I realize that a large percentage of you read Slashdot, but this link seemed pretty interesting to me. If you comment, please state whether you've read the whole thing or not.

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

I read most of it, but despite claiming to take an unbiased view, it clearly does.. especially when you get to the point about the various drm systems (it's okay for them to install unnoticed as Ring 0 kernel level drivers because you use software like Process Explorer or Daemon Tools; and the problems with activation limits aren't really problems; and the issues with securom aren't really that big of an issue). He attributes the hate of DRM to their uncrackable nature (it's only hated when it's not easilly cracked), despite the evidence to the contrary.

Early on, he makes claims about games being released "drm free on steam" yet getting pirated heavilly, but later on claims the exact opposite.. "steam is drm" so why aren't the games being pirated as much?

He brushes off the argument that people who pirate the game (sometiems due to lack of a demo) sometimes buy it, saying they already have it so why would they? Well, there's a multitude of reasons, none of which are so much as uttered, let alone countered. Also extends that into the word-of-mouth argument, that if you tell your friends how good it is, they're more likely to pirate it, not buy it.

I had to stop reading by the time I got to the woes of the poor, misunderstood DRM schemes.

I haven't read it all and all I keep reading is "There is no evidence... blah". Sure there is, but if he actually used any of it people from both sides would flame him off the internet.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. It's incorrect to assume every piece of pirated software is a lost sale, yes.. but what does that have to do with if I buy a game I had originally pirated? Or that the people I talk about the game to will buy it? There are people who buy it despite a free version being available and despite having said free version, regardless of if he personally agrees with the reasons they do or not.

If he said that because it cancels out (ie. some pirating is lost sales and some pirating is gained sales), then I find it terribly ironic that he's still quick to bring up piracy being much more damaging to sales, when he even showed that amongst pirates themselves, people are encouraged to buy. As he said in the article:

But he doesn't use this against the potentially lost sales. People who pirate then buy what they like are statistically insigificant compared to people who pirate and would buy but don't (which, BTW, shouldn't include people who would buy if it wasn't for DRM; another point he fails on, that DRM doesn't significantly increase piracy rates or decrease sales for a given title). He just goes on assuming piracy does much more harm than good, causing companies to use more DRM, and doesn't believe the inverse.

Now.. regardless of if he's right or not, the point is that he builds upon a very shakey foundation. If you're trying to make an unbiased article, you can't do that.

Yeap, I've read the whole thing, and as I've posted in /., piracy is about access, not value.

People complain about DRM and other measures because it prevents them from unauthorized access to the content.

Finally, people don't recognize authorized access to electronic material as theft due to the content existing "in the ether", i.e. there is no physical evidence to the value of the content.

I haven't read the article yet (and I'm at work so it'll be a while before I can), but they do make doors that cannot be left unlocked. Namely, secure doors like in some hotel rooms and secure facilities, such as server rooms or computer labs; which typically require a key (typically a keycard, security code, or combinations of things) to open every time (while there may be a way to disable that feature in many doors, that functionality is typically only available to administrators. End users would have no control over that mechanism). Some people might moan about it when they lock themselves out or have to go in and out repeatedly, but most users don't mind much because the inconvenience is usually minor compared to the protection it offers.

Even ordinary locks run into security problems. Make a patch and gain fame & fortune!

http://wizbangtech.com/content/2006/11/30/nearly-every-lo.php

True, and False all at the same time. Lots of people complain about DRM because it often prevents them from AUTHORIZED access to content they legally purchased.

Up till a bunch of patches and fixes came out for Vista is was a heaping pile of crap.

As far as piracy and video games goes, I like the way steam handles it's DRM, because there is incentive to buy in. If I buy from steam, my game is tied to my account and I can install it on any machine, as long as I'm only logged in on one machine at a time. There is incentive there since I don't have to worry about losing/breaking disks, or a computer crash since everything is tied to it.

