wccrawford Wrote:On the other hand, the 'things' they are talking about here aren't even available in our half of the world. To pay for them, we have to go to greater lengths than should be required.

Be that as it may, people could at least have the decency to not say things like:

mezbup Wrote:著作権侵害大好き！

and

Burritolingus Wrote:A little copyright violation is a small price (?!) to pay for infinite study materials if you ask me.

What does the second one even mean? Are you making some sacrifice by stealing software? Or are you saying that the game producers' loss of income is justifiable for your own personal gain? Either way, it's a tremendously self-serving statement.

JimmySeal Wrote:Are you making some sacrifice by stealing software? Or are you saying that the game producers' loss of income is justifiable for your own personal gain? Either way, it's a tremendously self-serving statement.

They're sacrificing their immortal souls. They're sacrificing their dignity. They're sacrificing their self-respect. So yes, they are making a sacrifice.

And yes, they ARE saying that the "game producers' loss of income" (which is somewhat less than the cost of the software, since not everything would have been bought) is justifiable.

We live in a self-serving world. It's dog-eat-dog out there and if you don't take care of yourself first, you will be trampled on.

I'm sure they'd prefer to pay what the software is worth to them and be legal. Since that's not an option, either because they don't have the money or because the price is higher than they feel the software is worth, they take one of the options left to them. Since all of the options left don't involve any money going to the developer, it is irrelevent to the developer what they choose to do.

You can't stop software piracy. You -can- recognize it for what it is and adjust your company's policies for maximum profit, though.

Is it wrong? Sure! But so is jaywalking and drinking alcohol to the point that you are drunk. That doesn't stop people from doing it, and having people lecture them about it never did anything about it, either.

JimmySeal Wrote:

wccrawford Wrote:On the other hand, the 'things' they are talking about here aren't even available in our half of the world. To pay for them, we have to go to greater lengths than should be required.

Be that as it may, people could at least have the decency to not say things like:

mezbup Wrote:著作権侵害大好き！

I do, I honestly do. Sure it's a dick move but ponder this, when cave men lived among the animals and had to physically hunt for a meal it was a lot of work that had to be done in order to survive. Then the model changed when things could be farmed, killed and shipped to where he lived. He didn't pay for it when he killed it himself but he payed for it when it got delivered. He still pays for it today because it's the easiest way to do it, the path of least resistance. If he could get it free and delivered then that's the way things would work. Now it is actually feasible to create a workable system of such a sort but there's a little thing called business, profit, gain and other such things that actually holds us back from that.

Really I look at it from a different angle than "stealing" rather we've made possible a fantastic system for worldwide distribution which far exceeds the old system we're used to using. It makes little sense to use a more primitive method because it's "established" or "morally right". It is what you think it is. "Piracy" hereafter to referred to as "efficient distribution" (tongue in cheek) won't go away without the most iron of fists and nobody wants that either. The system or business model ought to simply adapt to the changes and learn to function in a new way, it's highly possible. Survival of the fittest really when you look at it. Things that can't adapt will die or struggle to keep up.

There are lots of movies released each year, I go to the movies to see the ones I really want to see at the movies. The others I want to see but don't want to pay the hefty price I watch in the comfort of my home for free. This is a beautiful thing. It means there's less money to make movies which means less bad movies will get made and only the ones that are actually good that people will pay to go see will survive. Piracy can actually help weed out all of the unecessary stuff that gets produced far below standard just because there is an expectation it be there or an opportunity for it to be there.

I'd rather see business go out of business tbh. It's not that business is bad because it has served us so well over the past 100 years it's not funny. It's that now business is holding us back from our actual creative potential. Let me ask you, what car do you drive? Why do you drive it?

