231–240 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The principled thing to do about software you consider spyware is to not use it. Not paying for a paid product you use daily and continuously derive value from is hard to justify in my view.
You're forced to use Windows due to multiple reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My ex-girlfriend (Estonian) will not buy software because to her it's not "worth money". So, similar mentality. I ended up buying all her software (Office, photoshop etc;) but she said it was a waste of money.
My ex is Bulgarian. She makes over €150k+, and she outright refuses to buy any software, even an app for €0,99. Also, she's rather wait for ads instead of pay the €0,99.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Used to pirate a lot as a poor kid in eastern europe, as there was no way I could either afford it, find a legal copy or both. Now as a paid developer I always buy the software / games I use, as its much less of a hustle, and I’d like to support the people whose work I’m using. But I still have some friends that never buy anything digital, after being brought up on pirated software they would describe buying it as “n…
As a poor kid in eastern europe i couldn't afford a car. I would steal one as people would have it covered by insurance and the factory makes thousands of copies each month anyway. I know a lot of people who still have such sensitivities, they have money and houses and still steal cars just because that's how the grew up. See, that logic of theft, be it software or hardware, doesn't really make sense. Stealing softwa…
>Stealing software is just as bad.
Stealing software the same way people steal physical would require the thief to delete all copies of the codebase. This happens through ransomware, not piracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see this as defending myself from an attack but as debating the logical basis of an ethical position that strikes me a purely emotional. In my initial comment I already pointed out trying to pick cheap textbooks. But people wanted to go after the easier target of expensive textbooks, so fine. The more people pirate textbooks the more publishers will pivot to a business model where they can make money. Such as…
> In my initial comment I already pointed out trying to pick cheap textbooks. But people wanted to go after the easier target of expensive textbooks, so fine. Expensive textbooks are not the easier target, they are the only target. What people find issue with are certain predatory practices by a minority of bad actors. I think it's great that you make an effort to pick more affordable textbooks, and I hope that your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that when you copy something you don't steal an existing copy. If the person were not going to buy something because they couldn't afford it, they're not a lost sale. This means there's no monetary loss for the company selling the software, it might even be beneificial as free marketing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
Sure. Worth mentioning cars are also insured, so there is no loss for the owner as they get a "refund". That means there is monetary loss for them. The car maker is also happy to sell them a new car. The only people losing are those in between. Just like with software. You know, those people also work for money.
The owner of the copyright infringed car would just download his copy of the car again from the manufacturer. Why would insurance be involved?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dunno if you realized this, but once online-only games become unprofitable, the servers are down for good and the games become useless. If all games up to this point were like this, we wouldn't be able to play childhood games anymore. Gog.com wouldn't exist without all developers going back to patch their online only games etc.
That’s another drawback. And it’s one I’d rather have than stutter too (of course I’d rather have neither but let’s assume that’s not on the table). Games these days are often not even ready until a year or so after release meaning if you don’t trust the patch distribution to continue for a long time one shouldn’t even buy the games. An online requirement is pretty easy to patch out after a while. Obviously you trust…
I know I might be in the minority, but I just wish we could stop at semi-difficult license keys. When I was poor in college, either I would pirate a game or just not play it because there was just no way I could ever afford it. Now as a grown up I'd much rather pay for the game both to support the creator as well as not roll the dice on a backdoored keygen. I HAVE to believe that the number of folks that can both aff…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s another drawback. And it’s one I’d rather have than stutter too (of course I’d rather have neither but let’s assume that’s not on the table). Games these days are often not even ready until a year or so after release meaning if you don’t trust the patch distribution to continue for a long time one shouldn’t even buy the games. An online requirement is pretty easy to patch out after a while. Obviously you trust…
Man that's a bleak view of games if you're ok with them being relevant for a couple of years so you can get brief entertainment. Might as well train an AI to constantly spew images and sounds that you like at you and call it a day.
This is typical. DRM doesn't deter or hurt pirates, and according to the EU[1] piracy doesn't hurt sales either, all that DRM does is to create support problems and hurt legitimate paying customers. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-22-eu-suppressed-study-pira... FIX: disambiguate 'it'
The typical story of DRM is that roughly the first month of launch, where the DRM still isn't cracked, is responsible for a lot of sales. It's where people who _would_ pirate but also want the game _now_ because of the hype. Those people become sales because of DRM. Where not having DRM would have lost the sale to piracy. The nice part of this story for DRM vendors is that it works even if DRM is eventually cracked.…
There was also a great study on the impact to piracy by Netflix which showed a huge decrease in piracy of DVDs when the cost to view them was reduced to something people were willing to pay.
The economics have been demonstrated many many times that the market segments into what people are willing to pay for a product, and if your retail price is higher than the bulk of the market's willingness to pay, then you get either piracy (copies which generate no revenue) of if you could have perfect DRM, no revenue. The only difference between the two scenarios is how many copies are in circulation, not the amount of revenue that was made on selling the product.
The non-intuitive result is the for creative works (books, movies, video games) having more copies in circulation enhances revenue because subjective reviews heavily influence buying decisions in the market. This was starkly demonstrated in the London publisher's conference where publishers have all experienced that highly pirated books are more likely to be best sellers than non-pirated books. That works because more people who actually buy the book will have a better chance of having heard something positive about it before they buy it.
The markets have been dealing with DRM and non-DRM digital products for over 30 years now, there is a LOT of data that shows two things; DRM causes more problems for legitimate users than prevent piracy, and piracy has zero impact on the total revenue received from the digital products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i can’t play a game on my steam account while my son plays another game on it.
There is a solution for that: family sharing. Make him his own account, activate it as family on yours, and the only limitation will be that you can’t play the same game at the same time.