April 3, 2013 at 03:31The “Wrong” View of Piracy
This article was born as a result of a careful reading of this topic on Habré. The topic of piracy for the Russian-speaking segment can be said to be “sick” and causes a lot of debate and debate. In my article I will try to be the "Devil's Advocate" and express an opinion on the opposite side of the issue.
One of the main arguments of the defenders of piracy is that the author’s product, in fact, does not have any physical value. Its use does not bear any damage to the copyright holder, but only cuts the possible profit, which is not yet a fact that will be received. On the one hand, this is absolutely true. Burning a disc and downloading iTunes from a publisher cost nothing. And selling a particular product, he not only gets his 100% profit (minus the percentage of the site’s share, but not the essence), he also has every right to put any price (as opposed to ordinary goods, where the market determines the price). Quite decent conditions, right? However, many forget that when creating a movie or album, the company goes very negatively. One film, which costs $ 10 in the store, could well cost 200 million of the same pieces of paper for the company, which cannot be recouped by a single purchase, however, also by a millionth. That is, in fact, the company enters the market already in a huge minus, and in their hands they have goods that are not food, and not warm felt boots. A product that is physically not worth anything and that is sold in a world where there are people who are morally not ready to pay for “physically nothing”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded the music album for free, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not bring any damage to the company. But does this give him every right to do so? Question. who are morally not ready to pay for “physically nothing”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded the music album for free, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not bring any damage to the company. But does this give him every right to do so? Question. who are morally not ready to pay for “physically nothing”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded the music album for free, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not bring any damage to the company. But does this give him every right to do so? Question.
Of course, downloading computer games from pirated torrents, and at the same time, without having any money in your pocket, you have no influence on their sales. When there is money on one side of the scales that isn’t available now, and it’s unlikely that it will appear, and on the other there are quite pleasant eleven hours that may or may not exist, the choice is made quickly and easily. The publisher still won’t get my money, so why don’t I play his game for free? He will not get worse from this. And it is true. He will not get any worse. He has a point of departure - this is the very worst that should be gradually corrected by sales. Perfectly. There are already questions of a rather idealistic nature. Still, games are not bread. And music is not warm shoes, without which in winter you can pick up an unpleasant disease. These are not basic necessities; they are not needed.
Usually, when a new game project comes out with (surprise!) DRM binding, a whole bunch of angry users appears with the words “now I’ll spite download”. So a person, as it seems to him, punishes the evil publishers with the ruble. He also punishes game designers, scriptwriters, programmers, composers, and other very decent people who honestly swell 3+ years of their lives in the project. That is, actually everyone who stands behind him. The only one he does not punish is himself. What is most interesting, for some reason, the decision simply not to play is not worth it. After all, nothing will change whether he plays the game or not, he definitely will not pay the money. Nothing will change. Therefore, everyone is justified in anger when companies try to impose their "raking paws" on it. Cause it's the air of freedom and they are trying to monetize it through sticks and laws. In this case, the main argument of the defense on which everyone converges, usually this one - is pointless and inconvenient. Pirates will still find a loophole and crack any protection, and the user, hiding in the basement and turning off the Internet and antiviruses, will still watch a counterfeit movie.
At such moments, I recall the interviewGabe Newwell. It says that the only way to defeat piracy is through service. Provide players with a more convenient service than torrents, and they will stop downloading your games for free. For many opponents of violent copyright protection, this argument is paramount. On the other side of the river stands DRM, which no one loves, which is inefficient and uncomfortable, and which poisons life not only for us, but for the entire younger generation. However, there is another side to the coin. Remember the same Valve, which seems to be both for service and for convenience, and which since 2004 has not been releasing games without DRM in principle. It’s like we give people the best service, the best quality and we believe that they are ready to pay for it, but here we have barbed wire, and at the entrance there is a security guard who, if anything, can pull a ban and in general, apart from multiplayer projects, we have nothing more in the plans. Nobody likes radical methods of copyright protection, they are furious, they slow down progress, they kill usability and create problems that did not exist before, but it cannot be denied that they are effective. If public transport will be Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of soft drinks, then, of course, every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. they kill convenience and create problems that did not exist before, but it cannot be denied that they are effective. If public transport will be Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of soft drinks, then, of course, every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. they kill convenience and create problems that did not exist before, but it cannot be denied that they are effective. If public transport will be Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of soft drinks, then, of course, every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world.
In my opinion, forceful defense methods are not that necessary, or useful, no, for each case, using them gives a completely different effect. But I’m sure that it is up to copyright holders to decide whether or not to vaccinate their product with DRM. It is their right, as is my right not to buy their product, if DRM is absolutely terrible. However, at the same time, this right does not give me the right to download their product. If the developer himself decides to give his program away in the name of humanity, the free exchange of information and convenience, I will love it and be glad, however, this again should be his decision, and not a group of anonymous philanthropists from Rutracker.org. Actually the same thing can be said about progress. As far as I know, nothing drives him more than money. While DRM is making a big profit,
Or so.
