Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 19, 2017, 05:29:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  News  |  Topic: Does it come down to trust? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Does it come down to trust?  (Read 67853 times)
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5679


Reply #175 on: May 14, 2008, 04:15:06 AM

Copyright and Patents (especially software patents) have come to a point where they actually hurt innovation instead of protecting it.

This has nothing at all to do with Computer games, but I think that is the tangent Haemish goes for.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 37724

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #176 on: May 14, 2008, 01:06:22 PM

Tri, you can make this all "Age of Aquarius" if you want to, but the simple truth is the original constitutional justification for copyright was not meant to benefit corporations who make empires on work-for-hire creations. They wanted the CREATORS to reap any benefits, not some far-removed jackhole with an MBA. Frankly, the thought of my children being able to indefniitely extend copyrights on my works (whether they be novels or computer games or whatever) pisses me off. Let the little fuckers write their own goddamn novels.

For examples, see what Warner did to Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Or what Marvel Comics did to Jack Kirby in the '80's, all because of copyright. That's flat wrong.

As for computer games, copyright is a little trickier than say novels because they are a colloborative medium. But Electronics Arts dogpiling on some guy for downloading a single copy of Mass Effect does nothing for the industry.

Krakrok
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2145


WWW
Reply #177 on: May 16, 2008, 01:11:18 PM


Just to total eviscerate the idea that it's all about the money I'll link in an article by Orson Scott Card where he calls JK Rowling out as a hypocrite.

Quote
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.

It makes her insane. The money wasn't enough. She wants to be treated with respect.

At the same time, she's also surrounded by people whose primary function is to suck up to her. No doubt some of them were saying to her, "It's wrong for these other people to be exploiting what you created to make money for themselves."

Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3816


Reply #178 on: May 16, 2008, 04:04:07 PM


Just to total eviscerate the idea that it's all about the money I'll link in an article by Orson Scott Card where he calls JK Rowling out as a hypocrite.

Quote
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.

It makes her insane. The money wasn't enough. She wants to be treated with respect.

At the same time, she's also surrounded by people whose primary function is to suck up to her. No doubt some of them were saying to her, "It's wrong for these other people to be exploiting what you created to make money for themselves."

J.K. Rowling's IP is current. According to her side, the guys publishing the "Encyclopedia" or whatever are just cutting and pasting her novels into entry form and trying to re-sell them.

And Orson Scott Card is just some obscure sci-fi author homophobe who's jealous of her success.  roflcopter



 "What I'm saying is you should make friends with a few catasses, they smell funny but they're very helpful."
-Calantus makes the best of a smelly situation.
cmlancas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2503


Reply #179 on: May 31, 2008, 05:01:23 PM

I think some merit exists that Rowling cribbed and "shot her wad" so to speak.

Not many university classes study Rowling. Lewis and Tolkien? Check.


f13 Street Cred of the week:
I can't promise anything other than trauma and tragedy. -- schild
Salvator
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9


WWW
Reply #180 on: June 05, 2008, 12:03:17 AM

I think some merit exists that Rowling cribbed and "shot her wad" so to speak.

Not many university classes study Rowling. Lewis and Tolkien? Check.



Lord of the Rings and Narnia didn't receive that much attention until years after their publishing date.

Besides, if we are going to say that Rowling was sort of a hack, I heard the writers of the Bible are suing C.S. Lewis's estate for plagiarism...
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17201


Reply #181 on: June 05, 2008, 08:56:51 AM

Besides, if we are going to say that Rowling was sort of a hack, I heard the writers of the Bible are suing C.S. Lewis's estate for plagiarism...

Tolkien also borrowed a significant amount of style from Dickens as well... but that's the way art goes.  It's common to draw inspiration from the greats that have gone before you. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Velorath
Contributor
Posts: 7797


Reply #182 on: June 07, 2008, 05:04:07 AM

UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #183 on: August 20, 2008, 12:09:49 AM

Reviving the topic of Sysiphus because I learned something.

I still want to know when we're going to do something about those damned libraries.

