Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 112

Thread: DRM Moves Ahead With HTML5 Specification

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4

    Default This new doesn't explains the technical concept!

    I really don't like that news. I love Phoronix and read it every day. But I really disagree how Michael you provided this information:

    1) Your opinion is given and not argumented. You state that internet won't exists without DRM, but it has for a long time now (with some exceptions)
    "There's not going to be an Internet without DRM, so while the Free Software Foundation and others may be against EME, it's at least a standardization on HTML5 rather than all the different DRM protection schemes in Flash, Silverlight, browser plug-ins, etc. "
    2) You don't explain the technical concept behind that "standardization" so readers have to trust you but can't make their own opinion without reading technical documentation outside your news. So you provide little added value and doesn't gives the intellectual keys to thing about it. The fact is that with the current proposal, CDM's will always be arbitrary hidden and private code, connected to the EME API. So in substance:
    - CDM's will have the same problems than current solutions : they will be compatible with operating systems only in function of the developpeur knowledge/will (or his employer one of course). So if that "standard" is accepted, probably that more content on the web won't be accessible to Linux and exotic/minor hardwares and softwares.
    - CDM's will need to be downloaded and installed before viewing the website that use it (the code is external to the browser so, can we trust it? Probably that browsers will display a popup saying : this website need an external plugin to show its content. Do you want to install it? yes/no). So, more popups in our life and more unknown code to be installed from the web!

    In my opinion, it's not something that will make the web better but worse!

    I want to add that the main problem of the current press (except some of course, included Phoronix, most of the time) : is that they only relay the information without any more deeper analysis that helps reader to understand and make their opinion by themselves. I hope phoronix will keep their readers informed and enlightened by the news.

    I suspect that the word "standard" makes automagically happy a lot of Linux' enthousiasts but it can be a trap, like the word "open-source" and others.

    Nicolas

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No, I don't accept that. If you publish something, put something available, then it's free game, people are free to share whatever content is available to them. Sharing is good. You don't get to put something online, then tell people "you're not allowed to distribute this" because that's not how it works. People will share things, if you don't want sharing, you shouldn't make your work public, period.
    And this kind of thinking is the very reason content producers are making all they can to NOT release sharable content.

    That's pretty much as useful a mindset as anarchy or communism: it's a lovely idea, and it's completely counterproductive.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    And this kind of thinking is the very reason content producers are making all they can to NOT release sharable content.

    That's pretty much as useful a mindset as anarchy or communism: it's a lovely idea, and it's completely counterproductive.
    No it's not. It's simple: sharing is good. We teach it to our children all the time. We create these huge life lessons to our children about how they should share their toys with their friends, we read childrens books to them where the lesson is that sharing is good... and then they grow up a bit and they see something they like online, and they're like "hey, I should share this with my friend, she'll love it". And bam, your child is a criminal.

    So what we're actually trying to do is put our money where our mouth is, do more than just give lip service about sharing, practice what we preach. If we teach our kids that sharing is good, surely we should lead by example? Surely we should also implement in the real world laws and infrastructures that allow sharing?

    And there's nothing counterproductive about that. Some content producers do all they can to fight the idea of sharing... so what? We don't have to pander to them. They have to pander to US, because we are the ones where their money comes from. The onus is on THEM to develop their service to be so good that people will find it easier, more convenient, to buy from them than pirate their content through torrent. Or alternatively, build their business model around sharing, so that it doesn't matter if people share their content - or better yet, take advantage of that sharing network, use that distribution network for free, get free hype, monetize later (or before, whatever works).