Let's break this one down. You drive one you've bought out of necessity to get from A to B. Ok fair call, I did too. What's everyone else driving? Roughly the same thing. Only it's not. They aren't all made equal and this is due to capitalism. You've gotta pay for lots of gas, repairs and insurance and those are the things you know when you own a car. What you don't think about is why are cars designed for profit and not for maximum efficiency, safety, usability, versatility, user friendliness, functionality, comfort, durability, easy maintenance?

It's entirely possible to manufacture (once designed) with no human assistance a car that meets and exceeds the standards of what most people drive today. It's also possible to have it without paying for if that's the way society were structured. Actually makes a lot of sense to desire something along the lines as it provides the least resistance with the most benefits. Unfortunately we get told you need a job. In a world that used such open source ecology ones "job" or purpose in life would rather be to create something with true benefits to society because doing so would benefit ones-self. All the meanwhile production of food and shelter is already taken care of without the need for tying humanities creative potential up in trivial labour such as making crappy video game spin offs of crappy movies which were produced because the company was having a crappy day and needed to up their crappy profits.

I like the world and it's people and so too did our ancestors. Fortunately a few of them were foward thinking and proposed crazy ideas like agricultural and industrial revolutions. I look back (we all probably do) and go "what an obvious move" and one day (possibly hundreds) of years from now when the world has changed people will look back at the change from our current system to a new and better one and think "what an obvious move". Not really for those who currently live in it but that's the benefit of hindsight. All you have to do to begin entertaining the idea that what I speak of is feasible and statistically inevitable is look at history and ask yourself the trick question of at which point did humanity go "we've nailed it, we're not changing". They didn't and they never will.

Hence the next logical step in our beautifully chaotic machine of a society is piracy. Think of it as a baby step.

/rant

wccrawford Wrote:the "game producers' loss of income" (which is somewhat less than the cost of the software, since not everything would have been bought)

Thank you for clarifying this. Until this moment, I was completely ignorant of the most basic concepts of retail.

Quote:I'm sure they'd prefer to pay what the software is worth to them and be legal. Since that's not an option, either because they don't have the money or because the price is higher than they feel the software is worth, they take one of the options left to them. Since all of the options left don't involve any money going to the developer, it is irrelevent to the developer what they choose to do.

Ok...so stealing is alright as long as you either (a) Don't have enough spare cash to pay for what you want or (b) have the cash, but think the price is too high. Is that what you're trying to say?

I don't see how either of the criteria you mentioned can be considered "not an option." Unless you're living off food stamps and eating instant ramen for every meal, saving up money for a $40 piece of software, or paying more than you think it's worth is always an option. Just not an option some people are willing to entertain.

I'm really not here to debate the rights and wrongs of piracy. All I'm saying is that if you're going to go ahead and steal the fruits of someone else's labor, at least show a little humility about it.

mezbup Wrote:I do, I honestly do.

[several paragraphs of blather]

tl/dr

Jarvik7 Wrote:You cannot play Chinese games unless you have a Chinese DS (iQue) afaik.

That's not true, I have an acekard 2 and ds lite and since most chinese games are fan translated you can play them just as easily since it is recognized as the japanese version. I assume r4 can also play these.

JimmySeal Wrote:Thank you for clarifying this. Until this moment, I was completely ignorant of the most basic concepts of retail.

Well apparently so, or I wouldn't have had to say it.

JimmySeal Wrote:Ok...so stealing is alright as long as you either (a) Don't have enough spare cash to pay for what you want or (b) have the cash, but think the price is too high. Is that what you're trying to say?

I never said it was right. In fact, if you actually READ what I wrote, I clearly said it was wrong.

I said it'll HAPPEN. That's reality. You're living in reality and you had best get used to it.

Yonosa Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:You cannot play Chinese games unless you have a Chinese DS (iQue) afaik.

That's not true, I have an acekard 2 and ds lite and since most chinese games are fan translated you can play them just as easily since it is recognized as the japanese version. I assume r4 can also play these.

Obviously I meant official games I don't know about DSi though. Maybe they expanded the firmware size so it has all the data of the iQue.

