FCC ruling

[Jason Ramsey]

For one, the Steam Engine is a very successful method of preventing piracy of PC games. It works. It is beginning to revive the PC gaming industry.

No one said it wasn't... You are right. It is a good example of a different way of doing things that is both effective and fairly user friendly. Which supports my earlier point.

It is illegal and hard to find mod chips for them, and the general public does not have easy access. because the seller of mod chips could now face jail time, they are very, very expensive in most places.

You should go to Indonesia... or many other places, I would presume. There are entire stores in malls that sell modded xbox360, ps3, etc, etc... and they sell the games for like 5 bucks.

The Dreamcast had no protection against piracy - and many analysts cite that as a reason (amongst others) for its failure, as you can track illegal downloads of Dreamcast games against falling software sales very exactly.

There are also pc games that have come out in the last several years that did not have any copy protection whatsoever, yet they were the #1 selling pc games on release, or for their release year in its entirety.

Pointing out one example of a failed system and linking its failure to piracy isn't really a robust argument supporting that thesis. Here is one example of the counter:
Intuit's turbo tax 2002 was released with copy protection and the announcement that it would be used on all future versions. When users started reporting problems, they initially stated it was just user error. Later backtracking and saying that it was the wrong thing to do, and also admitting that their expected sales gains from introducing copy protection were "disappointing"

take real issue with whiny consumers who think they have some "right" to use other people's content created at other people's expense. in any particular way. Where does this idea come from? Sinec when are film studios public service agencies funded by tax dollars?

Who has said this but you? I don't think the right to the reasonable use of a legally purchased product is whining. Certainly you are not denying the fact that there are several clear examples of invasive, and ineffective anti-piracy practices and techniques employed by various companies? Are you saying that companies should be able to do whatever they want without restriction? even to the point that their copy protection schemes have (in some cases) caused documented hardware issues with users equipment?

Is pointing out that many current anti-piracy practices currently in use are not only ineffective at preventing piracy, but also (in some cases) beyond even inconvenient for the user.

Steam is a great example. It provides a convenient way for people to legally purchase games that they can install on multiple computers, don't have to worry about losing discs, cd keys, invasive copy protection measures, etc, etc. Why is encouraging thinking on alternative ways of dealing with piracy that are more cohesive to the current consumer habits, a bad thing?

I think you and I would both agree that piracy is a problem that needs to be addressed. Where we obviously part ways is that it appears (to me) that you take a hardline, hard nose approach that ends up being a blanket condemnation of anyone who takes a stance against some of the current methods and laws in place to try to prevent piracy.

We want the same thing. I just happen to believe that current approaches (not all fo them) are ineffective, counter-productive, and NOT convenient (which is the big one when it comes down to attracting customers). And, I believe that there are some great examples taking place on the smaller scale of more innovative and effective ways of addressing this issue that are also more convenient for the consumer, rather than more restrictive.

laer,
Jason

 

[Paul V Doherty]

I'm a world traveler for more than 1 decade and as such I own thousands of legitimate DVDs of every region.
Anti-copy protection be hanged! - I reserve the right to view my DVDs at home on my region-coded player, therefore I copy them and strip the region coding in the process.
This also gives me a backup of DVDs which I really don't fancy having to travel halfway around the world to buy a second time.
Allegations of "entitlement" and "whining" are fascile and fail to encapsulate the bigger picture.
Yes, I can easily purchase a Chinese region-free player but it doesn't have ANY intelligent upscaling and will be broken within 6 months.
I chose to support big corps - both in my purchase of legitimate DVDs and high quality home theatre equipment.
I do NOT support their artificially sustained control over global distribution which is MOST inconvenient to me, the consumer.
I will not be dictated to as to where I may view a DVD which I have bought in one country and wish to view in another.