I think the game industry should worry more about adding incentive to buy the game than game piracy itself. For instance, they could worry more about locking game pirates out of online play than making the disks locked down so it can only be run with the disk in the drive, or other forms of DRM that punish the buyers of the game.

If they actually make products people would want to play, piracy would be increased. Piracy is about access, not price.

Thats not how the black market works. Its a well known fact that if people aren't happy with paying the price people are asking, they will get it some other way. Most people are very willing to pay for something, IF they feel its worth it. Its these people you are trying to sell to, not thieves and "pirates".

Up here it was shown very clearly when a bunch of taxes were added to things like cigarettes, people found a way to get cheaper cigarettes from other places like the Native Reserves and from the US (all quite illegal mind you). Taxes went down, most people stopped "pirating" the goods.

This following fact is the only one that matters: Make something some one wants and sell it for a reasonable price and your target market WILL pay for it. Its as simple as that.

Do what the American style media mega corps do and rip people off, and people will happily NOT pay for the goods, either by not ever consuming the product, or by copying it. Do you really think it is necessary to charge $40 for a DVD when it costs $0.40 (at the high end) to make, and the movie has already made tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in pure profit?

I would happily buy TONS of media if it was sold for a price I could live with, but they want $130 for a box set of the old Get Smart show. I was like "Bite me, I'll live without". They did the same with Star Trek TNG, each season set was like $100, which to me is absolutely insane. Great product, and I WILL buy it if they make it affordable for mere mortals. In the mean time, I may or may not make do with copies.

Depends on how much they are asking, and if the pirated version is actually a higher quality version (it often is, the DRM tends to hobble a game). Many people I know will buy a game, and then end up running the pirated version because the retail version is broken in some way.

Then they should charge $1,000,000 for each copy. Its not important right?

Only if you assume EVERYONE is a thief (which is obviously not true).

You're going to take his word for it but no one elses? I'm dumb!.

Now you're just being silly. I pay for my cell phone, I pay for my internet, I pay for my food, I pay to go see exceptional movies, I pay for music from sites that don't hobble their product. All of which I could fairly easily get for free, but I don't. I pay for it, because in most cases I think its worth it, to some degree.

Did any one make the argument that all games suck? Also thats a pretty weak argument, only a hand full? How much money is the Games industry pulling in a year now? 10 billion usd? And they continue to only push out a handful of games even you consider good?

Sure its somewhat dishonest, but they are earning whats coming to them if they keep up with their current business model. Much like the banking, recording and automotive industries in the US. All lead by pure greed, and all are crumbling because of it.

Give people what they want and they will buy it. Period. Oh sure theres always the few that are purely dishonest and won't pay for anything, but they have always existed, and will always exist, and ARE NOT these industries target market, never have been, never will. MOST people will pay given the chance. If your product is too expensive, they don't have that chance. You going to pay $80 for a pos game? I'm not, just like I won't pay for MOST movies in a theater (I just wait till its on cable or something, which I pay for by the way).

You know what most "business"s problem is? They think they can milk their product and customers for all they are worth. Oh sure, it works for a time. But then they collapse. So its really a rather stupid idea. You know what large ISPs already do? They charge each end of a connection for the same data, they are already double dipping. Now they want to charge large sites that already pay for their connection to pay MORE for the privilege of not being throttled too much.

Its that mentality that disgusts me. And is what has caused 2 (3 if you count the recording industry, they've been on the brink for a while) major industries in the US to fail, and cause a GLOBAL recession.

Most people don't, but people keep shoveling crap out never the less. Same with movies and tv. Its all crap.

You know the best way to stay in business? Give the consumer what they want, for a price they can afford. If you can't do that, you will fail. And its painfully obvious that many cooperations forgot about that.

