Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ratbarf wrote:
In Canada it's legal to download music and videogames as far as I'm aware, as long as the source is an original copy. ie, you can only download or copy a music/movie/game from someone who physically owns it. If I have a CD and rip it and then upload it it's legal. If someone else were to download that copy and then re-upload it that would be illegal.

I believe that Harper's government has passed legislation that changed this, although I'm not sure of the specifics.

 Seaward wrote:
The record companies aren't getting any money from you, no. That doesn't mean they're not indirectly getting money out of radio airplay, which is why they allow it in the first place.

Ah, so what you are saying is that as long as one person pays for the music, it is ok for thousands of other people to listen to it for free? I'm glad we have sorted that out

 Seaward wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
if games gave me an offline mode, I wouldn't care... but forcing me to play a single player game with an internet connection is a royal pain in the butt.

It isn't for me, but I understand that it is, apparently, for some people. I'd personally factor the cost of some sort of ISP plan into my gaming. Or a Virgin Mobile pay-as-you-go wifi USB stick. Whatever.

Would we see these kind of requirements if massive video game piracy wasn't taking place? Of course not. You can blame the publishers all you want, but they're simply responding to market conditions.

The problem being that there's no real way to effectively monitor how much a game is actually pirated. A lot of times, publishers will blame piracy for poor sales when there could be a myriad of other reasons responsible, such as the game being poorly developed, or intrusive DRM.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Ah, so what you are saying is that as long as one person pays for the music, it is ok for thousands of other people to listen to it for free? I'm glad we have sorted that out

Provided the record company agrees with that arrangement, sure. They legally own the rights, they can do what they want with them. Subverting copyright just because you feel what you're downloading has no real value or that the record companies don't need more money, on the other hand? I think I've already expressed my level of contempt for that notion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:
The problem being that there's no real way to effectively monitor how much a game is actually pirated. A lot of times, publishers will blame piracy for poor sales when there could be a myriad of other reasons responsible, such as the game being poorly developed, or intrusive DRM.

Why is that a problem?

I'm in favor of curtailing piracy, as I feel like people who produce and distribute art should be paid what's coming to them.

I realize that given the antisocial and entitled nature of many people in the wilds of the Internet that this is going to be a minority opinion.

Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The problem being that there's no real way to effectively monitor how much a game is actually pirated. A lot of times, publishers will blame piracy for poor sales when there could be a myriad of other reasons responsible, such as the game being poorly developed, or intrusive DRM.

Why is that a problem?

You can't honestly cite piracy as the cause of your lack of profits if you can't actually know how many people pirated your game in the first place, let alone if they would have even bought the game otherwise. Most of the time, you just have publishers making obscene estimations concerning piracy rates for their products, and little else.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm in favor of curtailing piracy, as I feel like people who produce and distribute art should be paid what's coming to them.

I realize that given the antisocial and entitled nature of many people in the wilds of the Internet that this is going to be a minority opinion.

Although it's worth noting that most of the money from the production of said art rarely goes to the people involved in actually making it, sadly.

Thankfully though, we're getting to a point where independent production is becoming more and more viable, as large publishing conglomerates are becoming more outdated and less needed as time goes on. Of course, with this gradual obsolescence, they've become more and more aggressive to match.

Ratbarf wrote:Well the video game industry is pretty much trying to shut down second hand video game stores. Not sure if they've attempted to take legal action on the matter however. Though since I don't actually read the software license it could be illegal for me to sell the license.

@Alfndrate; Steam has had an offline mode for years. at least since 2007 as that was when I first used it and it had it then.

Must have been late 2007, because I own the Orange Box for the PC, and I couldn't play HL2 when I was working at a scout camp in the summer of 2007.

Seaward wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
if games gave me an offline mode, I wouldn't care... but forcing me to play a single player game with an internet connection is a royal pain in the butt.

It isn't for me, but I understand that it is, apparently, for some people. I'd personally factor the cost of some sort of ISP plan into my gaming. Or a Virgin Mobile pay-as-you-go wifi USB stick. Whatever.

Would we see these kind of requirements if massive video game piracy wasn't taking place? Of course not. You can blame the publishers all you want, but they're simply responding to market conditions.