Footnote: thankfully so far every Blu-Ray I've purchased online has been region-free.
It would be a shame if I was forced to turn to downloading HD content just because my big-Corp blu-Ray player won't play my big-Corp blu-Ray discs
The harder the big-corps push against the consumer, the harder the consumer will push back by turning to alternative suppliers.
As someone else said on this thread: big-Corp needs to make it EASIER for consumers to NOT turn to piracy

 

[Paul V Doherty]

Regarding the death of the music industry - it died because agents, producers and mega-labels began to condescend the consumer, to insult their general intelligence and to take them for granted.
I am of the opinion that almost NO music of artistic, cultural or lyrical worth has been produced by mega-labels since approximately 1988.
Some may differ as to the actual year of marked decline, but it most certainly coincided with the success of CDs in the 1980s
Big labels have only themselves to blame - a cursory study of top forty trends shows their contempt for the consumer by appealing to the lowest common denominator, bottom of the barrel teen market - the same market which engages in piracy en masse.
I will gladly pay $30 or more for well packaged and well produced intelligent music, but it's so rare thesedays

 

[lebroz]

this is old already many years

 

[dantewaters]

Well ok, but think about this. The mixtape. The generation old form of being social is now a federal crime. Technically.

Or maybe they would get me back into the theatre if the projector was actually infocus, and the seats didn't smell like urine....

Ouch...

 

[dantewaters]

Actually there is some misinformation here. For one, the Steam Engine is a very successful method of preventing piracy of PC games. It works. It is beginning to revive the PC gaming industry.

What does the steam engine do?

 

[Chamber005]

Regarding the death of the music industry - it died because agents, producers and mega-labels began to condescend the consumer, to insult their general intelligence and to take them for granted.
I am of the opinion that almost NO music of artistic, cultural or lyrical worth has been produced by mega-labels since approximately 1988.
Some may differ as to the actual year of marked decline, but it most certainly coincided with the success of CDs in the 1980s
Big labels have only themselves to blame - a cursory study of top forty trends shows their contempt for the consumer by appealing to the lowest common denominator, bottom of the barrel teen market - the same market which engages in piracy en masse.
I will gladly pay $30 or more for well packaged and well produced intelligent music, but it's so rare thesedays

You must listen to, like, zero hip-hop and rap then. I'm pretty sure TuPac, Eminem, WuTang, and a host of others all came about in the last two decades. Or anything from Alanis Morissette or Sarah Mclachlin, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, The Fray. There have been numerous valuable artists over the last two decades and those artists have been picked up by and distributed by major labels. How you can even compare the music of the 80s to the music of the 90s is dumbfounding to me. Until the 90s everyone in music was still trying to mimic someone else's style, and then came Grunge and Hip-Hop which essentially decided that no longer would people be pandering to a specific sound or movement but would instead speak honestly and without abandon.

Think about the most popular "rock" groups in the 80s. All of them sounded and looked identical (basically the Britney Spears and Jessica Simpsons of the 90s). You had a couple stand-outs like Journey, Madonna, Joan Jett, Guns and Roses, Cindy Lauper and a couple of singular song achievements like Howard Jones's "No one is to blame". but most of what was on the radio was Def Leppard and grotesque power ballad crapola, and the best hip-hop had to offer was friggin Run DMC and some inklings of Ice Cube and Dre.

Music is so much more advanced now because they can pander to so many, many, many different niche audiences. If you check your comcast music channel there's like 50 different music stations because music has become so diversed. Yet if you listen to an "oldies" station or a 70s or 80s station, you're getting the same thing again and again and again.

You know what will probably never exist? A 90s station that plays all 90s music regardless of genre (which is what they're doing when they play the best from the 60s, 70s, and 80s). Even on Q101 here in Chicago they can still play 90s music because it's still relevant to today's audience, same with WGCI for R&B and Hip-hop. In the 80s the average teenage listener was not listening to a plethora of music from the 60s (or, probably, the 70s for that matter), whereas now in 2010, you have music from 1990 still playing on mainstream, popular radio stations. I just heard a song from Bush on the drive home right after a song from Shinedown.

You might have some personal affection for pre-90s music, but it wasn't "better". It couldn't be, it didn't have all the necessary influences and a diversified, musically educated audience to pander to the way music does today. Of course the most popular stuff will be the most cookie-cutter and lame, but that's the way of all entertainment everywhere. Bland serves the masses. But don't be suprised if 10 years from now, shunted between the newest and most popular songs, they still stick in Pearl Jam's Black or Eminem's Stan because it'll probably still be relevant to their target audience's tastes.

