Small Boy: "Grandpa! Grandpa! Tell me the story about how a select few heroes saved the world again!"
Old Man: "All right, all right. Settle down now. I will gladly tell you the story about how much of the world used to be shrouded in darkness. The story of a select few heroes who saved the world from destruction."
Old Man: "There was once a time when much of the world was shrouded in evil and darkness. It was completely different from how the world is now. Arrogance, ignorance, and evil thrived in this land."
Old Man: "Most software in this world was extremely stable and efficient. The entire world was about to collapse under this horrible efficiency."
Old Man: "That is, until a select few Heroes rose up to save the day. No longer could they simply watch as the world was covered in ignorance. No longer could they watch as the world was threatened by efficiency. Things were simply too speedy."
Old Man: "They rose from the shadows and ushered forth a new age! No longer would the world be shrouded in darkness and uncertainty from Gamemakerlessness! They pledged to return the world to Gamemakerdom for the betterment of mankind!"
Old Man: "Wherever Gamemakerlessness lurked, they appeared. They stood in front of a stage and screeched, 'How comical! How comical! Who could possibly not return to Gamemakerdom!? Gamemaker's the best. Use Gamemaker. Use Gamemaker right now! Return to Gamemakerdom right this minuteness!'"
Old Man: "Just like this, they were finally able to realize their dream. Almost everyone was using Gamemaker. Once they finished, 99% of the population had returned to Gamemakerdom."
Old Man: "What happened to those who refused to use Gamemaker, you ask? They were constantly depressed, hated their lives, and their cheeks were made fun of by everyone else. Eventually they did the world a favor and turned to dust and died! How comical! How comical!"
Small Boy: "Wow! Such a thing! I can't believe such Gamemakerlessnesses existed once upon a time! What nothingness ultimatums they were!"
Old Man: "Yeah, it's true. I'm a big ol' buttnude. Now use Gamemaker you fuckin' pathetic piece of garbage!"
Small Boy: "Grandpa! Grandpa! Tell me the story about how a select few heroes saved the world again!"
You're not a True Programmer like I am! You don't understand a single thing about puters!
Wow! Every fiber of your being is exerting dangerously high magnitudes of Gamemakerlessness! If you're a True Programmer, how do you explain that!?
You can't. Because you're nothin'. You're absolutely nothing.
You need to use Gamemaker. True Professionals and Programmers use Gamemaker.
Return to Gamemakerdom! Return to Gamemakerdom! Return to Gamemakerdom!
Oh, my! Such a thing...!
You must be an extremacy of Gamemakerlessness! How comical! How comical! You claim to be a True Programmer, but you're anything but as such never before! Gamemaker can do anything!
Wow! You'd better return to Gamemakerdom, or there will be dire consequences!
Would you agree that "loss of potential profit" is a risk?
Yes, but not the one I (or some others) was referring to. The one I was referring to is the initial risk and investment (actually making the product). Some people blame the pirate for that.
How am I supposed to interpret the phrase 'there is no excuse for DRM' other than to assume that you think all DRM is bad.?
I don't like any DRM, but there is some that is better than others (like Steam). And by "nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful" I meant towards certain users. For some it could be harmful, and for others it could not be. Like Steam.
I suppose it couldn't be helped that you interpreted it that way.
Mine? I was simply replying to his.
Let's waste more money trying to kill one another. Our debt isn't high enough yet.
Your arrogance persists!
How is that "arrogance"? A misinterpretation, maybe, but it's not as if I said anyone was lying to themselves.
I'm not trying to insist that DRM is a good thing, but you still blame developers alone for DRM and insist that it's both draconian and punitive in every case.
I see. So I'm not the only one who is misinterpreting others. I didn't do either of those things. I suggest reading my comments again, because nowhere did I say that pirates weren't to blame at all, and nowhere did I say that all DRM is harmful (In fact, in the post you replied to, I merely said it was harmful in most cases!).
Yes it sucks most of the time and it fails utterly in preventing piracy, but it would be entirely unnecessary if everyone honored the terms of a digital content contract.
And not everyone will honor; that's no justification for punishing innocents with badly implemented DRM.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but you do not have an inalienable right to watch Game of Thrones without paying for it.
I don't believe in inalienable rights to begin with. But really, where did I say that was the case?
And, if you are continuing to try and make the point that it's a "miniscule" problem then perhaps you should opt to not consume content that has DRM or content that you do not pay for.
And I don't. Where did I say that I did?
How in your mind do you magically divorce the effect of pirates on the desire of investors to invest in content industries? Are you suggesting that unauthorized copying doesn't affect movie revnues? Or perhaps that people will still invest in something even if it's going to fail?
Are you even bothering to read my comments? Piracy is related to loss of potential profit. I've said this multiple times.
But some people act like it is the pirate's fault that the businesses took a risk. This is not so. They took that risk on their own, so when illegally copying certain data, they did not incur those costs upon the business. That's what I was trying to say.
