DRM Moves Ahead With HTML5 Specification

[Gps4l]

How long until we get pirated Linux games from Steam?

aka hl2, l4d, etc.

You have heard that steam has allot of new users ?
From Russia.

Drm is not the way. Reasonable prices and easy to get are.

http://thepiratebay.sx/search/half%20life%20linux/0/99/0

[Luke]

No law requires consuming Hollywood/paid content at all, pirate or otherwise

[QUOTE=brosis;330441]There are people who understand; and there are people who get DRM prescribed in form of the law sooner or later. The problem is - both live in same country, and people who understand don't want their fair use rights to be cut by DRM, which grows as result of actions of second group type.[QUOTE]

There is another option: There is no law requiring you to consume commercial content AT ALL. Just like you can run Linux instead of pirating Windows, you can watch non-monetized, user-created content instead of Hollywood movies. You can play 0ad instead of a similar game bought from Steam. I'm not saying Linux should try to force out Steam, I'm just saying you do in fact have a choice.

There is even music created by artists who are just as good as anyone who ever had a recording contract, but could never get one. In fact, the vast majority of all music and video (including work never distributed at all) is created by private people with no realistic option of ever monetizing it anyway, created for reasons other than for money. Some of those artists are damned good, ask ANY small-time musician to play you a recording of some virtuoso he knows from the band scene. I've seen guitarists who could play like Yngwie Malmsteen playing in basements!

The more they screw with fair use, the more people will turn their backs on their entire industry and all of its products, just like the growing movement
to cancel cable TV and disconnect from pay TV bills. Enough harassment, and people will cancel their online subscriptions, cancel cable, even stop going to the movies if theaters want to search belongings or something. If I cannot have a copy of a song, I want to ensure that I never, ever hear it, meaning I would have to turn off the radio. Much of that sort of thing and Hollywood would roll over and sink beneath the waves.

Preventing piracy does NOT ensure revenue, they'd have to make it illegal to distribute your own music without a contract, or to distribute video from your own camera without going through a Hollywood studio. They can't watermark content they don't own.

[randomizer]

The difference is, if you ain't popular and unique, your "hard work" does not interest ANYONE, especially if you restrict it yourself how to distribute it.

It obviously does interest people, otherwise there would be nobody pirating it. People see value in it, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if it is possible to get it for free then they see that as preferable to paying for it.

[duby229]

Am I the only one here that smells sabotage here? There are certain threads in this post by multiple people that seem to be designed.

Maybe its just my imagination. I tend to look at things from a security point of view. This thread has several posts that are obvious flags.

[soupbowl]

Fuck that. Games cost millions of dollars to make, as do movies. TV shows can also be quite expensive. Music isn't free to record. There is value in that if everyone's lazy freeloading worthless ass doesn't pay for it, _it won't get fucking made in the first place_. There is no need for value-add to "pay for this or just don't consume it." There's only assholes who steal other people's hard work and pretend they have a God-given right to consume whatever media whenever they want even if it cost 200 people 3 years of their lives to make. The content has value - either you want to consume it and you pay the asked-for price or you don't pay and then you live your life without ever experiencing the content just like millions upon millions of other people manage to do just fine. Piracy is purely the domain of self-entitled douchebags who want things they haven't earned or worked for. DRM might not be the answer, but "add more value to an $80,000,000 title so I won't freeload" is fucking moronic.

I totally agree.

[duby229]

threads in this post ^ .... That was kinda funny.

[dee.]

[QUOTE=Luke;330468][QUOTE=brosis;330441]There are people who understand; and there are people who get DRM prescribed in form of the law sooner or later. The problem is - both live in same country, and people who understand don't want their fair use rights to be cut by DRM, which grows as result of actions of second group type.

There is another option: There is no law requiring you to consume commercial content AT ALL. Just like you can run Linux instead of pirating Windows, you can watch non-monetized, user-created content instead of Hollywood movies. You can play 0ad instead of a similar game bought from Steam. I'm not saying Linux should try to force out Steam, I'm just saying you do in fact have a choice.

There is even music created by artists who are just as good as anyone who ever had a recording contract, but could never get one. In fact, the vast majority of all music and video (including work never distributed at all) is created by private people with no realistic option of ever monetizing it anyway, created for reasons other than for money. Some of those artists are damned good, ask ANY small-time musician to play you a recording of some virtuoso he knows from the band scene. I've seen guitarists who could play like Yngwie Malmsteen playing in basements!