 

[Ben_B]

What does the steam engine do?

It's basically iTunes (or rather pre-DRM removal iTunes) for video games. It is an online store where you buy games, and a launcher that they are tied to. Games are tied to your account so you have to authenticate to play them (which it can automatically do when started up.) Most of the games the login is tied to the online features...IE you can start your machine without a net connection and still play. Also, games you've bought can be deleted and redownloaded whenever you want...so no need for backups except of saves.

 

[Mike Harvey]

It's basically iTunes (or rather pre-DRM removal iTunes) for video games. It is an online store where you buy games, and a launcher that they are tied to. Games are tied to your account so you have to authenticate to play them (which it can automatically do when started up.) Most of the games the login is tied to the online features...IE you can start your machine without a net connection and still play. Also, games you've bought can be deleted and redownloaded whenever you want...so no need for backups except of saves.

And it's not just unheard of games, either. Steam started as a way for Valve to easily distribute and verify Half-Life 2. It's since grown to *A LOT* of games. The latest Civilization, Splinter Cell, and BF: Bad Company 2 are the latest available, along with a lot of classic Lucasarts games. And they just released a version for Mac as well.

http://store.steampowered.com/

 

[TwistedLincoln]

Actually there is some misinformation here. For one, the Steam Engine is a very successful method of preventing piracy of PC games. It works. It is beginning to revive the PC gaming industry.

Steam only serves to cripple your ability to install your LEGALLY purchased game without first asking permission to do so. That's insane, and is in no way an improvement over the other forms of DRM in use.

One should NEVER have to first ask for permission in any manner to use a product they've purchased. As far as I'm concerned, I already got my permission -- when I legally purchased the product.

I take real issue with whiny consumers who think they have some "right" to use other people's content created at other people's expense. in any particular way. Where does this idea come from? Sinec when are film studios public service agencies funded by tax dollars?

I have a right to use what I bought!

I'm tired of hearing about how I'm a terrible thief that takes money out of the pockets of the poor, hard working content creators just because I want the freedom to enjoy a product that I went out of my way to legally purchase.

The only thing copyright law should restrict is DISTRIBUTION, not use. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that you can't buy a single copy of a DVD and make 3,000 duplicates to sell or give away. But if I want to make 3,000 copies to keep in my basement to use as coasters, I should be able to, as long as I don't distribute them to anyone else.

DVds are clearly labeled - they say right on the box that you can't make a copy. Geez, get over it. Keep it in the case. This whining (of the public, I'm not blaming you guys) makes me think of spoiled children with a great sense of entitlement and a blatant victim mentality and no sense of responsibility.

Let me get this straight: I pay you for a copy of something you made. Then I make a copy of it in case it gets damaged, and you think I owe you more money, and I'm the one whining??? No one is asking content creators to provide free replacement copies. All anyone wants is the right to use what they paid for.

This goes against my moral core. You do not have the right to come in my house uninvited and drink my wine, because I paid for it.

And you don't have the right to come into my house and tell me how I can use a DVD I bought, because I paid for it.

 

[OldCorpse]

This is a stupid argument. That ship has sailed. The horse is out of the barn. Last year's snow is gone, gone, gone, and nothing is bringing it back. Instead of arguing over how people should not be able to copy content, the industry should figure out how to work in an environment where copying is a given. Because that's the reality: copying will happen no matter what. If your business model depends on people not copying, then you will fail, just as surely as if your business model depended on the continuing existence of last year's snow. The morality of the situation is irrelevant (and highly complex anyway) - only the reality of the situation matters. Remember, that our copyright laws are an artifact of a very specific historical situation. Once upon a time, private individual copying was not economically feasible. The average consumer did not own a printing press, or a record manufacturing plant. So the content producers were in a very privileged position due to the technology - they had novel means of mass production which were not available to consumers, and so were in a position of sitting on a chokehold, and so could charge a toll, and so they promoted laws which depended on that technological situation... nobody disputed those laws because the technological means to get around them didn't exist (in other words: morality had nothing to do with it - it was technology "it's because we CAN not because it's 'right or wrong'"). But that was a temporary situation. The technology changed. Today consumers have the ability to copy at will. And the laws which depended on the old technological situation, no longer can depend on technology for their existence. So you must find another way - there is no choice, and no going back, anymore than we are going to go back to the age of hand made papyrus scrolls or drawing on cave walls. That ship has sailed. It's gone. Over. Done with. Expired. Like in the dead parrot sketch by Monty Python: that bird is gone to its maker.

