you deserve to know what is being done in your name? If my laptop was stolen, I would file a police report. That report would show that through no action of my own their content was released. You assume they are Nazi's out to get everyone - because you assume that anyone who uses copyright/DRM/etc. is an evil piece of scum and villainy. I choose to assume that they worked hard and they would like to at the very least be paid a fair wage - something they wouldn't get if their product was always distributed for free. They would have to resort to going back to physical books for everything, and then people would complain that they didn't have digital...
They work hard to make a good product, they are not draconian in the manner they go about selling it, and I choose to support them. I also don't believe that what they produce should just be spread willy-nilly all over the internet because someone thinks if something is digital, it should be "free."
I hear a lot of arguments for removing DRM that prevents the use of a product you purchase - and I 100%, wholeheartedly agree. If I bought it, I had better have access to it. But then I hear the "all DRM is evil" arguments and I just don't buy it. It's like saying "all speed limits are bad." I believe that there is a balance to be struck - where that balance is I do leave open to debate, but taking all DRM off the table is not where I stand. I see both good and bad in it.
On the post: Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'
Re: Re: Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
Well, I happen to disagree that all of those benefits are available with a non-DRMed copy. They don't support their files in a non-DRMed format, so it isn't available. They don't update non-DRMed versions on a regular basis, nor would they send me an email telling me they have made an update to one of the products that I purchased and advising me to download an updated version.
You are asking for something for free - which means "free to you" and not truly free as in "without cost to anyone."
As a side-note - they actually offer their core product in a purely text version, for free, and updated by them.
So I support their version of DRM because I don't find it offensive, obtrusive, onerous or any other o-adjective.
On the post: Just Cause 2 Developer On Why It Won't Utilize DRM: 'It Treats Our Fans Like Criminals'
Re: Re: So pirates hurt, but you dismiss it!
A publisher that I purchase a fair amount of product from (Paizo) has DRM in the form of watermarking. They "personalize" the digital products you buy from them with a watermark of your account name on the PDF. You can share it as much as you want, but if it makes its way into general distribution they will revoke your access. This takes about 10 seconds whenever I download a new PDf from them. I don't even notice it other than I see the watermark at the top or bottom of the pages (not covering any content - and it is very faint text).
I think that is entirely fair and decent DRM. They get paid and I don't get punished and if I want to send a PDF to a friend so he can read a particular line or look at a particular image they don't object - it's the same as someone reading over your shoulder. It certainly doesn't make me feel like a criminal.
On the post: System Used By New Six Strikes CAS, Falsely Identifies Game Mods As NBC TV Shows
Re: Re:
On the post: 'Video Games Do Not Cause Violence,' According To Former FBI Profiler
On the post: The Details Of What Information The Police Can Suck Out Of Your Phone
I ask because looking at what is said these techniques require retention of the information or device to access/analyze. The search of the person doesn't allow for retention as far as I know - if they search you and see that you have a piece of paper with information on it, they don't get to take that and then photocopy it - they can see it, but not keep it as far as I understand.
Is this incident to arrest? That would be a different matter but then they couldn't retain anything or use it afterwards unless you were actually convicted is my understanding.
I hope someone can clarify this for me because it's a little foggy to me.
On the post: Game Of Thrones Director: I'm 100% Opposed To The Piracy I Just Said Helps My Show Survive
Re:
I think it can certainly lead to good things if people are observant - like other commentators have stated - it is a symptom of a bad system.
I certainly agree that so many people blow it out of proportion and treat it as the most evil and vile form of theft (yeah, I know... can't steal it - I get it I get it... I'm just using their words).
One of the key things for me is that if the content is too hard to get legally, it probably isn't worth getting "illegally" either. I would rather not support them in any form, being it with money or positive word of mouth. I would rather they wither into obscurity with only themselves to blame.
On the post: Early Lessons From New Zealand's 'Three Strikes' Punishments
Re:
Exactly. The average person isn't really the problem but they are the ones they are catching. They built a trap that only the stupid mice get caught it - meanwhile the smart ones are shitting in their cereal.
On the post: New Book About Data Mining To Find Love Online Has Author Admit To Possible CFAA Violations
The book
:P
On the post: 10 Years Later: Antigua May Finally (Really) Set Up Official 'Pirate' Site To Get Back What US Owes In Sanctions
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Says Trial Needed To Determine If Universal Music Violated DMCA With Dancing Baby Takedown
Re: Really?
One thing that should come out of this the next time they sue some kid for downloading songs - there is absolutely no way that kid or his parents would actually be aware of the fines that will be imposed because they are so incomparable to the offence that the rational brain doesn't actually associate them.
It would be like thinking - if I take this candy bar the army will come by and shoot me and my family. It is so out of whack as to be completely incomprehensible.
That is what it feels like there are doing with all this crap. Sending the army to deal with a kid who stole some rich douche's candy.
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh?
Don't know where you got that from, buddy.
I just don't think copyright in and of itself is an evil thing that needs to be abolished. I think what many people do with it is ridiculous (such as suing everything that moves just because it looked at a picture they took and didn't pay them etc.).
I do think that content creators should be rewarded and I do think that copyright is supposed to be a mechanism to help facilitate that, but I certainly don't think that just because you create something means you have or should have absolute control over it in every way imaginable.
I'm just not on either of the bandwagons that seem to be present here around copyright (the 'it must go' or 'it must be strictly enforced' camps).
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
Re: Re: Re:
This is about the use of his music - not his personality specifically endorsing anything. Yes, he can make very good money for endorsing a product but if they were only to use his music, as it is, without any further action required by him (such as sitting for a commercial and recording any dialog or additional tracks), then what is his direct compensation?
I'm not saying he cannot gain additional wealth through indirect compensation (such as when your music is heard and people buy your CD or see you perform etc.).
On the post: Psy Makes $8.1 Million By Ignoring Copyright Infringements Of Gangnam Style
Re:
Copyright isn't a terrible thing - abusing it is.
On the post: Sega Goes Nuclear On YouTube Videos Of Old Shining Force Game
Re: Shining Force?
On the post: NYC Artist Satirizes Law Enforcement Drone Program; Gets Book Thrown At Him By NYPD
Re:
Next >>