The more they screw with fair use, the more people will turn their backs on their entire industry and all of its products, just like the growing movement
to cancel cable TV and disconnect from pay TV bills. Enough harassment, and people will cancel their online subscriptions, cancel cable, even stop going to the movies if theaters want to search belongings or something. If I cannot have a copy of a song, I want to ensure that I never, ever hear it, meaning I would have to turn off the radio. Much of that sort of thing and Hollywood would roll over and sink beneath the waves.

Preventing piracy does NOT ensure revenue, they'd have to make it illegal to distribute your own music without a contract, or to distribute video from your own camera without going through a Hollywood studio. They can't watermark content they don't own.

And that is exactly why they are trying to cripple the internet. They don't see it as a new opportunity and marketplace, they see it as a threat to their dominance.

[dee.]

I am strongly anti-DRM, but you need to understand that DRM was and is successful explicitly due to your unfair (to content producers) behavior. It agonizes exactly like virus/antivirus, security/insecurity or owner/thief cases. If no one takes goods without payment, there are no need for guards; if thieves become aggressive, so become guards.

One of the proofs, is that some DRM encryption is referred as "freebie-blocker" till its cracked. Its made explicitly to make immature girls and boys, like you, ask their parents for money.

There are people who understand; and there are people who get DRM prescribed in form of the law sooner or later. The problem is - both live in same country, and people who understand don't want their fair use rights to be cut by DRM, which grows as result of actions of second group type.

Hmm, another example of Stockholm syndrome. In your hypothetical, DRM gets "prescribed in law" but the ones to blame are NOT the copyright mafia, the slavers who hold the key to your chains, you'd rather blame your fellow slaves than the master...

DRM became succesful because of the paranoia of the gatekeepers. People like you forget that this is not a new phenomenom. This didn't just start happening with the internet, it's just the latest chapter in a long story. Back in the 60s and 70s, when C-cassettes were becoming popular, the record industry was up in arms, and the arguments were EXACTLY THE SAME as they now make about the internet, torrents, piracy, what they now use to justify DRM. They said, "why would anyone buy our albums when they can just record their own tapes!" "The C-cassette is destroying the music industry!" "Think of the poor artists!" and so on.

And that's not even the end of it, it goes back all the way to sheet music, printed books... heck, probably the people who used to chisel clay tablets complained how papyrus was destroying the industry...

The thing is, the arguments against sharing are always false. They are lies, they are justifications the big moneybags make to justify their continued existence: after all, they have a cushy job, they've enjoyed their position as gatekeeper for decades, they've been able to control the market with an iron grip, control the market entry, no one could become a succesful artist without them... Back in the early 90s, if you wanted to publish your music, what could you do? Record your own C-cassette and sell it on the streets? Or if you wanted to self-publish a book, you had the option of... going to the library xerox machine and photocopying a bunch of sheets printed with your dot matrix printer, then hand-stapling them together and trying to sell them to people on the streets. People would look at you like you're a crazy person.

That's exactly the situation the record labels, publishers, movie studios and big software houses (Microsoft, Apple) want to return to. They want the control of the markets back... back to the situation where all our entertainment basically comes from one monolithic source, in a top-down model, everyone becomes a passive consumer of pre-chewed content...

Worst case scenario:

1. Microsoft gets market dominance, forces free alternatives out of the markets with lobbying and patent threats, keeps Apple around to avoid monopoly charges
2. Microsoft implements Trusted Computing, a scheme where every computer user is no longer in control of their computer, instead, the OS decides what is appropriate to do and what is not... basically, DRM hard-coded in the OS itself
3. There is now an avenue for content streaming and buying, all on their terms, riddled with the worst DRM ever - you can't copy files because the OS won't let you
4. Then, the copyright mafia manages to pass a law or trade treaty that cripples the internet for good. They implement a legislative scheme where no one can afford to release content on the internet, except those affiliated with the copyright mafia, eliminating the threat of self-publishing
5. Torrents are the last vestige of freedom, but not many people can use them, since the DRM in windows won't let you use a torrent client... some people probably try to fight this underground, maintaining their underground Linux distros that only stay functional by violating a bunch of software patents

And there you have it, that's the future the copyright mafia is looking after...

[GreatEmerald]

Am I the only one here that smells sabotage here? There are certain threads in this post by multiple people that seem to be designed.