Libraries in a number of countries (Australia, the EU has a directive to do so for members) do pay royalties back to the original authors (or copyright holders). They do this in a number of ways, but the number of times a book is taken out and an estimation on how often it is photocopied is used.

Also, given that a library system might buy 200 books (or 'copyright licenses') from an author, even if the book is then provided for free to the public, the author / copyright holder is still getting cash for their titles. If a book gets damaged / lost, they may buy additional copies to replace them.

So there you go. If a pirate (or better yet, government sponsored lending system) wants to buy 1000 copies of a game then lend out the games for free (but only 1000 copies, so that they can't exceed the number of copies they'd bought) more power to them. Even better - pay the developer some royalties for every time they rent a copy. But piracy, as it currently stands, is a long way from being a library.

Sorry, it was just bothering me that libraries looked like hard copy piracy rings from a certain angle and I heard some information that helped ... well, maintain my existing view.  awesome, for real

Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #184 on: August 20, 2008, 02:04:55 PM

So if I buy one copy of a game and lend it out to someone else that's perfectly okay?  Awesome, although the game companies don't seem to share your view, and the DMCA backs them up insofar as disagreeing with them requires you to circumvent their install-once safeguards, which then makes you a criminal.

Further, if I can buy one copy of a game, and I can make backup copies for my own use (this is supposed to be allowed under current copyright law, but again, the DMCA sometimes  disagrees), logically I should be able to lend out one of my backup copies to a friend (or my original, retaining my backup; it makes no difference) and temporarily transfer use of that game to him, provided that I don't play it at the same time he does.  Correct?

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #185 on: August 20, 2008, 08:57:48 PM

No. You are breaking copyright if you fully photocopy a book without authorisation and then lend it out to people.

That's if we want to make video games = books when it comes to copyright.

Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 20402


Reply #186 on: August 20, 2008, 09:55:19 PM

Further, if I can buy one copy of a game, and I can make backup copies for my own use (this is supposed to be allowed under current copyright law, but again, the DMCA sometimes  disagrees), logically I should be able to lend out one of my backup copies to a friend (or my original, retaining my backup; it makes no difference) and temporarily transfer use of that game to him, provided that I don't play it at the same time he does.  Correct?
If you give him the originals and wipe the game from your machine that would be okay. If you don't wipe the game but don't play it that's more iffy (some licenses specifically allow for that but those are rare). If you give him your backup copy instead of the original that's considered "distribution" so that's not legal unless the license specifically allows it.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #187 on: August 20, 2008, 10:27:20 PM

No. You are breaking copyright if you fully photocopy a book without authorisation and then lend it out to people.

That's if we want to make video games = books when it comes to copyright.

And yet there are photocopy machines in libraries.  And (at least in the US) there's no sort of monitoring to prevent someone from photocopying a book in its entirety and bringing it home.

So why is one both culturally acceptable and never prosecuted (even if it's technically illegal) and the other EVIL INTARWEB THIEVERY that huge amounts of money must be spent to combat?

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 20402


Reply #188 on: August 20, 2008, 10:38:03 PM

No. You are breaking copyright if you fully photocopy a book without authorisation and then lend it out to people.

That's if we want to make video games = books when it comes to copyright.

And yet there are photocopy machines in libraries.  And (at least in the US) there's no sort of monitoring to prevent someone from photocopying a book in its entirety and bringing it home.

So why is one both culturally acceptable and never prosecuted (even if it's technically illegal) and the other EVIL INTARWEB THIEVERY that huge amounts of money must be spent to combat?
Cause book publishers don't have an umbrella organization like the ASCAP/RIAA and MPAA to go after evildoers.
Tebonas
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5679


Reply #189 on: August 21, 2008, 02:32:06 AM

Because copying books isn't convenient. The price and time to copy a whole book is worth almost as much as the original, and it is not as good to read.

Whereas digital distributed media doesn't lose usability when copied. E-Books should have the same problem, but not good old treeguts.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #190 on: August 21, 2008, 01:29:39 PM

When the photocopier became common technology, publishers predicted that their industry would die a horrible death and that nobody would bother writing books any more because there wouldn't be any money in it.  Quick, someone warn J. K. Rowling!