One of the main arguments of the defenders of piracy is that the author’s product, in fact, does not have any physical value. Its use does not bear any damage to the copyright holder, but only cuts the possible profit, which is not yet a fact that will be received. On the one hand, this is absolutely true. Burning a disc and downloading iTunes from a publisher cost nothing. And selling a particular product, he not only gets his 100% profit (minus the percentage of the site’s share, but not the essence), he also has every right to put any price (as opposed to ordinary goods, where the market determines the price). Quite decent conditions, right? However, many forget that when creating a movie or album, the company goes very negatively. One film, which costs $ 10 in the store, could well cost 200 million of the same pieces of paper for the company, which cannot be recouped by a single purchase, however, also by a millionth. That is, in fact, the company enters the market already in a huge minus, and in their hands they have goods that are not food, and not warm felt boots. A product that is physically not worth anything and that is sold in a world where there are people who are morally not ready to pay for “physically nothing”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded the music album for free, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not bring any damage to the company. But does this give him every right to do so? Question. who are morally not ready to pay for “physically nothing”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded the music album for free, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not bring any damage to the company. But does this give him every right to do so? Question. who are morally not ready to pay for “physically nothing”. Perhaps the poor Puerto Rican who downloaded the music album for free, with other variables, would hardly have bought it, and certainly in the end he did not bring any damage to the company. But does this give him every right to do so? Question.
Of course, downloading computer games from pirated torrents, and at the same time, without having any money in your pocket, you have no influence on their sales. When there is money on one side of the scales that isn’t available now, and it’s unlikely that it will appear, and on the other there are quite pleasant eleven hours that may or may not exist, the choice is made quickly and easily. The publisher still won’t get my money, so why don’t I play his game for free? He will not get worse from this. And it is true. He will not get any worse. He has a point of departure - this is the very worst that should be gradually corrected by sales. Perfectly. There are already questions of a rather idealistic nature. Still, games are not bread. And music is not warm shoes, without which in winter you can pick up an unpleasant disease. These are not basic necessities; they are not needed.
Usually, when a new game project comes out with (surprise!) DRM binding, a whole bunch of angry users appears with the words “now I’ll spite download”. So a person, as it seems to him, punishes the evil publishers with the ruble. He also punishes game designers, scriptwriters, programmers, composers, and other very decent people who honestly swell 3+ years of their lives in the project. That is, actually everyone who stands behind him. The only one he does not punish is himself. What is most interesting, for some reason, the decision simply not to play is not worth it. After all, nothing will change whether he plays the game or not, he definitely will not pay the money. Nothing will change. Therefore, everyone is justified in anger when companies try to impose their "raking paws" on it. Cause it's the air of freedom and they are trying to monetize it through sticks and laws. In this case, the main argument of the defense on which everyone converges, usually this one - is pointless and inconvenient. Pirates will still find a loophole and crack any protection, and the user, hiding in the basement and turning off the Internet and antiviruses, will still watch a counterfeit movie.
At such moments, I recall the interviewGabe Newwell. It says that the only way to defeat piracy is through service. Provide players with a more convenient service than torrents, and they will stop downloading your games for free. For many opponents of violent copyright protection, this argument is paramount. On the other side of the river stands DRM, which no one loves, which is inefficient and uncomfortable, and which poisons life not only for us, but for the entire younger generation. However, there is another side to the coin. Remember the same Valve, which seems to be both for service and for convenience, and which since 2004 has not been releasing games without DRM in principle. It’s like we give people the best service, the best quality and we believe that they are ready to pay for it, but here we have barbed wire, and at the entrance there is a security guard who, if anything, can pull a ban and in general, apart from multiplayer projects, we have nothing more in the plans. Nobody likes radical methods of copyright protection, they are furious, they slow down progress, they kill usability and create problems that did not exist before, but it cannot be denied that they are effective. If public transport will be Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of soft drinks, then, of course, every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. they kill convenience and create problems that did not exist before, but it cannot be denied that they are effective. If public transport will be Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of soft drinks, then, of course, every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. they kill convenience and create problems that did not exist before, but it cannot be denied that they are effective. If public transport will be Mercedes with air conditioning, a TV, free Wifi, comfortable seats and a sexy waitress with a tray full of soft drinks, then, of course, every passenger will pay for the fare. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world. But for some reason, if there is a two-meter growth conductor at the aisle, then more money will be collected than if there was an ordinary box with a slot in it. Such a wonderful world.
In my opinion, forceful defense methods are not that necessary, or useful, no, for each case, using them gives a completely different effect. But I’m sure that it is up to copyright holders to decide whether or not to vaccinate their product with DRM. It is their right, as is my right not to buy their product, if DRM is absolutely terrible. However, at the same time, this right does not give me the right to download their product. If the developer himself decides to give his program away in the name of humanity, the free exchange of information and convenience, I will love it and be glad, however, this again should be his decision, and not a group of anonymous philanthropists from Rutracker.org. Actually the same thing can be said about progress. As far as I know, nothing drives him more than money. While DRM is making a big profit,
Or so.