Maybe its just my imagination. I tend to look at things from a security point of view. This thread has several posts that are obvious flags.

Hmm? I just see quite a bit of trolling. Thankfully most of it is filtered by my ignore list.

[brosis]

It obviously does interest people, otherwise there would be nobody pirating it. People see value in it, but that doesn't detract from the fact that if it is possible to get it for free then they see that as preferable to paying for it.

No, its obvious that you can't process my comment fully. I said:

The difference is, if you ain't popular and unique, your "hard work" does not interest ANYONE, especially if you restrict it yourself how to distribute it.

so, if you are not unique or popular, yet place DRM, hardly anyone will pirate you, not even "buy". For someone who is not from popular publisher, not unique, not well-known, not generating any scandal, in this case its absolutely necessary to remove DRM to gain *some* popularity or drastically simplify it and torrent your own work in parallel. I think the popular already did the reverse move - poisoning torrent pools with broken versions or with homephoning.

In case one IS popular or unique, there will be specific userbase* already waiting on torrents - so *marketing by torrenting* is not needed and they employ defensive methods (like poisoning, honeypotting etc).
*The specific userbase can be split into freebie wanters - children and people unable to pay for various reasons. For that, there is DRM time-locking tactic.

This is also the position where it is *worth the effort* to crack DRM in order to place hidden backdoor and distribute to lusers(misspelled on purpose).

So, in sum up, a lot crap just for fighting whom copies belong instead of constructive attitude producer-supporter you see on commercial opensource projects. And services like steam are also different from scheme above, although not by much - but at least they provide some additional value instead of plain copy-fighting, their servers are long supported and their platform is not infecting the OS down the guts.

There is another option: There is no law requiring you to consume commercial content AT ALL. Just like you can run Linux instead of pirating Windows, you can watch non-monetized, user-created content instead of Hollywood movies. You can play 0ad instead of a similar game bought from Steam. I'm not saying Linux should try to force out Steam, I'm just saying you do in fact have a choice.

Sure, never argued about that. But you sure mean "commercial proprietary/closed source" content, because commercial opensource develops only if someone is willing to stand behind its development.
And I also think people should have right to demand money for their work, so they ask money for development and not copy selling, I find this totally right. So, if one is unable to pay, he simply won't contribute to development of the piece he wants and thats no less motivating to get on money (or contributing skills) than being unable to find money for copy purchase.

The problem I have with commercial closed source, is that - even if you pay for it, you expect: ability to run the program anywhere you want;
but what you receive instead is a limited right to use of closed source scrambled code only within specific time, on specific amount of machines, without ability to security of the code, without ability to modify it to your tastes, without ability for humanity to build upon your contribution further, and with them willing to anchor their protection algorithms down your throat by your own money, and with them using your money to ensure their advantage over other (perhaps better) solutions - thus you bind yourself to specific proprietary developer and his own choice of platforms, standards etc.

So you essentially buy a one-way plum, instead of contributing to development process. Software is not "plums", but process, IMHO. So why not use network to directly hook into communication with developer and money into development process, and not copyselling self-humiliating wars?..

Hmm, another example of Stockholm syndrome. In your hypothetical, DRM gets "prescribed in law" but the ones to blame are NOT the copyright mafia, the slavers who hold the key to your chains, you'd rather blame your fellow slaves than the master...

DRM became succesful because of the paranoia of the gatekeepers. People like you forget that this is not a new phenomenom. This didn't just start happening with the internet, it's just the latest chapter in a long story. Back in the 60s and 70s, when C-cassettes were becoming popular, the record industry was up in arms, and the arguments were EXACTLY THE SAME as they now make about the internet, torrents, piracy, what they now use to justify DRM. They said, "why would anyone buy our albums when they can just record their own tapes!" "The C-cassette is destroying the music industry!" "Think of the poor artists!" and so on.

My viewpoint does not cancel this, only complements. Once they become enough money, they become self-sufficient and get strong desire to control those who support them. I only incline that those who pirate DRMed content:
a) spread its usage (marketshare), even if they don't pay
b) do not modify their own habits (think of a "start button" syndrome)
c) form good base for "anti-piracy" attack
d) are always vulnerable to this attack, because the license of the pieces they distribute prohibits what they do, so they are walking time-bombs

My viewpoint is that the efficient method is not to pirate DRMed content, but to quit this and start supporting those who develops in different way or at least is not this aggressive/pervasive.