Ditto for the VCR; the MPAA was sure at one point that once people could reproduce movies at will, bootlegs would shut down all the theaters and movie studios.  Lawsuits were filed attempting to shut down production of the evil machines before they could reach homes.  That sort of settled down once they realized they were making more money off home video sales than they were making at the box office.

Now, it's quite possible that the sky really is falling this time.  Stopped clocks and all that.  But this sort of kerfuffle is nothing new, and by now everyone's accepted photocopiers in libraries and VCRs in homes as not being worth worrying about.

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #191 on: August 21, 2008, 08:52:28 PM

Photocopying a book isn't convenient. Plus, the libraries I used to go to had notices about what was fair to photocopy.

Taping a movie isn't convenient because you still need to shift the physical copies. This did become easier with CDs because CDs are more convenient things to move around and cheaper to produce.

Online piracy has the big advantage of being convenient. You only need one original copy to create an infinite number of pirated copies that anyone can download in their home. The fact that every interest group spins the data to suit their own beliefs doesn't help clear things up, either.

I don't agree with a lot of anti-piracy tactics. But I do think that piracy is a big problem. Ideally we'd be paying smaller royalites on titles we play, or buying them directly from the developer, but boxes on shelves is still the dominant distribution model for gaming.

Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #192 on: August 21, 2008, 09:19:02 PM

Photocopying a book isn't convenient. Plus, the libraries I used to go to had notices about what was fair to photocopy.

Using a photocopier was way more convenient than writing it out by hand or using a Gutenberg press or whatever people did before they had photocopiers.  And copying a file is way more convenient than using a photocopier.  Maybe ten years from now we'll have eidetic memory implants and all the content industries will be freaking out about the fact that we can watch/read/play something once at a friend's house and have our own "copy" without even having to click a mouse.

The sky wasn't falling back then, and I don't think it's falling now.  The fact that your library has posted notices about what's fair to photocopy sort of underscores that it's not that big a deal, IMO.  Yes, it's wrong to photocopy a book in its entirety in lieu of buying it -- but you know what?  The book sales you might lose to stuff like that aren't worth hiring some guy to loom over the Xerox machine and count the number of pages you run off so he can fine you if it's more than some arbitrary number.  At some point you just have to decide that it's better to let a few jackasses go free than to make the rest of the world suffer.

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #193 on: August 22, 2008, 01:14:18 AM

I agree when it comes to physical copies and I agree, the whole "sky is falling" thing has happened in the past.

However, digital piracy is different. Previously copies of copies used to degrade to some extent, but online a copy of a copy is often just as good as the original. It's quick. It's easy. And it is becoming increasingly accepted as a method of obtaining material you want.

When I used to pirate, I had to at least have a couple of disks with me and find a guy who I could get the copy from. Now I just have to search online and google up any title I want. It's that convenience that is the difference this time. As bandwidth speed increases, the easier it becomes to download pretty much anything. At one point I would have gagged if someone told me to download a 4 GB file. Now I can do it in a few hours and without any problems.

It comes back to the point I think that the copyright holders should receive something for work and that if you don't want to pay for it, you don't have the right to pirate it either.

Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #194 on: August 22, 2008, 01:18:53 AM

It comes back to the point I think that the copyright holders should receive something for work and that if you don't want to pay for it, you don't have the right to pirate it either.

Yes, but this is true with other types of material as well, and being more or less convenient doesn't make it more or less wrong.  And again, there is a photocopy machine right in the library, and the only thing preventing you from abusing it is a posted notice asking you nicely not to.

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5907


Reply #195 on: August 22, 2008, 07:33:16 AM

Imo, the most important thing about the convenience aspect is that it's become easier and more convenient to pirate content than it is to actually purchase it. That's the single biggest step in on-line and digital piracy. However I think the response to that should be to step up and try to make legally purchasing and getting hold of movies and music at least as convenient. Yes you've got to worry about whether those copies are then going to become widely available and this is precisely why the content industries have been dragging their feet and fighting the process itself. Because it introduces new risks and to some extent is going to result in less control over how the product is distributed once it's been purchased. However this is happening regardless of what the industry does, refusing to set up on-line distribution didn't stop sites like the Pirates Bay or programmes like Kazaa.