JimmySeal Wrote:*blocks ears, isn't listening*

All I'm saying is that if you're going to go ahead and steal the fruits of someone else's labor, at least show a little humility about it.

著作権侵害致します。

火炎戦争へようこそ！

wccrawford Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:Thank you for clarifying this. Until this moment, I was completely ignorant of the most basic concepts of retail.

Well apparently so, or I wouldn't have had to say it.

If you would kindly point out where I said that the net loss due to a consumer downloading a game instead of purchasing it is equal to the cost (or did you mean price?) of the game, I would yet again be most appreciative.

mezbup Wrote:Sure it's a dick move but ponder this, when cave men lived among the animals and had to physically hunt for a meal it was a lot of work that had to be done in order to survive. Then the model changed when things could be farmed, killed and shipped to where he lived. He didn't pay for it when he killed it himself but he payed for it when it got delivered. He still pays for it today because it's the easiest way to do it, the path of least resistance.

No, he pays for it because the work of the slaughterhouse and butcher have some value to the consumer, freeing him from the necessity of having to go out and hunt for himself. We measure that value with money.

mezbup Wrote:If he could get it free and delivered then that's the way things would work.

Who would slaughter and butcher and wrap and deliver for free? Would you? Of course not. So why do you expect that others would?

mezbup Wrote:Now it is actually feasible to create a workable system of such a sort but there's a little thing called business, profit, gain and other such things that actually holds us back from that.

Really I look at it from a different angle than "stealing" rather we've made possible a fantastic system for worldwide distribution which far exceeds the old system we're used to using. It makes little sense to use a more primitive method because it's "established" or "morally right". It is what you think it is. "Piracy" hereafter to referred to as "efficient distribution" (tongue in cheek) won't go away without the most iron of fists and nobody wants that either.

Actually piracy will go away. If producers of these goods do not get paid, eventually their profits will drop to the point that no one wants to become a producer of these types of goods, and so the production of them will drop.

But, you say, people will still create them out of the goodness of their hearts. Perhaps, but this is only true for those producers who have a surplus from their other job, and can afford the time away from their food-and-rent-paying job to make the free stuff..

mezbup Wrote:The system or business model ought to simply adapt to the changes and learn to function in a new way, it's highly possible. Survival of the fittest really when you look at it. Things that can't adapt will die or struggle to keep up.

As Torokun asked, do you actually want to live in a truly dog-eat-dog society? Such a society does not operate under the rule of law. The rule of law is the only thing that keeps us from the alternatives of either a dictatorship or strongman society. You choose: Would you rather live in a) one of the Western Democracies or b) North Korea dictatorship or c) Somalia strongman anarchy?

mezbup Wrote:There are lots of movies released each year, I go to the movies to see the ones I really want to see at the movies. The others I want to see but don't want to pay the hefty price I watch in the comfort of my home for free. This is a beautiful thing. It means there's less money to make movies which means less bad movies will get made and only the ones that are actually good that people will pay to go see will survive.

A) How do you find out or even become aware about which ones you want to see? Think about that for a minute...you are ignoring the whole world of media and advertising

B) Some of the greatest movies didn't do well at the box office. Under your scheme they would never have been made at all. Only sequels will get made.

mezbup Wrote:Piracy can actually help weed out all of the unecessary stuff that gets produced far below standard just because there is an expectation it be there or an opportunity for it to be there.

I'd rather see business go out of business tbh. It's not that business is bad because it has served us so well over the past 100 years it's not funny. It's that now business is holding us back from our actual creative potential. Let me ask you, what car do you drive? Why do you drive it?

I don't own a car. I travel by subway, a system that wouldn't get made because under your system, I suppose, paying taxes is also something to be avoided? Or you would jump the turnstile because it's possible?

mezbup Wrote:Let's break this one down. You drive one you've bought out of necessity to get from A to B. Ok fair call, I did too. What's everyone else driving? Roughly the same thing. Only it's not. They aren't all made equal and this is due to capitalism. You've gotta pay for lots of gas, repairs and insurance and those are the things you know when you own a car. What you don't think about is why are cars designed for profit and not for maximum efficiency, safety, usability, versatility, user friendliness, functionality, comfort, durability, easy maintenance?

