Copy Protection

[Jonlissla]

No, atleast not for games. It didn't take long for people to crack Bioshock, and there is not a single thing companies can do to stop it. Totally worthless. When I buy a new game, I usually update it (if there is any updates, that is :wallbash: ), then I download a crack for it. It isn't illegal either, as long as you use it for personal use.

 

Music is also another... well, rather interesting topic. Many people say that pirates are slowly drying the music companies to a halt, and says it's bad. Others, however, says it's good, because we need to change the way we live or something like that (don't see how, though :blink: ).

 

But then again, that's just my opinion.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

I guess it depends on what someone is trying to protect. I understand that some game companies are only trying to protect their investments (I'll admit I'd probably do the same thing too), but sometimes it's in the best interests of the consumer, and not the producer. Remember the Sony rootkit fiasco in '05? Imagine if that happened to computer games (it almost did with BioShock, although that really never installed malware like Sony's XCP)

[ninja_lord666]

Next to making a profit, the main basis of a capitalist economy is protecting said profit. I fully and wholeheartedly support any sort of copy protection, copyright laws, etc., because the producers who release the game, movie, music, etc. are entitled to the profits for their products, and copy protection is a way to do that. A capitalist economy is made for the producer, not the consumer. The only reason places like stores and whatnot have a "the customer's always right" policy is because the way for a store to make money is by getting the consumer to buy things. If you don't like that, go somewhere else, like Africa; they really don't have any sort of economy.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

And the only way for someone to make a profit is to be fair to their customers. You're not going to sell a thing if you treat your customers like dirt. That's the difference between a "free" market, and a "fair" market. I'm in support of fair and ethical business practices, not who's going to make the most money. Remember that old saying "Money is the root to all evil"? Money can sure make people do evil and wicked things.

[Vagrant0]

I normally take the side against piracy on these sorts of things, but copy protection does more to screw over consumers than it does to prevent theft. Between online registratons, CD keys that don't work past the first install, to protectiuon software that just vulks up your system and requires 15 steps to get the game running. And as said, most of the protection gets cracked soon after the games are released, making all that headache meaningless. Until companies can come up with data encryption which cannot be accessed without an installer, and an installer which cannot be copied and used outside of a specific media type, it will never be solved. It shouldn't be too hard to make a portion of a DVD read in a way which burners would interpret as garbage data, but the game software could use. A flaw like that wouldn't be taken if someone tried to copy the data, and wouldn't be easy to reproduce on another disk. Like a DVD watermark. Or even reading some sort of key data from somewhere not normally accessible or noticable (like a few bytes on the outside)durring installation.

 

As for music. The main reason why songs get downloaded is because people like one or two songs from an artist and paying $30+ for a CD with 1 song you like, and 8 that just suck is just stupid. Downloading is also a bit more conveniant than going to a store, trying to find someone who actually has that artist (let alone in the right place) and buying it in person. Many bands have found greater following because they have embraced those fans online and have answered their needs. Others just blame online downloads for their poor sales rather than accept the fact that they now suck (Metallica anyone?). Those groups that attack people who download their songs are only hurting themselves because people who liked their music, and might have gone to a concert, shared their interests with others, or bought that CD to see what else is on it, have been alienated. Music downloads also allow lesser named artists the ability to stand among those with big record contracts and actually compete. I'm not saying that those downloads should be done illegally, atleast not as long as there are reasonably priced services to get those songs, Just that the transition from offline to online sales is a step in the right direction. Atleast until they start charging you based on the amount of times played (and they probably will once they find a way). For the record, when I listen to music, it's on commercial radio. Even if I wanted to take the chance downloading songs, or pay for them, there really aren't enough that I'd want to really listen to, let alone take up space.

[Sovietlukmanov]

Well, as much as I don't agree with it, I had to admit that the capitalist market is indeed a place for producers to make their profit. Then again, as the producers do what they can to earn the best of what they invested, the consumers are also bound to search for the best deal.

 

For example: If someone doesn't have the budget to buy an official (lets say) music cd, but that person really wants to hear the songs in it, that person could buy a pirated version of the cd which comes cheaper. The reason that copies of a cd could be even cheaper than the original version, is because the producers refuse to lower their prices.

 

In the media market, the system isn't like the rest of the market (to some extent). The media market's profit calculation is based on first copy cost, where (as an example) you only pay once to make a movie, then pay a small amount for the copying and distributing (as opposed to the production cost) that way, the more copies made available, the lower prices can go.

 

For an example:

If making a movie costs (for example) 10.000$

 

making 10 copies of the movie (in cd/dvd) can sell for 100$ and already reach break even point (in real case, cost of buying cd/dvd would also be taken into account, but will not significantly affect the overall cost and need only increase the price a little to gain profit.

 

then, making 100 copies of the movie, the producer can then place the copies at 10$ to reach break even point (of course they need to consider the cost of cd/dvd for copying in real case)

 

But overall, I don't have much concern for these producer, their profits (usually) aren't significantly effected by piracy, just like now, Bill Gates is still the successful, even then, he still allowed non genuine windows to operate, and still give them the choice to purchase a genuine license (while still allowing the non genuine windows to operate)

 

So in conclusion, I don't have that much concern for the media industry, as they struggle for their best profit, as consumers, we also struggle for our best deals.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

This is why gov't HAVE to be involved in their country's economy, so they can set rules and regulations to keep the producers in check so that they don't become overly greedy (which I can tell you most certainly will happen, even if there's gov't involvement with the economy). Case in point - Sony-BMG. They're still trying to control what you listen to, and like I said, the only thing they're pushing is petty garbage.

 

Think of it this way: if someone who is only selling bags of garbage, why try to hire a security guard to watch over it when that's all it is is just garbage.

[Jonlissla]

Just something I remembered about CD-protection: has anyone heard of StarForce before? That crap takes up space (it made a 1.5 GB game take 4.2 GB instead... now THAT'S crap...), and sometimes made the game unplayable.

 

But please, don't mind me. Continue the discussion about the gov't. It's interesting. :smile:

[Marxist ßastard]

This is why gov't HAVE to be involved in their country's economy, so they can set rules and regulations to keep the producers in check so that they don't become overly greedy.

Of course, your statement is ignoring the fact that companies only exercise this sort of power becuase they have a government-granted monopoly.

[ninja_lord666]

You do realize that Sony is Japanese, and, therefore, not controlled by our government. Even if (and that's a BIG if) the government stops CD protection, Sony will still do it.

One more thing, do you actually think the government getting involved will be any better to you, the consumer? No, no it will not. In fact, a government controlled economy (communism) is the worst for the general public. You talk about the people in charge of companies as being corrupt, but the government is even more corrupt than that, a lot more. If America became communist, to "balance out the wealth," they won't give money to the poor, they'll take money from the rich. Then, instead of some people being rich, some people being poor, and most people being intermediate, you'll have everyone being poor. Also, this is all hypothetical. The Constitution makes it so the government can't be communist, and if they do become so, we have the right to overthrow it. The best economy for the people is a traditional economy, but with that, America as a whole will crash and burn. Traditional economies just suck overall.