I'm not arguing here that there's nothing wrong with piracy rather that I think the industry has decided that rather than attempt to deal with a new method of content distribution they've focused in solely on the bad aspects and then tried to crush it. I'm not arguing totally ignore on-line piracy but I'd be fairly confident that if the major film and music companies followed Apple's lead and created ways people can conveniently purchase reliable quality copies of the product for a reasonable price that would probably have a greater impact on internet piracy than any number of court cases. Frankly I don't think piracy would have become quite so generally widespread so quickly if things like iStore had been started years ago. People aren't habitually criminals, they are typically lazy and, to an extent, cheap. Piracy only becomes particularly desirable when it is significantly easier than doing things legally or doing things legally is seen as very overpriced.

This of course wouldn't stop hard-core pirates or people who try to crack games. That's because these tend not to be your average consumer, they pirate products because they hate the content industry or they get a kick out of cracking a game. They aren't a large group of potential consumers and many consumers would rather pay a fee to be guaranteed decent quality if it's also as convenient.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #196 on: August 22, 2008, 09:53:39 AM

I agree with what NowhereMan said.  And I think part of why the content industries are freaking out and having the "OMG PIRACY" reaction instead of trying to fix their distribution systems to be competitive is that they sense that they (at least the publishing/distribution/marketing arms, which is what entities like the RIAA tend to represent the most) might soon be entirely obsolete.

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #197 on: August 23, 2008, 09:41:18 AM

I agree that a number of copyright holders haven't behaved particularly well regarding online distribution. However, I think the biggest issue is that they are competing with a distribution system that is free. That's really hard to compete with using a payment model of some kind.

I've got friends who love music, but argue that even paying $1 for a song is too much when they can get it free online or off a friend. How do you compete with that kind of mentality, where everyone shares what they have to the detriment of the copyright holder? Paypal accounts on every official band web page?

Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #198 on: August 24, 2008, 02:13:51 AM

Make it easier to purchase than it is to find it for free, make your product better than the free thing (the product you're selling is not just the content itself but its delivery mechanism), and pass the savings you're getting from online distribution on to the consumer, or at the very least make sure that the online version doesn't have any special drawbacks.  Don't have DRM that'll make your purchased content more difficult to use than pirated content.  Once a customer has purchased something, remember it and allow repeated downloads so that they don't have to keep their own backups of your content or fall back to getting a pirated copy to replace the one they paid for and lost in a hard drive crash.

It's not just that P2P networks are free.  It's that in many cases they do the job better, and are also free.  If you have a multibillion dollar business built around marketing and delivering content to consumers, and you can't do it better than a bunch of Internet hobbyists, maybe you should take a good hard look at how you're doing business.

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
stu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1891


Reply #199 on: August 24, 2008, 12:43:07 PM

I didn't see thiss anywhere else here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=220176

Quote
EA Sports boss Peter Moore has said he doesn't support the move to sue consumers for illegal downloading - warning, "It didn't work for the music industry."

Moore was speaking to Eurogamer at the Leipzig Games Convention, following the announcement that five games companies are taking legal action against 25,000 file-sharing internet users.

"I'm not a huge fan of trying to punish your consumer," he said. "Albeit these people have clearly stolen intellectual property, I think there are better ways of resolving this within our power as developers and publishers.

"Yes, we've got to find solutions," Moore continued. "We absolutely should crack down on piracy. People put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into their content and deserve to get paid for it. It's absolutely wrong, it is stealing.

"But at the same time I think there are better solutions than chasing people for money. I'm not sure what they are, other than to build game experiences that make it more difficult for there to be any value in pirating games."

According to Moore, there are lessons to be learned from the experiences of other industries. "If we learned anything from the music business, they just don't win any friends by suing their consumers," he observed. "Speaking personally, I think our industry does not want to fall foul of what happened with music."