It's entirely possible to manufacture (once designed) with no human assistance a car that meets and exceeds the standards of what most people drive today. It's also possible to have it without paying for if that's the way society were structured. Actually makes a lot of sense to desire something along the lines as it provides the least resistance with the most benefits. Unfortunately we get told you need a job. In a world that used such open source ecology ones "job" or purpose in life would rather be to create something with true benefits to society because doing so would benefit ones-self.

How are you going to eat? Nobody is going to slaughter your dinner for free. And you're too busy producing "true benefits for society" to take the time to go hunting.

mezbup Wrote:All the meanwhile production of food and shelter is already taken care of ...

...by everyone except you?...

mezbup Wrote:without the need for tying humanities creative potential up in trivial labour such as making crappy video game spin offs of crappy movies which were produced because the company was having a crappy day and needed to up their crappy profits.

I like the world and it's people and so too did our ancestors. Fortunately a few of them were foward thinking and proposed crazy ideas like agricultural and industrial revolutions. I look back (we all probably do) and go "what an obvious move" and one day (possibly hundreds) of years from now when the world has changed people will look back at the change from our current system to a new and better one and think "what an obvious move". Not really for those who currently live in it but that's the benefit of hindsight. All you have to do to begin entertaining the idea that what I speak of is feasible and statistically inevitable is look at history and ask yourself the trick question of at which point did humanity go "we've nailed it, we're not changing". They didn't and they never will.

Hence the next logical step in our beautifully chaotic machine of a society is piracy. Think of it as a baby step.

Wow. a+b=y Therefore z.

I understand your dream of a more egalitarian economic system, but you need to study the economics of the one we have now, first, before trying to justify your piracy with a critique of the present system.

BTW I can recommend a good book:

No one makes you shop at Wal-Mart by Tom Slee


http://www.amazon.com/One-Makes-You-Shop...189707106X

Is this an Internet thread about piracy/copyright?? Fascinating. It even has the physical analogies and references to the future and stuff.

mezbup, you are invited to help me rule after I take over the world :p

Imagine if I left my front door unlocked, thieves came in and took my stuff. Now, imagine I bought all new things then removed my front door entirely, then thieves came in again and took all my stuff. Next, I bought even more new things and put all my things on the front yard. Again, thieves came and stole my stuff. Each time, I wanted the police to not only catch the thieves, but to prevent the thieves from stealing my stuff in the first place.

Who here would not call me stupid for doing that? Not saying that stupidity justifies the theft, but it is stupid.

Like it or not, that's exactly what publishers are doing. They're releasing media that is insanely easy to "steal", yet forcing law enforcement agencies and the courts to protect them from this theft. DVD's, Broadcasts, Music, Books, etc are now just too easy to copy and distribute thanks to the format they're being distributed in. Yet, it's that easy to copy format that's brought so much income to the corporations. They want an easy profit without piracy, yet to remove the piracy you have to remove the thing that makes the profit easy.

Don't want your stuff to be pirated via the internet? Don't release it in a format that can be copied. Cameron did it with Avatar, cause you pretty much have to go to the theater to get the experience he's selling. Develop a format that's a one shot deal and have a product that people will be willing to use that format (good luck with that). However, stop wasting tax dollars to protect a product you pretty much are letting get stolen.

Nukemarine Wrote:Imagine if I left my front door unlocked, thieves came in and took my stuff. Now, imagine I bought all new things then removed my front door entirely, then thieves came in again and took all my stuff. Next, I bought even more new things and put all my things on the front yard. Again, thieves came and stole my stuff. Each time, I wanted the police to not only catch the thieves, but to prevent the thieves from stealing my stuff in the first place.