Except that because of Blizzard's stance against piracy, I didn't buy Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, because I didn't want to have to be connected to the internet to play them. I don't play Starcraft with other people, because I'm terribad at the game, and prefer the storyline. While I might be in the minority, it's a HARSH stance to take to combat piracy. I'm willing to pay for a game if it's one that I want to play, and one that I can play, restricting me to only Xbox Live, the PSN, or playing while connected to my internet on my computer.

I'd personally factor the cost of some sort of ISP plan into my gaming. Or a Virgin Mobile pay-as-you-go wifi USB stick. Whatever.

Except that "requires internet connection for all instances of play" is not the norm amongst video games. I don't have to be connected to the internet to watch that dvd of Spider-Man 2, an experience that I'm enjoying with me and those in my immediate vicinity do I? Nope, why should gaming be different?

 Fafnir wrote:
You can't honestly cite piracy as the cause of your lack of profits if you can't actually know how many people pirated your game in the first place, let alone if they would have even bought the game otherwise. Most of the time, you just have publishers making obscene estimations concerning piracy rates for their products, and little else.

Which is pretty irrelevant, all things considered. Some titles do get pirated an obscene amount, some do not. The argument that a game didn't bring in as much money as expected due to piracy - and whether or not that's true - is only relevant to investors. The fact that enough games get pirated means that some form of DRM is going to be around, and every publisher is well within their rights to put it in.

In media we have old minds and scummy tactics. how much money does a band make from record sales and Itunes? compare that to how much the same band makes on a tour. then compare profits from both Itunes and the tour. in almost every case the tour makes the money. there was an article cracked did about the subject that shows that times are changing and these old business models aren't working, despite legal actions and push for reform. What these companies should try to do is adapt the free model. ad revenue is a possible outlet, along with crowd funding. I paid a dollar for an entire digital album pre order through kickstarter. I'm also buying an ouya game console because the current business model for music and games just doesn't fit. I've got one more arguement for the anti piracy camp. I buy a game at a store used for 25 bucks even though it can be pirated online, now why can I sell it easily or trade it in at any game store. because a physical product will always have a value, no matter how small.

 Seaward wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
You can't honestly cite piracy as the cause of your lack of profits if you can't actually know how many people pirated your game in the first place, let alone if they would have even bought the game otherwise. Most of the time, you just have publishers making obscene estimations concerning piracy rates for their products, and little else.

Which is pretty irrelevant, all things considered. Some titles do get pirated an obscene amount, some do not. The argument that a game didn't bring in as much money as expected due to piracy - and whether or not that's true - is only relevant to investors. The fact that enough games get pirated means that some form of DRM is going to be around, and every publisher is well within their rights to put it in.

Of course content producers are within their rights to protect their product. But when that DRM ends up becoming intrusive to the point where the pirates actually have an easier and better time using the product than the actual intended consumer base, there is an incredibly obvious disconnect. And that disconnect only gets bigger when the producers continue to do it even though it has been proven time and time again not to work.

 Fafnir wrote:
Of course content producers are within their rights to protect their product. But when that DRM ends up becoming intrusive to the point where the pirates actually have an easier and better time using the product than the actual intended consumer base, there is an incredibly obvious disconnect. And that disconnect only gets bigger when the producers continue to do it even though it has been proven time and time again not to work.

That's assuming it doesn't work. I've seen little proof one way or the other, and as you pointed out earlier, there's no way of knowing how much a given game is actually pirated. Activation codes/passes and the like are certainly cutting into the secondary market, which is another goal.

I'm unaware of any modern game whose DRM is so unwieldy as to impact the game, and I've played some Ubisoft titles since they went to their always-on DRM, which many regard as the worst.

Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

Which is why you see EA trying to flog Origin, and why Activision's going to come up with their own similar platform sooner or later. What's the problem?

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

What I like about steam are games that I buy through steam... I'm fine with them being controlled by steam... Don't like that my Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising has to be run through steam even though I own the disk... :-\

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

Which is why you see EA trying to flog Origin, and why Activision's going to come up with their own similar platform sooner or later. What's the problem?

