nice job with the 98% statistic. Expertly bs'ed, sir. Expertly.
How very mature of you.
What % of people have two drives?
Having two drives does not increase one's difficulties with DRM. That one might have two is beside the point.
What if I wanted to play music from a CD and play a game?
Then you can go out and buy a stereo system. They're like three dollars at Goodwill. In any case, I fail to see how this is a significant enough problem to warrent much concern.
What if my drive jammed?
Then you'll have to go buy a new one. It is completely your responsibility to make sure that your equipment is up to grade.
What if my dog ate the disc?
Then neither I nor anyone else have any sympathy for you. Keep your valuable computer games away from all household pets. It is not that hard.
You're calling people negligible, non-factors...
I am not calling people non-factors. In fact, I am giving them a very specific factor, 2%. How much concern do you think it is fair for 2% to garner? I am going to venture a guess that 2% concern is quite fair for 2% of the people. Unfortunately, 2% of the concern does not really have enough weight to completely override the other 98% of the people, with 98% of the concern.
on behalf that bs% of people that you clearly don't belong to and are happy to leave in the dust, go screw yourself. With a rusty stick.
First of all, this supposed to be an intellectual discussion. If you cannot refrain from such blatant insults, I would ask you to refrain from participating.
Secondly, you are being quite quick to jump to conclusions about me. I do not have much money, nor have I ever had much money. I do not like the fact that so many people are faced with such problems, but I still believe in what I believe in due to reason. Where one stands in life should, ideally, not overly affect one's basic beliefs.
Effort spent on restricting people is a an act against humanity.
Not all restrictions are an act against Humanity. I, for one, am glad people are not allowed to go around slaughtering everybody. I am also thankful that there is no antifreeze in my breakfast cereal.
Economics plays trump to morality any day, look at wal*mart, the share value of AIG, lobbyists, cigarettes that smell like fruity pebbles, micro municipalities inside other cities with 100x the expected amount of traffic tickets, dioxin containing herbicides sprayed to cheaply kill the weeds amonst the crops... all the medicineless brown people dying for the sake of consistent intellectual property rules.
Many of those examples are entirely off point...
Entirely off the point, exaggerated, and misrepresented. At least in my opinion.
But there is a question: Is screwing even a small percentage of well intentioned people moral? Is screwing people who don't have the money to pay for something that costs nothing (to produce additional copies of) moral? Is it moral to stop people from committing a victimless crime?
People do not need video games to survive. It is not necessarily inhumane to refrain from giving peopl video games for free.
The companies are not making peoples lives worse by making a game and not giving it to people for free. At worst, people's life-itude would come out even, as if the company never existed.
You ever try to do good research for noble reasons, only to run into the roadblock of a $40 per view article? A $4,000 per view article?
It's only fair that the researchers, the game artists, the other guys make a decent wage...
And it's not a perfect world, and all the omelettes need their eggs (as well as ther electricity generated from the coal whose atmospheric carcinogens gave tiny tim the cancer he can't survive because he's not a citizen of a developed country...). I'm saying some eggs are worse than others.
Yes, some things are reasonable, and some are not. That is what this discussion is primarily about. How strict can or should DRM be without being unreasonable.
Regarding the screwdriver, yeah, it was illegal. I also saved their ass if my buddy wanted to sue them for the profound contusion it left above his ilium.
If I leave anything anywhere that poses a threat to any human, I deserve to suffer that threat, because the only thing that differentiates me from the guy that gets it is happenstance.
If I do nothing for that poor basted who couldn't help but buy into 'open box software = non returnable' paradigm, to later find out that restrictive drm just circumstantially happens to leave him high and dry, I deserve that fate.
I give people only the risks that I would take myself. You cannot please everybody at once, nor can you leave everybody in a perfect state. The World is a broken place. One can only attempt to minimize the total suffering involved.
I know, but it is no harder than using a suitable CD-emulator. That is all I am saying.
regarding illegal, "an unjust law is no law at all." (Ok so 'no vandalism of property' is a just law. It's the property that isn't just. [it isn't justice to let someone hit that and bleed and call it an acceptable casualty.])
Yes, but who interprets whether a law is Just? If everyone interprets for himself and does what is right in his own eyes, we have naught but anarchy. If you are an anarchist, then that might be just fine. However, I do not happen to believe that anarchy would result in anything good. That distrust of anarchy is why our ancestors, way long ago, banded together to form civilizations. The people gave up the right to do as they please in return for protection from each other. That is, in essence, what civilization is. I would not take such a commitment lightly.
Everyday, I grow a bit more anti-fascist, and my need to make others anti-fascist grows, too...
entirely off-topic:
It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.[1]
Just make sure you can distinguish between Fascism and Capitalism. I do not care if you like Captialism or not, as long as you can recognize it as separate.
Well, a barnacl'd stick would have made for a better visual.
Excuse my easy colloquialism.
Most would interpret it as an insult, as would I. Let us try and keep it civil, shall we?
Is it legal to call him thoughtless on behalf of the people he doesn't think much of?
Legal? Yes. Polite? No. Free speach allows you to say whatever you want, but not wherever you want, qe2eqe. This forum is not public property, it is private. Thus, the owners of this forum are allowed to set policies as standards. If you disagree with them, you do not have to stick around.
Not to mention, you have no idea what I think of those people, qe2eqe. Jumping to such a conclusion would be both immature and rude. I have not jumped to any conclusions about you, qe2eqe, even though several have crossed my mind. Please return the favor.
Another note on DRM - if its worth breaking, it will be broken. Game companies will still make money - a good example is the guy I work for just bought a $100 wireless router entirely because it was preconfigured for the ports Xbox needs. He already had a router; he's got a much higher ratio of $$$$/(skill + frustration tolerance) than I do. Xbox made their money, and the Xbox devs put food on the table. Just saying, there are always people who will take the easiest route and just pay.
DRM methods have never been designed to be unbreakable. They have always simply been designed to be a deterent.
There will always be people on the fence. Whether it be struggling with ethics or convenience, or somewhere inbetween. The stronger the DRM, the less people pirate it, the more people buy it, and the more money the developers make. Developers are just trying to find that golden ration, the perfect balance between ease and security.