No amount of arguing for or against is going to bring back the old times with the old situation and old technology. They'll try, of course - note how content companies are forever trying to restrict technology - they've tried it with cassette players, with CDRs, with video tapes, with every single technology. And they'll lose - just as with this newest one... YOU CANNOT HOLD TECHNOLOGY BACK. You cannot un-invent. You cannot un-discover. You cannot restrict.

ADAPT - OR DIE.

My money is on adaptation. It is my belief that content creators are smart enough to adapt. Those who don't, will be gone - and say hello to Darwin

The argument should be: HOW. How do we as content creators monetize the internet a medium. How do we as content creators find a revenue stream in a world where digital copying is a fact of life, a fact just as prevalent as oxygen is. Way back when, in geological development, we had much less oxygen in the atmosphere - different bacteria and life forms exited. But then oxygen content exploded - and only some bacteria survived... no amount of arguing by the old un-adapted bacteria would assure their survival. Only acceptance and adaptation. You may rage, but you have to accept. I think it makes no sense to rage - it's not productive. Accept FACTS ON THE GROUND - and adapt or die.


Copying by consumers is here to stay. Find a way to survive in face of this immutable REALITY. Arguing against this reality is not a way to survive or adapt.

 

[Mike Harvey]

Steam only serves to cripple your ability to install your LEGALLY purchased game without first asking permission to do so. That's insane, and is in no way an improvement over the other forms of DRM in use.

One should NEVER have to first ask for permission in any manner to use a product they've purchased. As far as I'm concerned, I already got my permission -- when I legally purchased the product.

It is a term of the agreement of use. If you want to play a particular game bought via Steam, you have to have Steam installed. If you don't like it, don't buy the game.

I have a right to use what I bought!

Only so long as you play it according to the agreement under which you bought it.

I'm tired of hearing about how I'm a terrible thief that takes money out of the pockets of the poor, hard working content creators just because I want the freedom to enjoy a product that I went out of my way to legally purchase.

The only thing copyright law should restrict is DISTRIBUTION, not use. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that you can't buy a single copy of a DVD and make 3,000 duplicates to sell or give away. But if I want to make 3,000 copies to keep in my basement to use as coasters, I should be able to, as long as I don't distribute them to anyone else.

Let's be realistic here... what practical reason would someone have to make 3,000 copies of a DVD or game only to use them as coasters.

Let me get this straight: I pay you for a copy of something you made. Then I make a copy of it in case it gets damaged, and you think I owe you more money, and I'm the one whining??? No one is asking content creators to provide free replacement copies. All anyone wants is the right to use what they paid for.

If the content creators put several conditions on the purchase of their content, and one of those conditions is you can't make copies, and you know this but buy it anyways then complain you can't make copies... then yeah, it's whining.

And you don't have the right to come into my house and tell me how I can use a DVD I bought, because I paid for it.

He does if you have to agree to certain terms of use to buy that DVD, and you bought it anyways.

Let's make something clear, you are not entitled to use the content you buy any ways you want. To buy it, you must agree to certain terms. If you choose to buy it anyways, then you can't turn around and complain that you have the "right" to use it anyway you want when you waived those rights buy purchasing that content in the first place. Those terms may suck royally (and they often do), but those are the terms you knowingly bought it under never the less.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

It is a term of the agreement of use. If you want to play a particular game bought via Steam, you have to have Steam installed. If you don't like it, don't buy the game.

Well I don't. But my problem here is that when other people do, more companies decide that DRM is okay and marketable, and follow suit. Which means that there are fewer and fewer products that people like me who don't support DRM can buy.