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No it's not. It's simple: sharing is good. We teach it to our children all the time. We create these huge life lessons to our children about how they should share their toys with their friends, we read childrens books to them where the lesson is that sharing is good... and then they grow up a bit and they see something they like online, and they're like "hey, I should share this with my friend, she'll love it". And bam, your child is a criminal.
    <sarcasm>Agreed! I only post things on the pirate bay that I think umpteen million of my closest friends will love!</sarcasm>

    Sharing *can* be good, but it isn't always so (consider: sharing secrets). You seem to be trying to take the morals outlined in books for children, declare them as absolute and then apply them to the world, regardless of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    So what we're actually trying to do is put our money where our mouth is, do more than just give lip service about sharing, practice what we preach. If we teach our kids that sharing is good, surely we should lead by example? Surely we should also implement in the real world laws and infrastructures that allow sharing?
    The way you say this makes it sound very much like you are one of the people who's work is not being shared indiscriminately between thousands or millions of strangers.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee.
    If you publish something, put something available, then it's free game, people are free to share whatever content is available to them. Sharing is good. You don't get to put something online, then tell people "you're not allowed to distribute this" because that's not how it works. People will share things, if you don't want sharing, you shouldn't make your work public, period.
    Music was being pirated online long before that same music was being sold online. That they then switched to selling it online surely doesn't make the piracy okay?

    Under your system the GPL wouldn't work. The system you are talking about essentially describes the abolition of the notion of copyright: everything would be free to share with anybody and the author would have no say in how their works are used. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright, neither could the BSD license.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    We need to decriminalize the sharing of content for noncommercial uses, because if a sufficient number of people don't consider something a crime, then it's immoral and unethical for that thing to be a crime. Studies estimate that over 70% of young people have engaged in "piracy", that strictly speaking, 70% of young people should be put in jail, according to the current laws. Is this sensible? What happens in 10 years when this generation that is used to just sharing things how they like without thinking about if it's "allowed" gets to the workforce? Will we keep prosecuting for something that most people don't consider a crime?
    What. So if enough people decide that eye-for-eye retribution is OK, it shouldn't be considered a crime? If enough corporations think that breaking the GPL is OK, it shouldn't be considered a crime? That's nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No, that's not comparable. If I go and buy a chair
    Haaa. So comparing copyright to copyright is not comparable, comparing copyright to property suddenly is?

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    I'm free to make my own copies of the chair and share them with my friends, because I pay for the labour and the materials.
    And in this case, you don't pay for the labour or materials.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    If I go to a bookstore and buy a book, I'm free to share that book with my friends. Everyone of my friend can take turns reading the book, and not everyone needs to buy their own copy.
    You need to buy another copy if you want to read at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Yet for some reason, if I buy a copy of some digital media, I'm not allowed to share it?
    Transferring the ownership should definitely be allowed. Outright unrestricted copying - not.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    This is a simple concept: forced artificial scarcity. There is no scarcity in digital media. You could say that digital media is already post-scarcity. Sometime in the future, we might eliminate scarcity in everything else. We might develop a practically-infinite energy source, we might have technology to duplicate any material, and move on to a post-scarcity society. The question is: what then? If we can't deal with post-scarcity now, in a limited quantity, how will we deal with it in the future? We need to learn to cope with it eventually.
    There is scarcity of money. It costs to produce the goods. If we had replicators, then there would be the same problem if anyone could take your chair and make a copy of it freely, then the original creator of your chair could only sell a few chairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Legal sharing would not infringe on the rights of content producers. It's just like, if you put an image on an internet site, so that anyone can see it, and anyone can find that site on the google... then it's not reasonable for you to say "you're not allowed to look at this image unless you pay me". You put the image there, where people can see it, so people can freely share the link to that image - or even the image itself - for each other. People may not be allowed to use it commercially, but they can still share it.
    Yes, that's unreasonable in that you can't unsee what you already saw. But it is perfectly reasonable to say "you are not allowed to reuse or share this image". It's actually how it is for most images right now. You are free to share the link to the image, though, since the link itself is an address, it's not copyright. You are also free to use the image under Fair Use.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    So any content that is published, should be able to be freely shared. Because we own the entertainment. We, the people, own the content. Not the corporations, not the governments.
    That's ridiculous. You don't own copyright entertainment. The authors own it. You only own what is in the Public Domain.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    And even if sharing is legal, creators can still use the same business models they use now. They can still sell copies of their products. People who really like it and appreciate it, will pay for it, like is already evident.
    Again, it's like putting up a "donate" button. You'll get a few donations, but that's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Yes. Recordings that you can play back over and over (wouldn't the music industry want to get rid of that quality...) And yet, that didn't destroy the live music industry. And yeah, we can create perfect copies. So what? Should we cripple our technology just to protect the interests of gatekeeping corporations? I say the businesses just need to adapt to business models that allow sharing. If they can't do that, then they deserve to go out of business.
    Cripple no. Abide the law yes. You can copy the content, but you shouldn't, because it ruins the business of the author, and that's what people should be made aware of.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    So you're basically just guessing at this point? Ok.
    And you're not?