The problem is that theirs always suck, but in the general sense it's great for everyone that it's the direction they're going in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

What I like about steam are games that I buy through steam... I'm fine with them being controlled by steam... Don't like that my Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising has to be run through steam even though I own the disk... :-\

I can see why that would annoy you, but it says "requires steam and an internet connection" right there on the box.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

Which is why you see EA trying to flog Origin, and why Activision's going to come up with their own similar platform sooner or later. What's the problem?

The problem is that theirs always suck, but in the general sense it's great for everyone that it's the direction they're going in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

What I like about steam are games that I buy through steam... I'm fine with them being controlled by steam... Don't like that my Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising has to be run through steam even though I own the disk... :-\

I can see why that would annoy you, but it says "requires steam and an internet connection" right there on the box.

And that's fine, because they told me up front, but what if Steam goes away, or Valve goes bankrupt? I'm gonna lose access to my games

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

Which is why you see EA trying to flog Origin, and why Activision's going to come up with their own similar platform sooner or later. What's the problem?

The problem is that theirs always suck, but in the general sense it's great for everyone that it's the direction they're going in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

What I like about steam are games that I buy through steam... I'm fine with them being controlled by steam... Don't like that my Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising has to be run through steam even though I own the disk... :-\

I can see why that would annoy you, but it says "requires steam and an internet connection" right there on the box.

And that's fine, because they told me up front, but what if Steam goes away, or Valve goes bankrupt? I'm gonna lose access to my games

For what it's worth, valve figuratively has a big button that turns off the DRM for everyone and they've promised to press it if they go under.

This question gets asked a LOT and valve seems to understand.

Excellent Gracias for the information good sir

 Fafnir wrote:
Thankfully though, we're getting to a point where independent production is becoming more and more viable, as large publishing conglomerates are becoming more outdated and less needed as time goes on. Of course, with this gradual obsolescence, they've become more and more aggressive to match.

This is an excellent point. There will come a time, I think, when the idea of these major production companies will be, at least in the case of music and basically everything but movies and videogames, a thing of the past.

Fafnir wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
In Canada it's legal to download music and videogames as far as I'm aware, as long as the source is an original copy. ie, you can only download or copy a music/movie/game from someone who physically owns it. If I have a CD and rip it and then upload it it's legal. If someone else were to download that copy and then re-upload it that would be illegal.

I believe that Harper's government has passed legislation that changed this, although I'm not sure of the specifics.

I didn't think they had managed to pass any Copyright laws since they've been in office? Seeing as whenever they try something everyone jumps down their throat.

Alfndrate wrote:

What I like about steam are games that I buy through steam... I'm fine with them being controlled by steam... Don't like that my Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising has to be run through steam even though I own the disk... :-\

Do you actually? You couldn't just click on the executable in the file? Several of the games I own don't have to be run through steam, it's just that Steam uses their own form of shortcut so it doesn't work if you aren't logged on/in offline mode. That said, you can make a regular shortcut to the Desktop with the executable and it might work.

 Alfndrate wrote:
And that's fine, because they told me up front, but what if Steam goes away, or Valve goes bankrupt? I'm gonna lose access to my games

That's a whole other thread topic there. What do we actually own these days? Apparently the second hand game market is being targeted for destruction and you can have your rights revoked to some digital games (Steam, EA, etc) for breaking TOS

 Ratbarf wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
In Canada it's legal to download music and videogames as far as I'm aware, as long as the source is an original copy. ie, you can only download or copy a music/movie/game from someone who physically owns it. If I have a CD and rip it and then upload it it's legal. If someone else were to download that copy and then re-upload it that would be illegal.

I believe that Harper's government has passed legislation that changed this, although I'm not sure of the specifics.

I didn't think they had managed to pass any Copyright laws since they've been in office? Seeing as whenever they try something everyone jumps down their throat.

And when has that ever stopped them?

Well it's stopped them several times, I know of two successful campaigns to stop the Tories from passing Copyright legislation. One of which would have potentially made it illegal to insert a DVD into a computer with two DVD drives.

When the outrage amongst their core constituents is strong enough the pay attention. They don't pay attention to people who weren't going to vote for them in the first place. Which is why, for example, they scrapped the Gun Registry even though there was a large outcry against it. The outcry was pretty much all people who would not vote Tory anyways.