Who here would not call me stupid for doing that? Not saying that stupidity justifies the theft, but it is stupid.

Like it or not, that's exactly what publishers are doing. They're releasing media that is insanely easy to "steal", yet forcing law enforcement agencies and the courts to protect them from this theft. DVD's, Broadcasts, Music, Books, etc are now just too easy to copy and distribute thanks to the format they're being distributed in. Yet, it's that easy to copy format that's brought so much income to the corporations. They want an easy profit without piracy, yet to remove the piracy you have to remove the thing that makes the profit easy.

Don't want your stuff to be pirated via the internet? Don't release it in a format that can be copied. Cameron did it with Avatar, cause you pretty much have to go to the theater to get the experience he's selling. Develop a format that's a one shot deal and have a product that people will be willing to use that format (good luck with that). However, stop wasting tax dollars to protect a product you pretty much are letting get stolen.

That's the same as saying it's your fault for not having perfect protection on your house. Under your scheme, if you didn't have the best security in the world on your house, you have no right to call the cops when you get robbed. Unpickable locks on all the doors, bars on all the windows? Not good enough. They can still break through a wall and get inside.

Developers already put in so much protection that it negatively affects the people who actually purchase the products.

The problem isn't lack of protection... The problem is that it's impossible to protect it 100%. If I can use the product, a cracker can copy it. Some products take more effort than others, but they are all vulnerable somehow.

Edit: And don't forget that this is a lot different than breaking and entering. You haven't lost the use of the pirated goods... They're still right where they were, someone else just has a copy now. It's a completely different set of laws because it is so different.

JimmySeal Wrote:

Burritolingus Wrote:A little copyright violation is a small price (?!) to pay for infinite study materials if you ask me.

What does the second one even mean? Are you making some sacrifice by stealing software? Or are you saying that the game producers' loss of income is justifiable for your own personal gain? Either way, it's a tremendously self-serving statement.

I only have like 6 minutes to make a short reply, as Leechblock is threatening to strangle me to death, but I think you're reading waaaay too far into things. Quotes such as "tl/dr" in response to well thought out replies demonstrate that you're not about to change your mind, either, so I'm not about to argue here.

Also: Personally, I try to support developers whenever possible. More often than not, when I've really enjoyed something I've acquired through, ahem, illegitimate means, I'll throw down the cash and buy the real deal - perhaps not immediately if the game is still going for 1.5x its going rate on import shops, but eventually (and 神々 knows just how much I've spent on games alone over the past two and a half decades - I've really only begun to pirate in the past few years). Often times, I'll discover that it's not something I'd want to buy in the first place and forget about its existence a day later.
How this all relates to economics, business and all of that is beyond me. All I know is that I've never played Halo or Call of Duty past the first games yet they're the biggest money making machines mankind has ever known, yet I'm damn lucky to get a sequel to half of my obscure JRPGs I collect avidly

Ultimately, when it means the difference between plethora of native material covering every subject I can think of and slim pickings, it's an easy decision for me. Self-serving? Well, fart me a lullaby, I never would have thought.

No, in my example, I was citing a problem yet did not take steps to prevent it. Instead I made it even easier to get stuff stolen. Just because my house is not 100% break-in proof doesn't mean I should be so stupid as to leave my valuables out on the lawn where anyone can grab it. I take efforts in proportion to the level I want protection compared to inconvenience it offers.

Next you hit on the other issue: Corporations want profits so they want to make it easier on the customer to get the profits. Problem is this makes it easy to pirate. Stop wasting tax dollars to let the government be your security system just because you want an easy profit.

Also, if you're going to call copyright violation "theft" (which it is according to those ads on some DVD's I watch) then my example is justified. Plus, it points out how stupid the corporations and the government are approaching copyright violations in the age of the internet.