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    And let me tell you why, since you're not certain. They're doing fine, because they've managed to externalize their business model to governments. They've got governments to enforce their monopoly position on content distribution. Piracy doesn't harm them, it's not piracy they're afraid of. It's a free internet, a free market without government subsidies, an uncontrollable, decentralized market place where anyone can bypass the gatekeepers... a future where they are irrelevant. And that's why the try so hard to push against internet freedom and try as hard as they can to implement forced scarcity.
    And again, they aren't irrelevant, they do their functions. It's smaller than before, but it's there.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    People don't need to be forced to contribute. Restricting sharing is not an "incentive", it's just strong-arming. Carrot works better than stick.
    And how do you propose you do that? Communism tried. It didn't work, because people are more selfish than altruistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Games could also (and some already do) use a service model, where you can download the client for free, and then pay a subscription fee for the service of being able to play the game. That would also work with free sharing. Not as nice as the crowdfunding model, but it's definitely a possibility.
    Yeap. And that's what we call DRM. Because if offline games would have to be renewed every once in a while, and would rely on a central server to do so, then if the scheme malfunctions, you are locked out of the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    Movies have no problem with sharing. Movies can make profit from movie theaters. Market the movie-in-a-theater as an experience, a social event. Build a party around it, a whole thing of fan hype, people getting together to enjoy a movie in a good atmosphere and amazing playback system and humongous screen that's not feasible for a home studio... that's something that you can't copy or share over the internet.
    Yeap. So cinemas would just use a downloaded version of the film and wouldn't pay the authors a dime. Good times.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    There's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work. Crowdsourcing as the major, primary way of funding games would give people the chance to be a part of the creation process. No longer would it be a top-down model with a fence between creators and consumers, instead, it would be a participatory experience. If sharing is legal, then there will be the incentive to develop these crowdfunding channels enough that they become popular and big enough to gather the money needed to produce AAA games.
    Things like Kickstarter always have tiers. Each tier adds to the value, and demands more money in return. That's why it works you actually get something valuable in return.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    No it's not. It's simple: sharing is good. We teach it to our children all the time. We create these huge life lessons to our children about how they should share their toys with their friends, we read childrens books to them where the lesson is that sharing is good... and then they grow up a bit and they see something they like online, and they're like "hey, I should share this with my friend, she'll love it". And bam, your child is a criminal.
    We also teach that stealing is bad. And if it's sharing with a friend, it's not bad, it still counts as personal use. If it's sharing with everyone in the world, then it's no longer that. It's a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    And there's nothing counterproductive about that. Some content producers do all they can to fight the idea of sharing... so what? We don't have to pander to them. They have to pander to US, because we are the ones where their money comes from. The onus is on THEM to develop their service to be so good that people will find it easier, more convenient, to buy from them than pirate their content through torrent. Or alternatively, build their business model around sharing, so that it doesn't matter if people share their content - or better yet, take advantage of that sharing network, use that distribution network for free, get free hype, monetize later (or before, whatever works).
    Sure, you're right in that they should make the content easily available to everyone. But not free.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibald View Post
    <sarcasm>Agreed! I only post things on the pirate bay that I think umpteen million of my closest friends will love!</sarcasm>

    Sharing *can* be good, but it isn't always so (consider: sharing secrets). You seem to be trying to take the morals outlined in books for children, declare them as absolute and then apply them to the world, regardless of context.
    Uh, no. You're being disingenuous and overly literal. Sharing secrets doesn't have anything to do with this - even though sharing secrets can be a good thing (consider: Wikileaks). Sharing of content is universally considered a good thing in normal circumstances: that's why we have public libraries. I can go to a library, loan any book I want, read it as many times I like. I can even lend out CD's, movies, games... all kinds of stuff. And libraries haven't yet made the entertainment industry collapse (Even though, you guessed it: that's what the industry argued when the institution of public libraries was first implemented).