 Seaward wrote:

If this whole screed was meant to be ironic, it's brilliant.

If you're serious, I'm not sure what to say. Media companies make a lot of money, so they deserve to have their products stolen?

What part of "piracy objectively causes no financial harm to anyone but pornographers" translates to "media companies make money so let's rob them" in your head?

The recording industry, the loudest and least relevant opponent to piracy, is objectively lying with everything they say regarding it; their profits are increasing more slowly, yes (the closest actual occurrence to their doomcrying about lost money), at the same time that due to technological advances the barrier to entry to recording something is no longer so high as to require, or even justify, a label's involvement, resulting in a massive proliferation of independents, most of whom put their own works up for free as a matter of getting their work heard by potential fan (exactly like what happened with radio in the early days of the recording industry; it was just straight up advertising for bands). Thus is the music market growing, while the record labels become an increasingly irrelevant factor, yet still they don't lose money, despite the abundance of music piracy.

Further, the bands themselves see only the smallest pittance from music sales, except when they're selling it themselves. As an example: a couple of years ago, I went to a $13 concert; the band made more money from me with that than if I'd bought all of their albums (and in fact outright told the audience to pirate their music if they didn't have it, because they felt it was awesome and wanted people to hear it all).

With the film industry, we see that year after year they boast ever higher profits, despite the abundance of piracy. Therefore they can't be suffering to it. If anything, the bribes they hand out getting filth like the DMCA passed probably cost them more than the most extreme and unlikely possible lost sales piracy might cause. We must therefore conclude that everything they say on the matter is a lie, and condemn them for trying to subvert the lawmaking process for the sake of their own delusions.

With the games industry we again see massive growth in the face of piracy, and we see a massive growth in independents too. Considering the only games that don't get pirated are either pure multiplayer, rigged with the most tangled and misguided always on lunacy ever conceived, or just so obscure that no one even bothers pirating them. Anyone who claims that piracy harms them economically is thus lying (and there are plenty who just come out and say "yeah, it at worst doesn't effect us, and at best is free advertising").


We must further remember that the largest pirates are also the largest consumers of media overall, buying all the media they can afford, and then supplementing it with piracy, often later purchasing anything actually worth money (as opposed to rubbish only worth seeing/hearing/playing if it cost nothing) they previously pirated. Any attack on pirates is thus an attack on the media creators' best customers.


Is it illegal? Yes. Does it harm the people who constantly try to buy off lawmakers, subverting the lawmaking process, to pass ever more egregious and expensive measures aimed at combating it? Quite objectively not, and it actually serves as free advertising in many cases.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Steam is pretty much proof that user restricted DRM can be done in a way that is not just unobtrusive but actually PREFERABLE to traditional disks.

Well.... I'm a Steam user, and I've bought hundreds of games on that platform. I like Steam.

But, lets debunk that it's a good system. it's actually sort of an awful system. How so? Let me expand.

I own a physical copy of Half Life 1, which I bought in some store way back when it came out in 1998, probably CompUSA. I own that game. I can give it to a friend, or sell it on ebay, along with my key.

Years later, I activated it on Steam when it came out, which is very convenient.

Here's the problem. Steam essentially took my property, which I owned, and turned it into a product that they let me use at their pleasure (remember, you need a key to activate the game!).

To whit, lets say I buy a copy of Super Game 15. Lets say there is some enormous problem with Super Game 15, and for whatever reason, I feel that I have the right to a refund. Steam refuses to give it.

I use my rights to do a chargeback.

Steam then bans my account for doing a chargeback. Please don't focus on this element in responses to this! They are well within their rights to do this, and I signed a agreement to this. This post isn't about this. Pretend maybe I banned for hacking instead or... whatever. It's not important.

Now my Steam account is banned.

I can no longer activate my copy of Half-Life 1, since my key is blacklisted. They have taken what was formerly my property and essentially stolen it.

So, TL;DR Steam isn't so hot either.