Nukemarine Wrote:No, in my example, I was citing a problem yet did not take steps to prevent it. Instead I made it even easier to get stuff stolen. Just because my house is not 100% break-in proof doesn't mean I should be so stupid as to leave my valuables out on the lawn where anyone can grab it. I take efforts in proportion to the level I want protection compared to inconvenience it offers.

Next you hit on the other issue: Corporations want profits so they want to make it easier on the customer to get the profits. Problem is this makes it easy to pirate. Stop wasting tax dollars to let the government be your security system just because you want an easy profit.

Also, if you're going to call copyright violation "theft" (which it is according to those ads on some DVD's I watch) then my example is justified. Plus, it points out how stupid the corporations and the government are approaching copyright violations in the age of the internet.

They've taken steps to prevent the theft. You claim that they do not. In truth, that software is a LOT better protected than your house is. They certainly spent more time and money on it than you did.

And don't get overly concerned with word choice. What I call it has nothing to do with what it's called in a court. I'm not a lawyer and have no intention to become one.

Wccrawford,

Let me be clear when I used the "you" I was referring to the idea about the corporation, not you in particular. As such, when media corporations release ads comparing piracy to things like stealing cars, jewelry and cloths then yes I'll make the comparison to show how stupid that comparison is.

Have they taken steps? Yep, extreme steps have been taken. I hope they continue to take steps and find a way to prevent piracy entirely. I've no problem with that and wish them the best. What I don't like is them using the government as their security force when they not taking reasonable steps themselves is all.

Also, my house is actually better protected than their software. See, my house is one location with limited points of entry and limited numbers of people in reasonable range to go to it. Their software is wide spread allowing millions to access it. Just the sheer numbers makes their software inherently weaker. On top of that, the people developing the protection use knowledge available to those wanting to circumvent the protection. If you're protection people are outnumbered by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude, then your software is very weak. It can still be done though.

Nukemarine Wrote:Also, my house is actually better protected than their software. See, my house is one location with limited points of entry and limited numbers of people in reasonable range to go to it. Their software is wide spread allowing millions to access it. Just the sheer numbers makes their software inherently weaker. On top of that, the people developing the protection use knowledge available to those wanting to circumvent the protection. If you're protection people are outnumbered by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude, then your software is very weak. It can still be done though.

They constantly use knowledge available only to those in their employ. What crackers -do- is find ways to obtain that information, usually by trial and error. It only takes 1 cracker to pirate software.

Likewise, it only takes 1 thief to enter your house. And there's a lot more thieves than crackers.

What do you think about "alternative currency" (Or local/complementary/etc.) and "thin copyright" (Or see "Copyrights and Copywrongs", Lessig's works on 'free culture', etc.)?

Found an interesting article by Bernard Lietaer on Japan and complementary currencies: Complementary Currencies in Japan: History, Originality and Relevance” International Journal for Community Currency Research Vol 8, 2004 - http://www.lietaer.com/images/JapanCC_2003.pdf

@LaLoche:
___________
| |
| |
| 考えている　|
| |
|_________|

It ain't going to work when you think of it like that.

It's all about automation. Back in the day when it was all Agriculture to survive about 90% people worked the land because "who was going to do it if they didn't?". A machine does now and only a fraction of the worlds population works in agriculture. See how that works? At present a person operates that machine that works the farm but given present technology really it's kind of redundant to do so. Why not automate the process with simple programs using GPS hardware/software to drive the farm equipment. The only job that's left is machine maintenance and development of technology. You don't even need people to build machines as machines can do it.

Look at automation in factories. It's fast, it's reliable and it's scalable. More over, it's possible. Not only is it possible but it's actually very wide spread in today's world. We just haven't decided "hey this works, let's use it for everything" yet.

There are very interesting designs, prototypes and actual buildings of homes built with the future in mind. I'm not talking digital picture frames and a sensor that tells who's in the room and cues up music accordingly. I'm talking a house that can be run totally off the grid that can also grow its own food in plenty built from materials that are far superior strength wise to what current homes are built with. They're really neat but more than that they're REALLY functional.