    Somehow though, when you take that sharing out of a library and do it online, it stops being a good thing and is called a crime. That's just absurd. The sharing of information, entertainment, content, is something that enrichens all of mankind.

    Furthermore, we teach our children that sharing is good, because it's an intrinsically good value: when you share something with a friend, you can both enjoy it. If you just hoard it for yourself, you'll have your thing but no one to enjoy it with. Humans are social animals and require interaction with others. So that is why we share things. It's the way society functions, by sharing things with each other: experiences, knowledge, feelings, things... basically almost every aspect of civilized society is based on sharing in one way or another.

    The way you say this makes it sound very much like you are one of the people who's work is not being shared indiscriminately between thousands or millions of strangers.
    Unfounded assumption, ad hominem.

    Music was being pirated online long before that same music was being sold online. That they then switched to selling it online surely doesn't make the piracy okay?
    What? You're not making sense. Sharing of content was ok before we had silly "anti-piracy" laws. It didn't ruin the music industry then, just like C-casettes didn't ruin the industry, and so on. Why should the record labels be given the power to decide how we share information with each other?

    If I go to a friend's house and listen to music he has on CD's, that's ok and perfectly legal. If I hang out in a virtual chatroom with the same friend, and he streams music over the internet for me to listen, suddenly it's a crime. How's that make sense?

    Under your system the GPL wouldn't work. The system you are talking about essentially describes the abolition of the notion of copyright: everything would be free to share with anybody and the author would have no say in how their works are used. The GPL couldn't exist without copyright, neither could the BSD license.
    Wrong, strawman argument, absolutely preposterous. Copyright isn't a simple thing, it's an umbrella term for various monopoly rights assigned to content creators by governments and enforced by governments. The right to share content freely for noncommercial purposes wouldn't require the abolition of copyright altogether, nor would it have any effect on the GPL. The right to copy and share is separate from right of ownership, the right of attribution, the right of monetization and the right of modification. Any of those rights wouldn't be affected by legalizing free sharing for noncommercial purposes.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    If I go to a friend's house and listen to music he has on CD's, that's ok and perfectly legal. If I hang out in a virtual chatroom with the same friend, and he streams music over the internet for me to listen, suddenly it's a crime. How's that make sense?
    It makes every sense. If your friend streams it to a private chatroom, it's fine. It's only a problem when the chatroom is open for anyone, as it's no longer personal use.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    What? Piracy is illegal, and for a good reason. It infringes on copyright. And copyright in and of itself is not bad. The whole Copyleft idea is based on copyright, all code released depends on copyright to make sure that the author's wishes are followed. If you say that piracy is OK, you also say that closing GPL software is OK.
    Does GPL care if it gets pirated?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    2. Not to the extent to which they are planning to. Read this from the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

    Basically, a true TC scheme, as envisioned by Microsoft, would mean that you would be totally out of control of your own hardware. The OS could flag some files "protected content", and if you try to copy them to some other media, the computer would just say "I can't let you do that, Dave". Streaming video would be protected from screen recorders on the OS level. Trying to rip DVD's or BD's would be impossible. Even text could be protected, for example, your email client wouldn't allow you to copy-paste text from emails, and the email sender could remotely erase emails they'd already sent you.
    This is really bad, and the worst thing in it is that majority of people will think it is the way to go.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    What. So if enough people decide that eye-for-eye retribution is OK, it shouldn't be considered a crime? If enough corporations think that breaking the GPL is OK, it shouldn't be considered a crime? That's nonsense.
    And that also has nothing to do with what I said. Corporations are not people and should not be treated as such. We get enough shitty laws just by letting corporations [s]bribe[/s] lobby politicians.

    Also, your first hypothetical is absurd and disingenuous. Eye-to-eye retribution cannot be allowed because we couldn't have an organized, civilized society that way. We need laws and police forces to guarantee that people who harm others can be put away where they can't keep harming others, but allowing retributive violence would only undermine that structure and make the situation spiral out of control very fast. We need to be able to guarantee that people have the right to walk about unharmed, and to do that, we need the structure of law and law enforcement.

