Come talk to my dad about installing Alcohol most pure computer "users" are the same.

Nah, I haven't found a good, easy to setup torrent client for my Ubuntu yet

I was referring specifically to the cable box part. I understood what you were getting at. I think it's plausible that it does have the potential to destroy them and for that reason there are restrictions put in place to either deter the abuse or at least give the industry time to adjust.

It's one of the ways software developers (that's us) came up with trying to prevent or deter piracy. While I agree that it's a nuisance, I also understand why it was done and blame pirates for it. It's not the only solution in place. For example, VALVe's Steam client is very convenient and AFAIK as effective or better.
[quote ]If a product is good enough, people will pay for it. Even if they illegally download a game, play it and decide they like it, then either send a sizable donation or buy a copy to leave shelved.
</quote>
Is that right? I don't know if he means it or not, but the sad truth is that not everybody is moral.

If my dad had to pay a dime for every swear he said, simply browsing a single Web site would get very expensive... And by comparison to some, he's actually pretty good with computers considering his demographic.

bamccaig: I'm going to put this as simply as possible. It doesn't work. It. Doesn't. Work.

You have two options: DRM the hell out of everything and sue everyone who avoids it, or embrace it and make it work for you.

There's proof that the former doesn't stop pirates and it annoys actual customers.

There's also proof that the latter can be achieved.

(Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_the_United_States)

And we all know how developers are infallible.

I was browsing the Wikipedia article on StarForce to give you an example for one copy protection that messes the user's computer up, and was surprised to find that
1) "Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory held 422 days before being cracked (a process which also allowed the game to run on 64-bit processors unsupported by its version of StarForce)." - apparently pirates get a better functioning game.
2) "StarForce 3.0 (until August 2006) creates a security problem when installed on a limited-access user account" - and that paying customers had a security hole installed with their games. (You can read more about the specifics on the wiki page)

Not to mention other various bonuses pirates get compared to paying customers.

I can see that you blame pirates for that, but do you really think you (and other paying customers) should be getting a slap in the face because someone else pirated a game? Especially considering the pirates enjoy slap-free cheeks? And how every protection is foiled eventually?

Password protection doesn't lose customers, interfere with your use of the product, and open up your system to security vulnerabilities.

As for cable: Areas that couldn't get TV broadcasts very well set up one giant antenna that redistributed the broadcast to the community on cables. TV networks said it was piracy, bitched and moaned, and eventually embraced it and it became what it is today.

Recommended viewing:

Good Copy Bad Copy
Steal This Film Part 1
Steal This Film Part 2

Even if you aren't making this up talk is cheap. How did Napster intend to block illegal downloads? That would require DRM-like software which would put them on the other side of your fight. Moreso, how could Napster prove that they were in fact blocking that percentile of illegal downloads?

There is nothing wrong with legal p2p... It's the illegal stuff that floods the networks that makes it a problem. Honestly, how much of the p2p traffic do you think is legal? I'd guess 1%. If Napster did manage to block 99.4% of the illegal traffic the network would have died anyway and the next would take its place.

I guarantee if the vast majority of knives were used to stab people hundreds of times per day they would be outlawed. In reality, they aren't. They have a number of legal uses and the illegal uses are relatively rare.

You can if the tool was designed for illegal uses. There are knives that are illegal because they serve no practical and legal use. I guarantee if a p2p network played nice with the IP industry they would face absolutely no static. The problem is that they don't because they can't because the whole damn network is used for piracy. The only exception is the open source projects that release their files on p2p networks, mostly through BitTorrent.

Then you haven't been paying enough attention.

Napster was designed for pirating originally - they let you download other people's music for free - which is theft of intellectual property if done without permission. Now that they pay royalties and charge a modest fee per song to pay for it they are legal.

Well p2p networks and clients have learned to separate themselves from piracy with a disclaimer or similar, basically discouraging piracy on their networks and masking themselves with a legal front, but that doesn't change what the networks are predominantly used for.

- Source

Other interesting reading...

• eDonkey Client RIAA Agreement

• Legal Issues With BitTorrent

Personally, I think p2p has great potential and is a great technology, but that doesn't change the fact that it is predominantly used for illegal purposes and doesn't actually have a lot of legal use at the moment. I also don't find it particularly safe to be sharing files between "anonymous" users. I prefer to go straight to the source whenever possible.

I quoted it for two reasons. Firstly, to show that even p2p network client developers recognize that the tools they develop are often used illegally. Secondly, as a demonstration of how p2p clients distance themselves from piracy. At the very least, they no longer publicly condone piracy, which is a start. It sounds like eMule even provides a service to check if a particular file is legal or not, but I'll believe it when I see it...

Prove it.

Yeah, I'm no English major, but I don't actually think there is any difference in meaning...