When asked whether EA has any plans to go down the same road as Atari, Codemasters and the other publishers launching the legal action, Moore replied, "Not as far as I'm aware. Regarding what EA needs to do - I can't comment on that. EA takes piracy very seriously, and people deserve to get paid for content they create.

"But as far as I'm aware, we have no plans, that I know of, to partner with Atari and Codemasters and chase down consumers," he added.

So, Mr. Moore has no idea how to go about solving his company's problem. At least he is trying to think outside the box.

Dear Diary,
Jackpot!
naum
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4216


WWW
Reply #200 on: August 24, 2008, 12:50:58 PM

Make it easier to purchase than it is to find it for free, make your product better than the free thing (the product you're selling is not just the content itself but its delivery mechanism), and pass the savings you're getting from online distribution on to the consumer, or at the very least make sure that the online version doesn't have any special drawbacks.  Don't have DRM that'll make your purchased content more difficult to use than pirated content.  Once a customer has purchased something, remember it and allow repeated downloads so that they don't have to keep their own backups of your content or fall back to getting a pirated copy to replace the one they paid for and lost in a hard drive crash.

You nailed it. Make it EASY to FIND and PURCHASE.

I loathe DRM but in the aggregate, customers don't really care about DRM or "free as in speech, not in beer", they just want things to work with a minimum of effort — "Don't Make Me Think!"… …and they get angry when DRM blocks you from using something you purchased money for…

Seamless one click purchase with painless install & upgrades means only a small, infinitesimal fraction will explore free alternatives…

"There must not be a God because a demon hand didn't burst out of the ground, reach into Jindal's anus, and pull him inside out before dragging him into the shit-filled sodomy pits of Hades." If you read that and thought, "Well, this is a reasonable person who should be treated with respect," then perhaps it is your anus that needs a hellclawing. ~The Rude Pundit
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #201 on: August 24, 2008, 01:04:21 PM

I loathe DRM but in the aggregate, customers don't really care about DRM or "free as in speech, not in beer", they just want things to work with a minimum of effort — "Don't Make Me Think!"… …and they get angry when DRM blocks you from using something you purchased money for…

I feel like I should hate DRM on ideological grounds, but I find that practically speaking I only hate it when it gets in my way. 

The iTunes store, for example, I don't like because I can't play their freaky-deaky content on non-Apple software/hardware (unless I pay an extra 60% premium for the non-DRM high quality version), and I need to keep my own backups of whatever I download from them because they can't be bothered to record my purchases and let me re-download them.  Also, I have to burn the music to disc before I can play it in the car, which is where I do most of my music listening; this isn't the DRM's fault, but it means that I get less value for my money if I buy from the iTunes store compared with buying a CD (which I can then very easily rip into iTunes or any other MP3 player at any quality I like with no DRM).  The only plus of the store is having everything pre-tagged, but free solutions are catching up in that regard.

Steam I like because it's never once stopped me from playing a game I paid for, and installing/re-installing via Steam is much more pleasant than using discs, so I feel like I actually get more value for my money (and Steam-purchased games tend to be a little cheaper to boot).  The fact that when I built my last computer I could get most of my games installed just by installing Steam and letting everything download overnight as opposed to swapping about 30 CDs for the same period of time was a big win.  There's also added value in the form of the in-game chat, "Join this Game" friend features, etc., so it's not like having Steam itself installed is any sort of burden.  Oh, and unlike iTunes it doesn't persistently try to bring its friends along for the ride.

Limited-install bullshit, adding new system drivers that can't be removed and may cause instability, disc checks, et cetera, can all bite me.

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5907


Reply #202 on: August 24, 2008, 08:08:15 PM

Fake edit: Wrote a post and realised it was a mini-essay when I finished.
The main points were: 3 factors that affect how people acquire files: 1)Financial cost 2)Time cost 3)Quality of product.

Financial can't be won and for a subset of people it's the only important one. Generally people who've got lots of time and little money or who hate the "big bad industry". They can't be persuaded to do things legally and frankly I'd say most of them aren't really lost sales simply because they either wouldn't have been able to afford much anyway or would refuse to buy much.