It may be "mere" entertainment to you and you may try to rationalize your transgression, but millions of tiny transgressions do add up to a measurable effect.
Am I misinterpreting something, or are you consistently trying to label me as a pirate despite the fact that I've denied this multiple times?
But no, you can't really measure the effects. I don't think I'll ever be able to see how it's a "huge" problem since it's all just potential profit and potential entertainment that's at stake.
What's potentially lost is entertainment itself.
Which doesn't even exist yet. Look, no matter how many potential losses you can think up, it's not going to change my opinion that people are exaggerating the effects of copyright infringement.
You might find that it's harder than you think. Would it kill you to pay a buck for a movie or song every now and then?
Your posts contain a lot of straw men and assumptions about me. I never once claimed it was easy. I'm not even a pirate. Still, you ignore my words and assume that anyone who disagrees with you about anything must be on the opposite side of the spectrum. I just don't understand that mentality. Labeling me as a pirate and spewing forth insult after insult is not going to make me agree with you.
My point was that without the safe harbor provision -- the part you like so much -- the RIAA and MPAA might sue youtube, thereby giving them a powerful incentive to take down all of the content that does not belong to youtube so that people would not be tempted to just call up youtube on their phone when they want to hear their favorite song by [INSERT FAVORITE ARTIST HERE].
I said that it was decent, but that is all.
But I don't care for draconian measures.
After all, it's only entertainment.
It's as someone else said... no one is going to change their opinion.
The American education system itself isn't that bad. It's not the best, but it's not the worst, either.
One huge problem is that the schooling (schooling, not education) centers around rote memorization and teaching to the test. How things work, why they work, how to apply them... those kinds of questions are nonexistent in most cases.
You may want to redifine things to feel better about stealing music
I don't understand why someone must be a pirate in order to disagree with it being called "theft." I don't care for it because it confuses the issue (and those ignorant of what actually happens might get the wrong idea). They're committing copyright infringement. At least with the term "pirate," people will easily be able to tell that they're not talking about the real thing...
Sure, it's quite a minor wrong as wrongs go, but even so: still wrong.
It might be wrong to you and I, but that is by no proven means a universal truth.
I think it should be about 10 (after it's released), to be honest. I can't imagine many instances where they haven't made their profit by then.
I suggest you consider dropping a bit of your own arrogance.
Arrogance? Was what I said somehow false? Are the developers/companies not in any way related to the implementation of DRM?
DRM, as irritating as it is sometimes, can be born of an honest motivation: to limit game use to the person who purchased it.
An honest motivation...
Even honest intentions can hurt others. And there are few instances where DRM does not harm others. It's a method that punishes the innocent and often fails to stop the actual pirates. Ignorance, honest intentions... the end result is still the same.
You don't seem to realize that game development, music, tv, and movies are considered high-risk/high reward investements. In some cases, it's not "potential profit" that is at stake but the very business itself. For every blockbuster game/movie/song/show out there, hundreds go belly up.
Irrelevant. The risks the businesses take don't have anything to do with the pirates. That's something the businesses decide on their own.
The loss of potential profit is related to the pirates, however.
In fact, music industry revenues are down over 60% from where they were 13 years ago.
And? I'll need to see conclusive evidence that it's because of music copying, for one.
But, even then, I still cannot see how music copying is anything more than a minuscule problem. This is mere entertainment, the effects of an individual copying music are completely uncertain and immeasurable, and the only thing that can be lost is potential profit.
My problem? We're getting the government involved, wasting taxpayer money (as well as manpower and time) on something that cannot be stopped, and introducing draconian legislation as a 'solution'.
Actually, it was legislation (the DMCA) that set the stage for the current legal situation vis-a-vis content sharing. In particular, the safe habor provision of that legislation is what protects companies like Google and the Pirate Bay and Megaupload from enormous civil actions by the MPAA and the RIAA -- that is why they have resorted to suing individuals instead.
The safe-harbor is the only decent part of the DMCA. DMCA takedown notices are pure tripe. Large (or medium-sized) websites often get too many to account for, so they need to resort to automated systems. These systems are imperfect and end up harming the end user. Not to mention false DMCA takedowns. I do not believe they should be forced to comply with them.
But you replied to the segment of my comment where I said I did not believe it was possible to stop, so I'm not sure how the DMCA is related. In any case, the lawsuits are often ridiculous, are made without any real evidence, and serve as a front for threats.
Like the ones by the RIAA. Legislation was referring to things such as SOPA (which further expand copyright enforcement). Sorry.
See Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc. It's basically a license subscription service.
That isn't really what I meant. He was talking about services such as OnLive being used as a sort of DRM to stop piracy. That works for games because of the interactiveness. But it wouldn't for movies and music because of the fact that once you have the data, you can copy it as you please (even going so far as to record the screen if need be).
If I had to draw an analogy, it's like if the police were to actively search for jaywalkers and only jaywalkers.
Or, rather, they set up an entire division just to do so. That's what all these laws and draconian enforcement measures remind me of.