And that figurative button they have that will release the DRM on their products? Maybe they go bankrupt unexpectedly and can't do it. Maybe there's a problem with the code and they don't have time to figure it out. Maybe they just don't feel like doing it. The point is, with Steam, you've gone from actually owning your games, to just leasing them, all for the convenience of not having to use physical media. And, maybe you are OK with that tradeoff, but lets not pretend it's "better".

But all of these nearly decade old discussions are frankly quite OT, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up and we should move on.

 Ouze wrote:

And that figurative button they have that will release the DRM on their products? Maybe they go bankrupt unexpectedly and can't do it. Maybe there's a problem with the code and they don't have time to figure it out. Maybe they just don't feel like doing it. The point is, with Steam, you've gone from actually owning your games, to just leasing them, all for the convenience of not having to use physical media. And, maybe you are OK with that tradeoff, but lets not pretend it's "better".

For what it's worth, companies don't die that fast, and if things somehow just up and collapse for them, it'll be clear long before they actually shut down. There'd also be very little motivation not to "press" it; the people making the decision have nothing material to gain or loose, and going through with it will only garner them goodwill amongst their costumer base, which will help them with whatever they choose to do next.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
What part of "piracy objectively causes no financial harm to anyone but pornographers" translates to "media companies make money so let's rob them" in your head?

Probably the "piracy doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it," part.

Your entire position boils down to the notion that because they're still making money, and in some cases growing, piracy can't possibly be a detriment. It's based on more than one logical fallacy and has zero supporting evidence, but even granting that it's true - it's not - it simply doesn't matter. It's still illegal, and a roundabout way of trying to justify the underlying "I'm either too poor to afford or simply don't feel like I should have to pay for my entertainment," rationale that is the basis for piracy. The consumer isn't the one who gets to decide when it's cool to ignore copyright and when it's not.

 Ouze wrote:



And that figurative button they have that will release the DRM on their products? Maybe they go bankrupt unexpectedly and can't do it. Maybe there's a problem with the code and they don't have time to figure it out. Maybe they just don't feel like doing it. The point is, with Steam, you've gone from actually owning your games, to just leasing them, all for the convenience of not having to use physical media. And, maybe you are OK with that tradeoff, but lets not pretend it's "better".

But all of these nearly decade old discussions are frankly quite OT, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up and we should move on.

Well you can thank the EU for the switch from owning to subscribing. Steam remodelled itself to get into the EU because something about their business model wasn't legal and that was the change that they had to make to access that market. That said, Steam cannot go into my computer and delete the games from my hard drive, so even though I no longer own the games, I still own the data in the same way as I would a physical medium. And getting steam games to work without a steam login varies from game to game, but isn't insurmountable for even the strongest of the steam DRM games.

 Seaward wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
What part of "piracy objectively causes no financial harm to anyone but pornographers" translates to "media companies make money so let's rob them" in your head?

Probably the "piracy doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it," part.

Your entire position boils down to the notion that because they're still making money, and in some cases growing, piracy can't possibly be a detriment. It's based on more than one logical fallacy and has zero supporting evidence, but even granting that it's true - it's not - it simply doesn't matter. It's still illegal, and a roundabout way of trying to justify the underlying "I'm either too poor to afford or simply don't feel like I should have to pay for my entertainment," rationale that is the basis for piracy. The consumer isn't the one who gets to decide when it's cool to ignore copyright and when it's not.

The "deserving" party thing being expanded on in the first post: the fringe creator who exists on the fringe because their product is of excessively poor quality, and hence undeserving of sales.

It's illegality all comes down to rather illegal subversion of the lawmaking process by wealthy businessmen, so arguing that it's wrong because some cokehead suit once bribed some legislators is a rather odd way of approaching the situation.

And for third time in this thread: research has shown that the biggest pirates are also the biggest customers of the media companies. There is only a finite amount of money to be spent, of which only a portion can go to media, and the biggest consumers of media consume far more than they can actually afford, while buying all that they can. it is not physically possible for piracy to harm the media creators, as they are already receiving all the money that can be spent on their products.

There is no evidence to suggest that piracy actually harms sales, except in the case of products that are grossly overpriced. To the contrary, there is some that suggests it's basically just free advertising, and is particularly beneficial to small companies/independent artists who need the publicity.

This is exactly what I referred to earlier, by the way.