Let's be realistic here... what practical reason would someone have to make 3,000 copies of a DVD or game only to use them as coasters.

Hyperbole to make a point, obviously. But the point is that no matter how silly my use might be, use should be unrestricted. And that's what I'm arguing here: how things SHOULD be. Clearly copyright law is foolishly worded in such a way that does allow Valve to sue me if I make 3,000 coasters. But that doesn't make it right.

If the content creators put several conditions on the purchase of their content, and one of those conditions is you can't make copies, and you know this but buy it anyways then complain you can't make copies... then yeah, it's whining.

He does if you have to agree to certain terms of use to buy that DVD, and you bought it anyways.

Let's make something clear, you are not entitled to use the content you buy any ways you want. To buy it, you must agree to certain terms. If you choose to buy it anyways, then you can't turn around and complain that you have the "right" to use it anyway you want when you waived those rights buy purchasing that content in the first place. Those terms may suck royally (and they often do), but those are the terms you knowingly bought it under never the less.

That's an entirely different issue. 99.995% of the time, people don't buy content from the content creators. They buy it from a retail or internet store. So the "terms of sale" you speak of are never passed along. How many times have you signed a document indicating you give up a certain usage rights when you buy a DVD or piece of software at Best Buy?

Product packaging almost never makes mention of these limitations, let alone technological restrictions like DRM. I've been burned before buying software that never mentioned Product Activation, even on the manufacturer's website. Then I'm stuck with something I can't use, because I can't return it after it has been opened.

Most DVD's have fine print along the lines of "Licensed for private, noncommercial viewing only." It might prohibit public performance, but rarely does it ever address duplication for backup (or coaster) purposes.

Even better, try buying a DVD online. Take Casino Royale at Amazon.com, one of the world's largest online retailers. Here's a link: (http://www.amazon.com/Casino-Royale-2-Disc-Widescreen-Daniel/dp/B000MNP2KI). I dare you to find any notice anywhere on that page regarding your inability to make backup copies, or any other usage restriction other than the RCE notice.

So let's not pretend that buying a product means you have been fully informed of its limitations and that paying your money means you consent to the limitations artificially imposed by the content creators.

Buying a DVD should be no different than buying a piece of furnature. If I buy a chair from Sears, they can't tell me who sits in it, for how long, or during what hours.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

What does the steam engine do?

steam allows you to purchase games and download them and use them on any computer with steam installed. You don't need a disc. Just the steam app installed on the computer, and you can have games installed on multiple computers... provided you are only playing on one at a time, of course... It ain't perfect, but I happen to think it's a good first step in a new direction.

 

[TwistedLincoln]

steam allows you to purchase games and download them and use them on any computer with steam installed. You don't need a disc. Just the steam app installed on the computer, and you can have games installed on multiple computers... provided you are only playing on one at a time, of course... It ain't perfect, but I happen to think it's a good first step in a new direction.

There is one HUGE thing you give up with Steam: the ability to install the game without the Steam service. While you can play the game locally once it is installed, without Steam there is no way to reinstall. So it's basically Prodcut Activation in exchange for the ability to download or play the game without needing the CD in the drive.

 

[adkimery]

This is a stupid argument. That ship has sailed. The horse is out of the barn. Last year's snow is gone, gone, gone, and nothing is bringing it back. Instead of arguing over how people should not be able to copy content, the industry should figure out how to work in an environment where copying is a given.

On one hand I agree but on the other hand I don't expect people to cast of highly successful business models at the drop of a hat to go venturing off into the untamed wilderness that is trying to monetize content on the internet.

Hyperbole to make a point, obviously. But the point is that no matter how silly my use might be, use should be unrestricted. And that's what I'm arguing here: how things SHOULD be. Clearly copyright law is foolishly worded in such a way that does allow Valve to sue me if I make 3,000 coasters. But that doesn't make it right.

Court precedent in the US allows for consumers to space and time shift their media for private use only which means making a back-up copy of a DVD or ripping a CD to put on your iPod is allowed under current copyright laws. It is the DMCA that makes breaking, by-passing, reverse engineering, etc. of DRM illegal. Unfortunately the courts in the US have so far sided w/the DMCA and allowed 20yrs of prior rulings to go up in smoke.

