Gildan Bladeborn said:
Oh ho, condescension, how lovely. I might have been content to ignore your contrarian and quite frankly wrong-headed defense of DRM and go my merry way, but you've just earned yourself an explanation at considerable length as to why any attempt you make to present a "reasonable defense of DRM as something positive" will be doomed to failure (and also why your position on DRM is so very wrong): The point that the bitingly satirical send-up made is that nobody has ever written anything even remotely convincing that could spin DRM as something positive. Nobody. Funk can write all he wants about the rights of content creators and why the existence of DRM can (possibly) be justified, but that's not an argument that we should like it, or that DRM provides benefits to us the consumers for which we should be thankful.
Oh, come now. I was barely being condescending there. Imploring you not to make a common debating mistake (as you seemed to have) is far from condescending, and not nearly as douchebaggy as saying things like... Most of what you've said.
Let me address these points, prima facie, one at a time, since you do make many of them.
1. "contrarian and quite frankly wrong-headed defense of DRM"
Must we devolve to epithets quite this quickly? Usually, even in this debate, folks on your side manage to go at least three posts in before lowering themselves to the point of accusing me of being either contrarian or wrong by fiat. I was hoping for a lot more out of you.
2. "any attempt you make to present a "reasonable defense of DRM as something positive" will be doomed to failure (and also why your position on DRM is so very wrong)"
I suppose I'll let your supposed proof of claim speak for itself, rather than simply asserting the counter here, and having it be a shouting match.
3. "The point that the bitingly satirical send-up made is that
nobody has ever written anything even remotely convincing that could spin DRM as something positive"
Even satire, when it attempts to make a point, should be held to some standards of fair representation. Simply saying "look at me, I can make their argument sound stupid by making it stupid" lacks the kind of high-minded satire of Oscar Wilde... Or even Family Guy (and, frankly, when you miss that bar, how low did you aim?). I'm hoping you'll be able to demonstrate that second part, because I'm eager to know how you define "remotely convincing" (technically, the word you want there is "persuasive", but that's neither here nor there). If you get to define it as "it has to have persuaded Gildan", I lose by definition. If I get to define it as "it makes sense to Seldon", I win by definition. We need an impartial and fair definition of that phrase. I suggest "would cause a reasonable person with no prior take on this issue to feel more sympathetic to one side or the other", in which case I doubt you can show that no one has ever written anything even remotely persuasive in favor of DRM.
if you have to use a fallacious definition to win, that makes your argument weak.
3. "or that DRM provides benefits to us the consumers for which we should be thankful"
Yes, I also can't prove that DRM is made of puppies, or that Soylent Greens is (in fact) not people. But, since I didn't make any of those claims, perhaps we can stick to the germane questions, mmkay?
Moving on.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
The most ardent defenders of DRM, if they are arguing in good faith and are not simply corporate shills who are in fact lying through their teeth (like the good folks at Ubisoft were when attempting to 'sell' us on their awesome new DRM system), will at best be arguing for DRM as a necessary evil that we should suffer through since content needs to be protected. Only crazy or dishonest people try to convince consumers that DRM is actually something that those consumers should be thankful for -
For ease of use here, I'm just gonna quote the logical fallacies as they come up, and only address the points you make which aren't inherently flawed. Sound good?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Gildan Bladeborn said:
at best it can be made a mostly transparent annoyance offset by compelling features (which would still be compelling without the DRM mind you, the DRM bit is never a 'value add').
I'm also going to address your "it's at best a necessary evil" argument here
I'll grant you that DRM is annoying, but that's not actually a strike against it, given what it's supposed to do (to wit: make it more difficult to illegally play the game). It's annoying to be screened at the court, too, but given that judges and lawyers have been shot, I'm thankful for the metal detectors. Even when I have to remove my belt and shoes.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
And while it is morally defensible to protect your property and the fruits of your efforts from freeloaders, the arguments I've seen you and others make Seldon are ultimately rendered completely invalid by the simple technical reality that DRM simply does not work - it doesn't stop anything
Failure to function can only be defined in terms of what the goals are. If one posits that the goal of DRM is to punish gamers for the fact that many among us do not properly vilify and shun thieves, it's doing a damn fine job. I don't think that's the purpose, but it's presumptuous to assume we know the goals behind it.
Furthermore, the technological problems are irrelevant. Planes didn't function originally, but enough work at it, and we overcame the problem. No computer system will ever be completely secure, but AVG is still in business. It's a game of inches, and calling it because the side I support hasn't managed to win
yet is patently unjust to the debate.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
As an 'anti-theft' system, it's spectacularly ineffective. The only people being thwarted by DRM are the honest paying customers that get locked out of software they paid for by faulty DRM, the only people annoyed by arbitrary install limits, license keys, calls to tech support because activation codes weren't correctly printed, etc - paying customers. Pirates don't deal with any of that shite.
You're making the same technological argument, which I addressed above, so in the interest of not being repetitive (hint, hint) I'll move on.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Saying that content providers have to protect their work, in the face of the overwhelming evidence that all their attempts thus far fail to do that and only annoy the people who actually give them money now... well it's an argument made from a position of willful ignorance of reality.
Your wording belies your point "all their a attempts thus far". All attempts to make drugs to cure HIV have failed (no cure yet, folks), but scientists keep trying, even though it's right now just a money sink. If only they had your wisdom to not throw money into holes unless they fix the problem immediately.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
DRM, as the humorous 'satire' points out (via obvious lies) is not "free" - companies are wasting their money on something that angers customers while probably not doing anything to actually bolster sales.
I'd say it's "humorous" satire, since it wanted for humor as much as a reasonable message. But, again, you're arguing that the fact that it doesn't fix the problem now should devalue the possibility of it working in the future. That's not how investment or technology works.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
topping pirates is utterly pointless in and of itself - if all you've done is keep people from illegally downloading your product, you haven't made any more money; unless you can somehow transform a portion of those illegal downloads into legitimate sales, it makes absolutely no difference how many people end up with your software without paying for it, as you don't lose money for each copy of your software illegally obtained
Ah. The old "see, pirates wouldn't buy it anyway" argument. But, that's irrelevant. There's benefit (if only psychically) in preventing thievery. Warren Buffet wouldn't want to be ripped off, even if he can afford it. And, since you have no data to support your "hurr, less piracy doesn't mean more sales" argument aside from the trite "if they wanted to pay for it, they could", your point fails on its face. No dice.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
There might be a certain sense of moral satisfaction from denying freeloaders, but moral satisfaction does not pay the bills and the bottom line is king.
Indeed it is. And if the minds at these games developers can figure a way to deny freeloaders and force them to pay, why do we have reason to believe that all of them would simply forgo the game if they had to pay. Of the millions of people who pirated Spore, do you not think even one would pay for it if he had to? If you aren't stupid enough to think none of them would, then you must accept that it's a mathematics game, and not an inherent flaw of DRM (which is to say: it's a matter of balancing the cost of DRM with the increased sales)
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Which is why DRM is so asinine - we already know that just about every traditional form of DRM is pretty much completely ineffective; pirates almost always have cracked releases out before the game has even shipped!
We've discussed the technological limitations, move on dude.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Including a note with your software asking the public to "please don't pirate this" would be an equally effective deterrent (also cheaper)
Not only do you assume that DRM is ineffective (without proving it is), you also assume it can never be effective. Aren't unfounded postulations fun? For instance, if I say "yeah, but they'll eventually have a DRM which is cheap, completely effective, and barely a hassle" it's just as valid as your soothsaying. Either accept all unfounded assertions, or stick to what we can prove.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Thus to be more effective, DRM has to become more obtrusive (and thus more annoying), and it becomes a gamble whether any "potential sales" you might gain from frustrated casual pirates will outweigh the almost certain losses you'll take from outraged customers who would have otherwise bought your product without the draconian DRM
Really? For all the internet backdraft against Ubisoft, the sales for AC2 were phenomenal. I'm thinking perhaps the echo chamber of "Grr... We all hate Ubisoft and Activision" has overinflated your view of how many people actually give a flip.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
If you can't pick up more sales from would be pirates than you lose from convincing your former paying customers to burn you in effigy (and not buy your products anymore), all you've done by implementing that DRM is set money you would have received on fire, while simultaneously getting bad press and earning customer ire in the process.
Assuming that you're right about the loss of actual customers (unfounded, since the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"), and assuming you're correct with the implicit assumption both that bad press and the assumed "ire" will affect sales, we don't know whether the overall balance is in favor of DRM long-term, or against it. Given that, you've basically negated your entire point. Clever boy (see,
that's condescending)
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Which do you think is really the more likely outcome, given that any pirates who could be buying your software now (preventing piracy motivated by a lack of funds will not exactly fix the lack of funds problem) currently aren't for the sole reason that they are douchebags who don't pay for things?
Define "lack of funds". Do you believe that no one who pirated Spore could possibly have shelled out the money if they had to? Either gamers are more broken than the hipsters who still go to concerts, or you're conveniently ignoring a third group of people whose motivation is a desire not to spend, rather than a wholesale lack of funds. The distinction is in that someone who has no funds can't pay (and shouldn't play, but that's another issue), while someone who has funds
can pay if he has to, and wants the game badly enough.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
And that is why you are wrong - DRM doesn't just hurt us the customers, it hurts the publishers too because it's wasting their bloody money and negatively impacting their sales, and sales are ultimately all that matter.
1. DRM right now is counterproductive, but most new technologies aren't immediately efficient and perfect.
2. You have no proof of any adverse impact on sales, much less one which would exist perpetually as DRM technology improves.
DRM is both just, and something we should approve of. We should be placing the blame on the thieves in our midst, and people who hate DRM should be helping to prevent piracy however they can. Blame the criminal, not the victim.
Furthermore, as DRM will (I believe, and there exists no evidence to the contrary) eventually pose a significant roadblock to piracy, it will provide more money to developers to spend making better and more original games.