Currently science has made some pretty intense advances and although this isn't strictly necessary to achieve the kind of goal i'm talking about but what's say science figures out enough about animals to circumvent them completely from the food chain and unlocks the ability to grow the meat in the lab? It's an interesting (and creepy) idea but it's not impossible.

The problem of delivery is akin to the problem of transport networks needing to be built once cars were invented. On horseback one would have ridden the beaten track but with the advent of cars a more solid and defined path was needed and so road networks the world over were built. Not in a day, but they were built. If one central automated factory that produced the foodstuffs your house couldn't (although perhaps it could itself?) sent them to your house or area via an automated delivery system then so far no one needs to go to work to do all this. Instead they're busy at home pursuing the things in life that make them really fired up or they are enjoying plenty of leisure time or spending it with their family which they actually have time for these days.

Besides, who needs to steal in a world where everything is freely available and with such ease? It becomes redundant because there are no "haves and have nots". It wouldn't be completely problem free because that's not 100% realistic but a society focused on solving problems would deal with things far differently than a society based on generating profits. I envision that if crime happened in such a world instead of being thrown into criminal education college aka prison the subjects would be studied to gain further insight into what makes them tick so a preventative solution can be developed. Makes way more sense.

You can sit there and nit pick it to pieces but for every 1 problem you could find with it i'll bet I could find 1000x more for how we currently live. Try putting a different hat on and thinking how you could solve the problems you see in it. It's far more constructive and that's the whole idea.

It's impossible to make a building 100% break-in proof, but there is a level of "good enough" which makes a particular building unlikely to be broken into. The level of protection needed for this depends, among other things, on the value of what you're keeping inside, but it can generally be done.

However, this is not the case for software. At the moment, all software will be cracked if there is any significant interest in cracking it.

I suspect the difference is that a cracker can work on the problem in private and at leisure. It's a lot easier to break into a safe if you have it in your own personal workshop than if you're in a bank and the police might appear at any second.

Effective DRM is fundamentally impossible until the big companies have control over our computers - to use this software/media, all hardware and software in the chain must be on their approved list. This might happen, and has serious consequences.

And even in its theoretical form, DRM stops paying customers from using the product in the ways they want to. You buy an audiobook to study and want to chop it up and SRS it - sorry, you can't do that.

Nukemarine Wrote:Imagine if I left my front door unlocked, thieves came in and took my stuff.

You seem to be doing a lot of finger-pointing at the entertainment industry for not working hard enough to prevent theft (and it is theft), but you haven't mentioned a single thing they could be doing differently to prevent it. What does this mean?:

Quote:Corporations want profits so they want to make it easier on the customer to get the profits.

How are they "mak[ing] it easier on the customer?" What could they be doing that wouldn't be "mak[ing] it easier on the customer?"

James Cameron's Avatar example is only any good at preventing piracy because the movie is distributed to a limited number of locations, which are all willing to put up with the hassle of the DRM system being used. (Nonetheless, I'm sure there are theaters in China working around the clock to circumvent it, if they haven't done it already).

That example is completely irrelevant from the perspective of home consumption. As long as people can place media in their own possession, they will find a way to copy it, no matter what format it's in.

So if we take your Avatar example as a case of good copy protection, what are you proposing as a solution? Allow people to only view movies in heavily controlled theaters, play games in strictly enforced game centers, and read books in lock-down libraries?

JimmySeal, what are your thoughts on the topic? I suspect you've a nuanced and moderate view, but I'm unclear on it based on your Socratic posts in this thread, other than a couple presuppositions about stealing and humility. Could you clarify? You've piqued my interest, though I prefer to focus my energies, re: these issues, elsewhere usually, unless I'm cautioning other posters on the forum not to be too blatant about their piracy so as not to endanger Fabrice's site.