How many times have you signed a document indicating you give up a certain usage rights when you buy a DVD or piece of software at Best Buy?

You are looking at this backwards. The owner of the IP controls the rights to his/her property. The only rights others have to said property are those granted to them by the IP's owner. When you buy a DVD you aren't giving up any rights because you have no inherent rights to what's on the DVD in the first place.

Even better, try buying a DVD online. Take Casino Royale at Amazon.com, one of the world's largest online retailers. Here's a link: (http://www.amazon.com/Casino-Royale-2-Disc-Widescreen-Daniel/dp/B000MNP2KI). I dare you to find any notice anywhere on that page regarding your inability to make backup copies, or any other usage restriction other than the RCE notice.

Books for sale on Amazon don't have fine print related to plagiarism so I guess that means I can copy passages from them and pass them off as my own?


-Andrew

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Regarding the death of the music industry - it died because agents, producers and mega-labels began to condescend the consumer, to insult their general intelligence and to take them for granted.
I am of the opinion that almost NO music of artistic, cultural or lyrical worth has been produced by mega-labels since approximately 1988.
Some may differ as to the actual year of marked decline, but it most certainly coincided with the success of CDs in the 1980s
Big labels have only themselves to blame - a cursory study of top forty trends shows their contempt for the consumer by appealing to the lowest common denominator, bottom of the barrel teen market - the same market which engages in piracy en masse.
I will gladly pay $30 or more for well packaged and well produced intelligent music, but it's so rare thesedays

This is complete crap. Sounds like you only like 60s music, or some other kind that makes you feel "superior" to the average person or to younger people. That's your problem.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Steam only serves to cripple your ability to install your LEGALLY purchased game without first asking permission to do so. That's insane, and is in no way an improvement over the other forms of DRM in use.

One should NEVER have to first ask for permission in any manner to use a product they've purchased. As far as I'm concerned, I already got my permission -- when I legally purchased the product.




I have a right to use what I bought!

I'm tired of hearing about how I'm a terrible thief that takes money out of the pockets of the poor, hard working content creators just because I want the freedom to enjoy a product that I went out of my way to legally purchase.

The only thing copyright law should restrict is DISTRIBUTION, not use. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that you can't buy a single copy of a DVD and make 3,000 duplicates to sell or give away. But if I want to make 3,000 copies to keep in my basement to use as coasters, I should be able to, as long as I don't distribute them to anyone else.




Let me get this straight: I pay you for a copy of something you made. Then I make a copy of it in case it gets damaged, and you think I owe you more money, and I'm the one whining??? No one is asking content creators to provide free replacement copies. All anyone wants is the right to use what they paid for.



And you don't have the right to come into my house and tell me how I can use a DVD I bought, because I paid for it.

Hmmm. next time you mortgage your house to produce content, I wonder if you'll feel god about people giving away lots of free copies of your content, robbing you of legitimate customers. Do you create content that you expect to make a living from? My guess is no, you don't.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

"You might have some personal affection for pre-90s music, but it wasn't "better". It couldn't be, it didn't have all the necessary influences and a diversified, musically educated audience to pander to the way music does today."

Sorry, I almost fell off my chair laughing.
You seem to believe that music can only ever progress forwards in a glorious upwards path of increasing complexity commensurate with the also glorious upwards complexity of the audience.
You will be disappointed to learn that nothing could be further from the truth.
The consumer is dumber and more ignorant now than ever before.
Darwinian evolution unfortunately does not apply to general levels of musical, artistic and intellectual awareness in the consuming public.
There is very little credence in citing examples of quality musicianship from individuals and groups (they are unworthy of being called "artists" and "bands") who extol the virtues of "pimping", "bitches", "ho's" and who threaten to "bust a cap in yo ass", indeed comparing such drivel and the simplistic loop-driven piffle which passes for "music" to actual intellectual artists who wax lyrical at a level worthy of Ovid and Abelard is as ludicrous as comparing Stephen Hawking to the local spelling bee champion.

 

[daveswan]

Hear, Hear!
Dave