Time really I guess means convenience or the amount of effort needed. At the moment P2P programmes and BitTorrent make pirating a winner here too. Having to physically go out and track down the CD I want or wait 3-4 days for delivery all make pirating it more attractive. I think this is something the industry, if it actually tries could win out on simply because there's the potential to create a small number of very comprehensive services. If people know one place they're going to be guaranteed to find what they want they'll probably head straight there. Apple Store is a great examle.
 
Quality is a bit more nebulous but also something I'm not sure much attention gets paid to. I don't just mean screen resolution or bit rate by this, that's a factor certainly though. It also includes things like reliability, if half the movies I download from a bittorrent site turn out to be in Spanish it's a pain in the ass. If I can't be sure that they're not shitty, grainy, filmed in the cinema things I'm going to be less inclined to head there to download them. The industry got its head round this and the RIAA and others have been uploading bad copies of files for ages. However quality also includes things like my capacity to use the file, something heavy DRM seriously affects. Basically I think the industry with DRM is actually fucking the one advantage it naturally has over pirates in terms of attracting people. The level of impact of DRM is variable depending on what it does but quality is something that is reflective of all products. Generally consumers don't research each individual product (games are a bit different because of the fan following element) and if I buy a CD that breaks my PC or I can't play much like downloading a copy of Dark Knight that turns out to be Batman and Robin Returns in Spanish, it's going to affect how generally willing I am to obtain stuff from the same place again.

I guess the point being, the traditional industry approach has been to stop piracy which is a different one from minimising its effects. In fact in trying to stop piracy (which I don't think is possible) its actually increasing the effects that it has by decreasing the quality of products for consumers. Trust is part of it simply because not trusting the consumer results in limiting what he can do with his product. It isn't that this is a lack of respect (it is but I don't think that's the major factor) rather its that it makes the product itself less desirable. While it can't beat the Cost factor of piracy if they could make legally purchased products win on Time and Quality lots of people who would otherwise have pirated stuff will get it legally because its easier and more reliable. Piracy would still exist but hopefully the number of actual lost sales would be minimised.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
snowwy
Terracotta Army
Posts: 175


Reply #203 on: April 12, 2009, 10:44:21 PM

As far as the music-industry goes ,the only thing they seem interested in is keeping that cashflow filling up their boardrooms. They use a business-model made about the same time the Roman empire reigned, and flat out refuse to make ANY kind of easy-to-use-not-costing-a-metric-fuckton kind of platform. Know why piracy of music is oh so easy to do? Because most people these days store their music on their laptops/PC and use them as their media platform.  So besides iTunes may be total crap for all know, allergic to Apple(s)), name a few good, solid web-based sites that offer service in the way Steam does with games. (you may disagree with that though  awesome, for real )
Anyways, doesn't seem to me like modern day artists are short on cash  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?
 Better hurry and get that new Bentley Mr Executive, your days are numbered......riiiiiight
Hindenburg
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1854

Itto


Reply #204 on: April 13, 2009, 09:18:41 AM

Any particular reason why you decided to necro this?

"Who uses Outlook anyway?  People who get what they deserve, that's who." - Ard.
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 16605

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #205 on: April 13, 2009, 10:34:03 AM

Probably the usual reason.  Gold-farm spam in 3... 2...

"Nice attempted blast about my "drinking".  I do enjoy a nice cuppa, but that is because I am a bon vivant of gregarious nature and cheery disposition." - Ab
UKLN8860
Guest


Email
Reply #206 on: November 20, 2009, 10:39:23 AM

 this guy looks legit
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 14145

I am the harbinger of your doom!


Reply #207 on: November 20, 2009, 10:40:56 AM


-Rasix
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6937


Reply #208 on: November 20, 2009, 10:50:29 AM

Nothing like necroing a post with good ole pedobear for your first post ever.  I like him.

Never, ever assume someone that short and fat has their shit together. - Schild
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 29153

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #209 on: November 20, 2009, 10:56:07 AM

This guy seems legit.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  News  |  Topic: Does it come down to trust?  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC