Developer Tracks Single Pirated Software License to 750,000

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I still think (as per my above post) that people are praising this method of dealing with piracy before they really consider the implications it would have for other types of software (particularly gaming), and how remarkably similar it is to measures that have already been tried and universally decried.

Take a peek a few posts up to see what I'm talking about. I'm interested to know what people think about this approach as it would have to apply to games.

I agree with you, I really do. It's not a solution to all piracy problems, but it does provide a better way of dealing with them rather than suing them for 5 times more than they would earn in a lifetime. The reason why it's so popular is because the only other method we hear about is the one I just mentioned, which just about everyone disagrees with. It's actually worse than the pirates theft.

I think everyone bitching about having to be connected to the internet with a game is blown way out of proportion. It still needs work, sure but it's a good idea that will work if they do it right. Defeating piracy was never going to be something that could be done by doing one thing to everyone, that's been proven by the workarounds they always come up with. They just need to work on methods that are fair to both the company whose software has been pirated and the pirate, they still deserve to be treated fairly even if they have broken the law.

 

[Underground Man]

What an interesting way to deal with piracy -- not heavy-handed, nor does it resort to big government. You know, I've been in the market for an anti-virus....

 

[superbatranger]

Well people could just not pirate. But that would mean they'd have to buy things. Which is just madness!

Complete and utter madness! Buying things implies we'd have to spend money, and we can't have that now can we?




Everyone can tell I'm being sarcastic, right?

 

[Twad]

This is one SMART way to deal with piracy i think.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Pirating is not stealing, pirates are not thieves. Which definition of "stealing" are you going by?

The one not influenced by cognitive dissonance.
It isn't 'theft' in a legal sense but it carries the same penalty and involves the same losses to the victim. If you're really interested in my stance then look up my username and the word 'piracy' in the search bar but I don't care to debate it again. I'm just pissed off that every time, every time there's one of these topics every pirate on the site flocks to the forum to quote everyone and reply "piracy isn't theft...no lost sale...sharing isn't a crime" etc.

Its not stealing or theft, its copyright infringement. They're two different things and I really wish people would realize the difference. No that doesn't make it better, but calling it stealing and the pirates thieves is wrong. Still mostly assholes, but not thieves.

See above.

"it carries the same penalty and involves the same losses to the victim."

See, this is where you lose me. I can agree with most of what you're saying, but this is just outright not true.

(before I get into this, let me point out I don't agree with piracy regardless. I used to wonder what the big deal was, but regardless of what I'm about to say next, it is not a consequence free crime)

It explicitly does not involve the same losses to the victim, by virtue of how it works.

Theft involves a transfer of ownership against the original owner's will.
If I were to steal your car, or your television, or $100, you would lose what I stole, while I would gain it.

IP theft isn't a loss in this sense at all. If I 'steal' a copy of your software, you still have it, but now I have it too.
In the sense of loss involved in theft, I've gained something, without you also losing anything in the process.

However, this presumes something about the nature of ownership.
Piracy does deprive a person of control over their IP (although that leads to a question about how much control a person should expect to have over their IP once they release it publicly),
And, it deprives a person of potential revenue, which is where we came into this discussion, since it's what you were objecting to.

Fact is, it's fraudulent logic to equate 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale, because it makes the false assertion that everyone who has a pirated copy both has the capacity to pay, and the desire to do so if deprived of the option of getting it for free.

Franky, you'd have to be somewhat insane to presume that to be true.
And in a way, it makes me wish we could eliminate all piracy overnight for a year, just to prove to all the people that think this that these huge numbers some groups claim as 'lost revenue' are nothing more than wishful thinking.

IP Piracy is not a victimless crime. But to equate it to having the same consequences for the victim as theft is hopelessly naive.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I moved over from Avast years ago.
Since I'm part of a volunteer computer-heuristics corps (just a fancy name for someone who helps companies creates and tracks virus profiles on the net) I get my pro-grade (non-freeware anyway) security software for free LEGALLY.

I had heard rumors that Avast was tracking their software keys (since it checks your key when it updates your virus-profiles..that's nothing unusual), but I had no idea it was for piracy research. I figured they were trying to find the people who kept writing viruses that specifically disable their products so they could develop better countermeasures.

Though the number isn't surprising in the slightest. Just due to the nature of the Internet, piracy downloads for any given piece of software should follow an exponential growth pattern.
Anyone even typing in innocent keywords for software will inevitably hit links offering warez copies of it.

The problem with tracking piracy numbers accurately is that we cannot trust any firm who puts them out; large numbers are possible, and indeed, plausible, but it's only too easy (and tempting) to tack on another 0 or two to the end of that report for media attention.

 

[Dastardly]

Buying...what an interesting word but according to the software industry that isn't what you are doing. Instead you are renting for full price.

Their product, their call. They created this program, and invested money into its creation and distribution. If you want a free anti-virus program, either take the many free options out there or write your own. Best of luck, and all. Otherwise, you pay what they ask for and accept the terms they offer. Or take your business elsewhere, you don't get some entitlement to seek alternate means of seizing their business.

Fact is, it's fraudulent logic to equate 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale, because it makes the false assertion that everyone who has a pirated copy both has the capacity to pay, and the desire to do so if deprived of the option of getting it for free.

It's not a fraudulent claim, because no one is making the direct claim. It's, at worst, a disingenuous claim because we all understand that not all of those stealing it would have bought it at full price. It is, however, equally disingenuous to claim 1 pirated copy = 0 lost sale, because it makes two assumptions: Firstly, that those pirating it wouldn't have bought the item had they not first been presented a free "option," and secondly, that someone who wouldn't have paid full price would not have paid some other price rather than zero.

Franky, you'd have to be somewhat insane to presume that to be true.
And in a way, it makes me wish we could eliminate all piracy overnight for a year, just to prove to all the people that think this that these huge numbers some groups claim as 'lost revenue' are nothing more than wishful thinking.

I don't think you'd have to be insane, and data out there proves that when people want something, they'll generally buy it... but when presented with a free option (even a perfectly legal one), they'll do that instead. Why? Because "something for nothing" is better than "something for something."

Games with strong DRM have shown an initial piracy rate much lower, and an initial sales rate much higher than games without it. That is, of course, the goal of DRM. Not to "defeat" piracy, but to delay it. Why? Because tons of people, if presented with no free alternative, will buy the product to avoid having to wait.

Now, using backward reasoning, someone who pirated a game can then say, "Well, this game isn't worth $60, so I wouldn't have bought it anyway." Easy to say, but an empty claim--it can neither be proven nor disproved. If you've got the free option, it takes all of 3 seconds to find reasons to convince yourself it's not worth the price... but in the end, you're basing this reasoning on the presence of the free option, not on rational consideration of the product's merit.

People pirate good games. In fact, the games that are seen as the best games (based on sales, rather than reviews) are pirated the most. That means the overwhelming consensus is that the game is, in fact, worth the cost..... uuuuuunless there's a way to get it for free.

IP Piracy is not a victimless crime. But to equate it to having the same consequences for the victim as theft is hopelessly naive.

Stealing cable from your neighbor's house isn't harmful to your neighbor, either. It doesn't diminish their access or the quality of their cable. And apologists often paint piracy in that same light--your neighbor still has the cable, so who's being harmed here?

And it's because you're not taking anything from the neighbor. You're taking it from the cable company. And it does harm them, because now they've got to support more connections, pay higher fees, and so on. And make no mistake, software companies have metric shit tons of support requests for copies of the game they know are pirated. That's how self-entitled these people are... it's like stealing your car and coming to you when the oil needs changed.

(Yeah, I know, it's "not like stealing a car." I'm simply saying it displays the same gall.)

You are correct that the ratio of "pirated copies" to "lost sales" is not 1:1. But it's also not 1:0, nor especially 750,000:0. Even if we split the difference and make the very generous assumption that half of these people would never have bought the product were it not free, that would still mean 375,000 lost sales. That is a significant problem, and constitutes a significant loss.

Fortunately they were able to use intrusive software practices (note: I didn't say bad, but they are intrusive) to at least make the attempt to recover some of that. But, of course, when it comes to gaming, the pirates are bitching about that, too--DRM is the devil, including anything that requires you to connect to the internet and verify your copy, after all.

Piracy does result in lost sales. That means there is revenue the company would have (and should have) received that was instead redirected by a third party by fraudulent means. So while it's not identical to theft, it's a lot closer to theft than a lot of people are claiming. People treat it like the difference between red and blue, but it's more like the difference between bright red and dark red.

(Of course, I often find it helpful to define the crime based more on the benefit to the criminal than on the detriment to the victim. In this case, we would define stealing as someone gaining something that does not belong to them through illegal means. There are many different types of stealing, by this definition, but they're all stealing.

In the same way, you'll find that--legally speaking--murder and attempted murder carry the same penalties in most places. Why? Because if it can be proven that you were intending to kill this person, you shouldn't get a pass just because you suck at it. The penalty (though not the title of the crime itself) is based on the criminal's actions, not based on what the victim lost. So, the legal system of most developed countries backs up this logic.)

 

[CrystalShadow]

Spoiler: really huge wall of text. Open at your own peril

Buying...what an interesting word but according to the software industry that isn't what you are doing. Instead you are renting for full price.

Their product, their call. They created this program, and invested money into its creation and distribution. If you want a free anti-virus program, either take the many free options out there or write your own. Best of luck, and all. Otherwise, you pay what they ask for and accept the terms they offer. Or take your business elsewhere, you don't get some entitlement to seek alternate means of seizing their business.

Fact is, it's fraudulent logic to equate 1 pirated copy = 1 lost sale, because it makes the false assertion that everyone who has a pirated copy both has the capacity to pay, and the desire to do so if deprived of the option of getting it for free.

It's not a fraudulent claim, because no one is making the direct claim. It's, at worst, a disingenuous claim because we all understand that not all of those stealing it would have bought it at full price. It is, however, equally disingenuous to claim 1 pirated copy = 0 lost sale, because it makes two assumptions: Firstly, that those pirating it wouldn't have bought the item had they not first been presented a free "option," and secondly, that someone who wouldn't have paid full price would not have paid some other price rather than zero.

Franky, you'd have to be somewhat insane to presume that to be true.
And in a way, it makes me wish we could eliminate all piracy overnight for a year, just to prove to all the people that think this that these huge numbers some groups claim as 'lost revenue' are nothing more than wishful thinking.

I don't think you'd have to be insane, and data out there proves that when people want something, they'll generally buy it... but when presented with a free option (even a perfectly legal one), they'll do that instead. Why? Because "something for nothing" is better than "something for something."

Games with strong DRM have shown an initial piracy rate much lower, and an initial sales rate much higher than games without it. That is, of course, the goal of DRM. Not to "defeat" piracy, but to delay it. Why? Because tons of people, if presented with no free alternative, will buy the product to avoid having to wait.

Now, using backward reasoning, someone who pirated a game can then say, "Well, this game isn't worth $60, so I wouldn't have bought it anyway." Easy to say, but an empty claim--it can neither be proven nor disproved. If you've got the free option, it takes all of 3 seconds to find reasons to convince yourself it's not worth the price... but in the end, you're basing this reasoning on the presence of the free option, not on rational consideration of the product's merit.

People pirate good games. In fact, the games that are seen as the best games (based on sales, rather than reviews) are pirated the most. That means the overwhelming consensus is that the game is, in fact, worth the cost..... uuuuuunless there's a way to get it for free.

IP Piracy is not a victimless crime. But to equate it to having the same consequences for the victim as theft is hopelessly naive.

Stealing cable from your neighbor's house isn't harmful to your neighbor, either. It doesn't diminish their access or the quality of their cable. And apologists often paint piracy in that same light--your neighbor still has the cable, so who's being harmed here?

And it's because you're not taking anything from the neighbor. You're taking it from the cable company. And it does harm them, because now they've got to support more connections, pay higher fees, and so on. And make no mistake, software companies have metric shit tons of support requests for copies of the game they know are pirated. That's how self-entitled these people are... it's like stealing your car and coming to you when the oil needs changed.

(Yeah, I know, it's "not like stealing a car." I'm simply saying it displays the same gall.)

You are correct that the ratio of "pirated copies" to "lost sales" is not 1:1. But it's also not 1:0, nor especially 750,000:0. Even if we split the difference and make the very generous assumption that half of these people would never have bought the product were it not free, that would still mean 375,000 lost sales. That is a significant problem, and constitutes a significant loss.

Fortunately they were able to use intrusive software practices (note: I didn't say bad, but they are intrusive) to at least make the attempt to recover some of that. But, of course, when it comes to gaming, the pirates are bitching about that, too--DRM is the devil, including anything that requires you to connect to the internet and verify your copy, after all.

Piracy does result in lost sales. That means there is revenue the company would have (and should have) received that was instead redirected by a third party by fraudulent means. So while it's not identical to theft, it's a lot closer to theft than a lot of people are claiming. People treat it like the difference between red and blue, but it's more like the difference between bright red and dark red.

(Of course, I often find it helpful to define the crime based more on the benefit to the criminal than on the detriment to the victim. In this case, we would define stealing as someone gaining something that does not belong to them through illegal means. There are many different types of stealing, by this definition, but they're all stealing.

In the same way, you'll find that--legally speaking--murder and attempted murder carry the same penalties in most places. Why? Because if it can be proven that you were intending to kill this person, you shouldn't get a pass just because you suck at it. The penalty (though not the title of the crime itself) is based on the criminal's actions, not based on what the victim lost. So, the legal system of most developed countries backs up this logic.)

Not bad. Though perhaps a little heavyhanded in the rather amusing way you try to turn my own statements around.

But yes. Aside from the conclusions, which are philosophical in nature, and cannot really be said to be right or wrong in any way that people will actually agree on, this demonstrates the absurdity of perspective.

Ironic, since we're making the same point in this case, but framing it differently.

Pulling out the subject matter, to just leave the math, it's like we have two groups arguing as follows:

Group 1 says:

for every X there would have been a Y if X hadn't happened.

Group 2 says:

For every X there's no reason for Y to have been true if X hadn't happened.

The Reality is:

For every X there's no way of proving if Y would have happened or not if X hadn't happened.


That means the devil is in the details.
For lost sales, you make the case that 50% is a credible, even generous figure. (I disagree.). But clearly that's not provable either way, because as with so many forms of research, you cannot prove a 'what if' question.

As for the last aspect about laws implying the definition is the gain of the perpetrator, rather than the loss of the victim that counts...

That does indeed to be a common theme in a lot of laws. - It's one I personally reject as valid, but that's a different discussion, and my personal beliefs on this matter don't count for much unless I was in a position to establish my own legal system somehow. (or at least, something analogous to it.).
But then, that gets into matters of why you have laws;
Broadly speaking, is the intent behind enforcing them based around vengeance, compensation, deterrence, or protection? (There are probably other options too, but these were the first that occurred to me) - All options have quite different implications.

Vengeance is implied in the phrase 'An Eye for an Eye.' - It implies taking from the perpetrator something of value because of what they took from the victim. Note that it doesn't necessarily do anything meaningful for the victim though

Compensation implies the victim should gain something to make up for what they lost. Logic dictates it's the perpetrator that should provide the compensation, but it isn't explicitly the only option.

Deterrence means the punishment of the individual is only relevant in a broader context, And implies punishing the perpetrator not in proportion to what they themselves have done, but rather in proportion to what would be most effective in preventing anyone else from doing the same thing.

Lastly, in this batch of examples lies Protection - Which isn't even about what the perpetrator did, or what the victim suffered as a result, but merely about what might happen in the future; In this case, the punishment, if any, would not be punishment as such, but merely the means to prevent something happening again. While this sounds similar to Deterrence, it would be more along the lines of preventing the same person from doing something again, rather than preventing others from doing so.

Now, obviously, most real legal systems make use of all these ideas, but you can see definite biases amongst certain groups of people towards specific notions of how this should work.

But, one thing remains a constant in what the law is for, even if this seems to be forgotten quite easily:

The law serves to protect the weak from the strong.

All laws, regardless of who or what they protect, do this. And they do it by using the collective strength of the group against anyone who chooses to do these things anyway.

But if those who any given law protects could protect themselves without the benefit of such laws, it wouldn't be necessary to have the laws in the first place.

This does, at times have the unfortunate implication that certain types of legal protection, while necessary in terms of protecting certain groups or activities from easy destruction, does raise questions about if such groups or activities should be protected in such a manner at all. (and by association, the possibility that certain groups exploit the legal system itself to pervert it's purpose - That is, they use their strength in one area to indirectly exploit others through the very system designed to prevent such things from happening.)

... Anyway, this is getting way off topic now, so I'll have to stop it here, before I really get carried away with myself.

 

[Dastardly]

SNIP

I agree that there's no way to prove. At best, you can work backwards and make comparisons to show evidence of one view over another.

The view being expressed by many pirates is that they "weren't going to buy it anyway, so it's not a loss to the company." This already raises the interesting problem that they wanted it badly enough to pirate it and play it, which demonstrates that the product has some value.

To make our case, we can think of dollars in terms of "interest dollars."

GIVEN:

A: A person's interest in the game can, for our purposes here, be measured in dollars. A person who pays full price demonstrates $60 of interest in the product. A person who does not buy or play the game demonstrates $0 of interest in the product. Many people fall somewhere between these two extremes.

B: Companies already, over time, work to please customers of differing interest levels. Eventually, most games are offered at a discounted price, because many customers express an interest between $0 and $60. A person buying a discounted new copy of the game (as opposed to used, which doesn't enter into this equation) might be expressing $40 of interest, or even $20 of interest when the price comes down.

C: By obtaining the game, the pirate has demonstrated some interest in the product, which would mean it is greater than $0 (though less than $60). This holds true even if the "pirate price" is $0, because even working to obtain the game demonstrates greater than zero interest.

THE CLAIM
D: "Pirates do no harm because they have no interest in buying the game."

THE CONCLUSION
But D directly contradicts what we know from A and C. In order for a pirated copy to represent no loss of revenue to the company, the pirate's interest would have to represent $0 of interest in the product. But, as we know from C, they have already by virtue of being a pirate[/b] expressed greater than $0 interest.

So, the claim is only partially true. Pirates are very interested in the game. They are not interested in the buying part, irrespective of the product itself. Thus instances of piracy represent lost revenue--just not full sale price losses per case.

 

[CrystalShadow]

SNIP

I agree that there's no way to prove. At best, you can work backwards and make comparisons to show evidence of one view over another.

The view being expressed by many pirates is that they "weren't going to buy it anyway, so it's not a loss to the company." This already raises the interesting problem that they wanted it badly enough to pirate it and play it, which demonstrates that the product has some value.

To make our case, we can think of dollars in terms of "interest dollars."

GIVEN:

A: A person's interest in the game can, for our purposes here, be measured in dollars. A person who pays full price demonstrates $60 of interest in the product. A person who does not buy or play the game demonstrates $0 of interest in the product. Many people fall somewhere between these two extremes.

B: Companies already, over time, work to please customers of differing interest levels. Eventually, most games are offered at a discounted price, because many customers express an interest between $0 and $60. A person buying a discounted new copy of the game (as opposed to used, which doesn't enter into this equation) might be expressing $40 of interest, or even $20 of interest when the price comes down.

C: By obtaining the game, the pirate has demonstrated some interest in the product, which would mean it is greater than $0 (though less than $60). This holds true even if the "pirate price" is $0, because even working to obtain the game demonstrates greater than zero interest.

THE CLAIM
D: "Pirates do no harm because they have no interest in buying the game."

THE CONCLUSION
But D directly contradicts what we know from A and C. In order for a pirated copy to represent no loss of revenue to the company, the pirate's interest would have to represent $0 of interest in the product. But, as we know from C, they have already by virtue of being a pirate[/b] expressed greater than $0 interest.

So, the claim is only partially true. Pirates are very interested in the game. They are not interested in the buying part, irrespective of the product itself. Thus instances of piracy represent lost revenue--just not full sale price losses per case.

Hmm. That's perhaps the clearest reasoning on the subject I've seen in a long time.
Although, of course, the non $0 sum of wanting to get something at all is a bit of a problem.

Consider;
The direct financial cost of getting hold of a pirated product is $0

The indirect costs (ignoring potential costs of such things as being sued and the like) are the effort involved in finding a pirated copy somewhere, the risks associated with the sources (malware, providing financial support to other legally dubious groups, etc.), and associated problems with the possibility that the illigitimate program itself has been turned into some kind of malware, the bandwidth involved in actually downloading the product. (or whatever other costs are involved in the method a person uses to obtain something.),

By comparison, the costs of doing things legally are something like this:

Direct financial cost of buying (let's say, to have a workable point of reference) a game, $5-60

Indirect costs, finding a retailer or download provider that stocks the game in question. Cost of delivery (if any), or time and fuel (or public transport costs, etc.) of getting to a store and obtaining a copy, or alternately, the bandwidth used in downloading a copy if that's an available option. There might also be issues surrounding anti-piracy features, which detract from the usability of a program, such as requirements to always have a cd in the drive while playing, or more recently, always having an active internet connection.



Now, while some issues are circular in nature - The potential for malware being part of pirated software is a direct consequence of it's illegality, brought about by the distributors having a reasonable chance of being criminals above and beyond the piracy itself.
And for legitimate software, the equally circular issues of DRM, copy protection and the like which exist primarily because of piracy.

But, since both examples have a large number of indirect costs, which to a large extent are equivalent, it's difficult to argue that these indirect costs can be equated to a monetary cost.

If you were to do so, it's doubtful the indirect cost of a pirated copy would be more than that of a legitimate copy, which somewhat undermines your point.

Because it leads to the following:
Cost of a pirated copy (to the user): $0 + Value of indirect costs
Cost of a legitimate copy (to the user): $5-60 + Value of indirect costs

So, strictly speaking, the assertion that a pirated copy is a loss to the revenue of the company relies on the assertion that the value of the indirect costs of a pirated copy outweigh those of a legitimate copy.

Or, that given the option of obtaining a pirated copy, or getting a completely legitimate copy for free (but still dealing with all the associated things that surround legitimate copies), the legitimate copy would represent greater value than the pirated copy.

Nonetheless, it remains apparent from real world examples that pirated copies do result in lost revenue.
Unfortunately, what little real world data we have on this is very unclear.
The increase in sales for games with strong anti-piracy measures, combined with the frequent piracy of very popular games suggests quite a large effect.
Meanwhile, data gathered by a smaller developer led them to the conclusion that a reduction of pirated 1000 pirated copies led to 1 extra sale. - If this were a reliable and consistent indicator, that would suggest the value of a pirated copy is 1/1000 that of a legitimate one.
Taking that figure to the claims in OP of this thread would imply a loss in revenue equivalent to just 750 copies.

Granted, a loss is a loss, but a loss equating to 750 copies of a product is something altogether different to 375,000 or more.

Once you get into these kind of low numbers the question becomes is it worth it?

But therein lies the real problem for a developer or owner of such property.
Which figures are accurate?

If you sell 1,000,000 copies of something, and there are an additional 9,000,000 pirated copies, then clearly, losing 9,000,000 copies worth of revenue is a very big deal.
Losing 1,000,000 copies worth of revenue is also quite serious.
But, if preventing 9,000,000 examples of theft only results in 9,000 copies worth of additional revenue, is that still a big deal?
Further, considering the costs involved, is it a fight even worth taking?

A rather unfortunate position to find yourself in, to be sure.
Do you presume the higher end figures are accurate, or the lower?
Getting it wrong will cost you money, since countering piracy isn't free. (neither is leaving it alone, since pirates often still manage to expect technical support, which is a little silly, if you ask me, but whatever.)

Maybe expecting pragmatism or reasonable behaviour from everyone involved is a bit unfair.
But in the end it just seems to me that this argument just keeps on going because there's no clear answer to it.
The Practical, financial, rational, and moral implications of the actions of both sides are rather unclear.

The legal implications are not, but the question of any particular thing being legal or not says a lot less about it's validity than most people would be inclined to think.
Far too often, it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that there are instances where the laws makes no sense, but are so tangled up in emotional biases that they cannot easily be changed. (The best example of which is drug enforcement, where alcohol and cigarretes remain legal, and other drugs illegal, despite significant scientific evidence showing this is not an accurate reflection of the dangers of the drugs in question.)

 

[harvz]

...its avast, it was probably only done for irony's sake (which the very name is ironic, avast = pirates)

 

[Tom Phoenix]

I don't see the point in pirating Avast. The free version is entirely sufficient in terms of security as long as you are smart when browsing the internet.

Games with strong DRM have shown an initial piracy rate much lower, and an initial sales rate much higher than games without it.

Source or it didn't happen.

However, even if you can somehow prove that to be the case, the main problem with DRM isn't whether or not it is effective in it's intended task. It is the fact that it is present at all.

Let me explain. While the open nature of the PC platform is one of it's greatest advantages, it also tends to be one of it's greatest weaknesses. A particular problem it causes is that there tends to be many steps before a user can use software. This is especially problematic when it comes to gaming, since all the user wants to do is start playing the game as soon as possible and will become more frustrated the longer it takes. This is where consoles have a great advantage over the PC, since there are few or at least not nearly as many barriers to playing the game. Older consoles are particularly praised for this point, since the time it takes from turning on the console to actually playing the game is miniscule.

Why am I mentioning this point? Beacuse the sheer presence of DRM only serves to exasperate that problem. Beacuse a game has DRM, it requires additional steps from the user before he can enjoy the actual content of the game. Those steps aren't the only problem either. The sheer presence of DRM adds another technical variable (along with your system configuration, operating system, software installed etc.) which can lead to technical difficulties, thus requiring further steps from the user to enjoy the content (and thus leading to further frustration).

Look at this video (WARNING! The video includes a lot of swearing!):


Putting the swear words aside, he has a point. The game should work right out of the box and the legitimate paying customer should not have to have more difficulties running the game then someone who pirated it. Yet, the situation is exactly the opposite and it is precisely beacuse of DRM (not to mention that, more often than not, DRM fails at it's purpose of preventing so-called "Day 0" piracy, since most games tend to be available for download upon release, if not sooner).

So even if there are short-term benefits to having DRM, it is mostly harmful in the long run. In the attempt to chase for potential customers (emphasis on "potential", since there is no telling whether someone who pirated a game would have purchased it anyway; some certainly might have, but not everyone) with DRM, game companies ultimately drive away legitimate, paying customers. Not just from their own games, but the platform in general. There are countless stories of former PC gamers who turned to console gaming simply beacuse they were no longer willing to put up with the frustrations that come with PC gaming and DRM is a part in that.

There is a better way to fight piracy than DRM. How? Let me show you:

Spoiler

And physical objects aren't the only way. Things like this count as well:

Spoiler

What is the point I am trying to make? Rather than attempt to punish pirates, game companies should reward paying customers. Instead of feeling punished for paying for a legitimate copy, customers should feel rewarded for doing so. They should feel the gaming experience before they even start the game...heck, they should feel it even before they open the box. One of the reasons why piracy is so widespread is beacuse both physical and digital copies of games tend to feel so bare boned; there is nothing other than the game itself to be had (except for "Collector's Editions" which are charged at a significant premium). Often, there isn't even a decent manual available. Combined with the amount of bad and/or broken games that are out there, is it any wonder why people feel inclined to download a game to at least try it out before they commit to a purchase, if they commit to one at all?

If purchasing a legal copy would have benefits that one would not be able to enjoy by downloading a pirate one, customers would be much more inclined to actually purchase the game. By rewarding them, a game company can make people passionate about their games. And passionate customers are the ultimate salesmen/saleswomen.

 

[TechNoFear]

2) Fine but call it what it is, a rental..not a purchase. Ever wonder why the software industry still uses the term buy when they clearly don't think you are BUYING the software?

You argue that pirating software is not theft because software is different to physical goods.

You then complain that software is not sold with the same conditions as physical goods.

You can use and resell licensed software (as per vernor v Autodesk 2009).

You are limited in the number of copies you can make or use at once (just like a physical good as you need extra 'copies' of the physical good to use more than one).

Why exactly is the difference (to the user) of having a 'license' as opposed to 'owning' the software?

Meanwhile, data gathered by a smaller developer led them to the conclusion that a reduction of pirated 1000 pirated copies led to 1 extra sale.

Which smaller developer? Please provide a link to the study.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm just pissed off that every time, every time there's one of these topics every pirate on the site flocks to the forum to quote everyone and reply "piracy isn't theft...no lost sale...sharing isn't a crime" etc.

Barring that last one, I'd be pissed if the facts kept getting in the way of my argument, too.

the idea that sharing isn't a crime is stupid and ridiculous, but that wasn't the issue here.

 

[Artlover]

Oh, can't I remark on a large number of illegal copies without someone trotting out the old 'not a lost sale' thing? Honestly, thieves will thieve the thievables and I do not care.

Not when your trolling is the same unprovable self serving opinionated assumption that demands every count of piracy equals a sale that would have been made if it had not been pirated.

Sorry to tell you this, but the Gamecube and PS3 have already PROVEN this to be 100% BS.

Gamecube had NO piracy at all for the first 4 years of it's existance, and also had NO increase of game sales during that period. PS3 had NO piracy at all for the first 4 years of it's life too, and again, had NO increase in game sales during that period. If there was even the slightest shread of truth in the lost sale theory, this would not be the case. To quite the contrary of what they want to BS people into thinking, the consoles with the best attach rates and software sales is consistantly those consoles which have been hacked & pirated. And unlike the lost sales theory, this is a FACT that is independantly verifiable by every person here. Just google "attach rates" and "npd sales". The numbers are freely available for all to see.

You can deny and ignore those numbers all you want, but that doesn't change them or what they prove, nor validate invalid assumptions.