    That however doesn't apply to concepts like sharing. You can't say that all of civilized society will collapse if people are allowed to share content. People already share content and it hasn't collapsed society. To the contrary, sharing is actually essential to a civilized society.

    Haaa. So comparing copyright to copyright is not comparable, comparing copyright to property suddenly is?
    Stop taking things out of context.

    And in this case, you don't pay for the labour or materials.
    Sure I do. If I copy a DVD, I pay for the empty disc, I pay for the electricity required to run the DVD burner. If I torrent files, I pay for the electricity and the internet connection and the hard drive space to host the files.

    Furthermore: If we could duplicate chairs for free, would that also then need to be banned? What about when 3d printers mature? Will we extend copyright to cover the ideas or models of physical objects? The copyright mafia is already attempting to do this.

    You need to buy another copy if you want to read at the same time.
    No I don't. We can take turns reading, read out loud to each other, or whatever. I can legally photocopy the entire book for my own use and let my friend read that. And I don't see how that is all that much relevant in any case.

    Transferring the ownership should definitely be allowed. Outright unrestricted copying - not.
    So you assert. But we're not talking about unrestricted copying here - only sharing for noncommercial purposes. So that if a file is published, made available to the public, then everyone is free to use it for noncommercial or personal use.

    There is scarcity of money. It costs to produce the goods. If we had replicators, then there would be the same problem if anyone could take your chair and make a copy of it freely, then the original creator of your chair could only sell a few chairs.
    So, if we had replicators, you'd want to cripple them so that they couldn't replicate "copyrighted" content? Imagine: we'd have the ability to create whatever we want in unlimited quantity, yet we couldn't because some corporation would "own" the rights to certain objects? How would that benefit anyone except those corporations? It's a bleak future you're painting here...

    And the scarcity only exists in the production of the content - not the content itself. Once the content is produced, it is no longer scarce. Therefore, it only makes sense to move the monetization phase to where the scarcity is - the production phase, not the distribution. Like I said, get the money in advance, or figure out a way to monetize afterwards, or some combination thereof. There are endless possibilities to monetize on content without restricting free sharing.

    Yes, that's unreasonable in that you can't unsee what you already saw. But it is perfectly reasonable to say "you are not allowed to reuse or share this image". It's actually how it is for most images right now. You are free to share the link to the image, though, since the link itself is an address, it's not copyright. You are also free to use the image under Fair Use.
    Yes, and with free sharing, you could still say "you're not allowed to reuse this image". Noncommercial use being free would still allow you the choice to say "I won't let you use my work for profit without my permission". When it comes to sharing, no, you can't do that, because if you host your image publicly on the internet, then anyone can link to it, anyone can view it for free on their computers. That already constitutes as sharing.

    That's ridiculous. You don't own copyright entertainment. The authors own it. You only own what is in the Public Domain.
    We, the people, collectively own all content. Try to think about it for a while.

    Again, it's like putting up a "donate" button. You'll get a few donations, but that's it.
    Oh, like the humble bundle only makes a few dollars each round? Right... There already are people doing this exact thing. They tell people "pay what you want" and people do pay because they want to support the content creators when given the chance.

    Also, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. If you make buying the content legally much easier, more convenient, or otherwise beneficial compared to torrenting it, then the consumers will buy it, regardless of the fact that they have to pay more. If you can't create a distribution model that can compete with the convenience of torrents, then what can I say... you need to innovate more.

    Cripple no. Abide the law yes. You can copy the content, but you shouldn't, because it ruins the business of the author, and that's what people should be made aware of.
    If someone's business model only works by restricting sharing, then their business probably deserves to be ruined. By allowing free sharing, we automatically incentivize all content creators to implement business models that allows them to monetize regardless of sharing.

    We can abide the law after we change the law.

    And you're not?
    Not in everything, no. There exists evidence for most things I'm saying.