Considering right and wrong, the price is unimportant. Stealing is stealing. Infringing is infringing. They could charge $1M for each copy, but odds are nobody would buy it so they wouldn't. They price things at the sweet spot. That is to say, the most profitable price according to projections, estimations, and sales history. If that sweet spot is more than you're willing to pay then you go without. It is NOT an excuse to steal or infringe. IF a price is set too high sales will suffer and the price will be lowered. The fact that game prices continue to be set where they are suggests that it is either most profitable or necessary.

You're likely paying because the quality of products/services you would get without paying aren't good enough for your standards. Satisfied telecommunication customers are few and far between (see your own rant on ISPs), so don't even tell me the prices and services they're giving you are better than the games industry. Either that, or the risk involved (i.e., stealing food) is greater than you're willing to take for those things. Piracy, on the other hand, carries relatively little risk so you feel free to do it.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I have my likes and dislikes like everyone else. Not all games target me. I've already expressed by distaste for pretty much everything Nintendo and Microsoft have done this generation (and numerous past generations...). There are obviously PS3 games that don't interest me as well. Having specific target audiences isn't an excuse for piracy either. And in a free country people are free to make crappy games if they want to. Sales are supposed to be how you decide what stays and what goes. Pirating something is basically saying this is good enough for me, but I can get it for free so I will. It doesn't tell the developers to do better next time. Not playing it at all does.

The way it typically works is a few people with the money and audacity take a risk on a product that looks good based on advertisement. They share their experiences with it to impact the future decisions of other consumers (buy, rent, or neglect). When nobody is playing a game it sends a clear message to developers and publishers that they did something wrong.

Business is about profit. That's the point. If you don't like it move to a purely socialist country. You're high and mighty because natural resources have your part of the world feeling strong, but when that dries up I'm sure you'll shut up quickly. Canada does not do business any better than America. Matter of fact, we're nowhere near as good as they are. From a business point of view, the companies struggling now probably did what they should have. They saw an opportunity to take chances and hand the risks over to a government. Unfortunately, circumstances weren't all in their favors and the shit has now hit the fan. I'm sure they're crying about it in their million dollar mansions with enough money for their grandchildren to raise families on. If a mistake was made it was giving them a scapegoat in the first place. If somebody makes a million dollar bet with you where if you win you get a million dollars and if you lose the money comes from somebody else' pocket; would you turn it down?

If you've ever taken a business class you'd realize that the business world is well aware of that fact. As I said earlier, the price is set for the most profit. It's not about giving Thomas Fjellstrom what he wants. It's about making money. And if Thomas Fjellstrom can't afford it that's his problem. At least, that is how it works in a law-abiding and moral society.

You're going to tell them what they have to charge for their products and services? It's a free country. They can charge whatever people are willing and able to pay. Business has a tendency to take care of itself (particularly when government stays out of it).

No, it's painfully obvious that you don't understand what their goals are. And it's sad that you think moral values only matter when the world revolves around you. That's the disgusting part.

A very limited income suggests you shouldn't be spending money on games. That doesn't excuse piracy though. You go without. Business is about give and get. If you have nothing to give then you don't get. Sorry.

The point of any business transaction is to make a profit. Products and services are worth different things to different individuals. There is no one-price fits all. As a business, your goal is to set the price to the optimal level so the product or service for the price is enticing enough to the most people possible.

DRM is only designed to stop zero- or first-day piracy because those designing it know preventing it all together is infeasible ATM. If you were to offer them a solution to completely end piracy do you think they would turn it down? That's an absurd argument.

Why would more people pirate a game that is less in demand? Your numbers don't add up. More than that, however, the reason it remains wrong for the people who wouldn't have bought a product/service anyway is that it's unfair for them to get it for free while others have to pay. And you can't argue that others could get it for free to because then the business would collapse. Somebody needs to pay for it. And if you don't have to why should I?

The OP's article makes very good logical arguments towards all of this for those of you who actually take the time to read and consider it. Judging by your arguments I doubt that you have.

This too is brought up in the article. Again, more than raw sales, it's also about fairness.