    And again, they aren't irrelevant, they do their functions. It's smaller than before, but it's there.
    No, they are becoming irrelevant. Which is why they are trying to cripple the internet, to force people to use their services. They don't have any function, we don't need them for anything. We can get our content produced without the help of gatekeepers. We have even decentralized funding, we can do everything from the grassroots up now. Decentralization is the future. When bitcoin matures, we'll get rid of all the old power structures that hold people back and keep us under the boot of the corporate thugs.


    And how do you propose you do that? Communism tried. It didn't work, because people are more selfish than altruistic.
    You need to actually read some history. Communism, as implemented in Soviet Russia, was a centralized control mechanism. It had really nothing to do with a decentralized form of government that communism was supposed to be in the beginning. It was full of corrupt officials oppressing the people. For that matter, communism also hasn't failed, because we still have communist countries. And even so, communism has actually nothing to do with any of this. Free sharing is more in line with free market economy, anyway.

    People are selfish? Tell that to every charity fundraiser ever. Tell that to people who volunteer their time and money to help the less fortunate. There's a shitload of altruism in the world, people will help each other if you give them the chance to do it. Your attitude seems frankly kind of sociopathic - if you're uncapable of feeling empathy for others, then it stands to reason for you to assume that everyone acts only for their own self-interest. But that's actually not in evidence, because we can see it clearly every day that there are plenty of people who do things out of altruism.


    Yeap. And that's what we call DRM. Because if offline games would have to be renewed every once in a while, and would rely on a central server to do so, then if the scheme malfunctions, you are locked out of the game.
    And that's why it shouldn't be used for offline games. Online games, like WoW or such, are a much better match for that particular business model. Again, not everything has to use the same business model.


    Yeap. So cinemas would just use a downloaded version of the film and wouldn't pay the authors a dime. Good times.
    That would constitute as commercial use so they couldn't do that legally. "Free sharing for noncommercial purposes" does not mean that copyright is abolished entirely. Come on, we've been over this already!

    Things like Kickstarter always have tiers. Each tier adds to the value, and demands more money in return. That's why it works you actually get something valuable in return.
    Firstly, Openshot managed to raise a lot of money, surpassing their goals clearly, despite the fact that people can still benefit from the final product whether they contribute or not.
    Secondly, there's no reason why there couldn't be tiers. Pay more, get access to developer blogs, get inside info before others, that kind of stuff. Get merch, posters, t-shirts, keychains. Pay a lot more, get your face in the game as some side character. There's lots of possibilities for someone who uses their imagination.

    Thirdly, there's also no reason why "tiers" are something inherently necessary to a crowdfunding model. Assuming that we live in a world where free sharing (for noncommercial purposes, since I seem to be having to remind you) is allowed, then there's incentive for the game makers to develop a crowdfunding channel that is big and popular and easy to use enough that there's enough people to contribute to all kinds of projects. But that would also mean that there would be a paradigm shift, a change in the way of how we see "buying a game". The benefit that someone gets from contributing is a collective one: "I will contribute, because that way I get to ensure this game gets made". It's like voting with your wallet, what games you want to get produced and what not. And it's less of a risk for the producers too, because they get to know in advance if something is worth creating or not.

    We also teach that stealing is bad. And if it's sharing with a friend, it's not bad, it still counts as personal use. If it's sharing with everyone in the world, then it's no longer that. It's a crime.
    Yeah, go figure... Now you're back to the "stealing" rhetoric. You can't steal something that isn't property.

    If you share something with one person, it's ok, but if you share with everyone, it's a crime? Where do you draw the line then? Can you share with 10 people? 100? 1000? What if I only share something with my friend, but he shares it with his friend, who shares it with her friend... is that ok then or is it stealing?

    Sure, you're right in that they should make the content easily available to everyone. But not free.
    Free sharing does not equate to content being free.

    Furhtermore, you have to look at this from a pragmatic viewpoint as well. We have tons of people who share content. Is it constructive to criminalize it? What about in 10 years when it's even more prevalent? Is it ethical to apply the law selectively? Which path of action results in the least harm to society?

    It's the same thing as with the war on terror, or the war on drugs - it's pointless to treat a social problem as a criminal one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •