When Copy Protection has the Same Effect as Piracy?

[Hink]

So the bad actions of a few always hurt the many.

Indeed, and those few are the DRM implementing developers.
I don't buy that "excuses for repression" thing.

I'm not sure I understand your characterization.

Do you have locks on your doors at home? Your car? Or do you prefer to leave those things open to anyone who would like to wander in uninvited, because locks are an "excuse for repression?"

What do you mean? Did somebody buy something that's behind locked door in my house? Or does someone else control the locks on my door? Or is your ability to make good comparisons locked away?

I dont think it's his ability to make good comparisons that's in question....if someone breaks into your house what do they do with the things they steal? Maybe sometimes they might keep it for themselves but typically they sell it. But also you contradict yourself by saying "behind a locked door", I think you kind of just made his point. Oh and btw many people do not own their homes, they rent and guess what? Landlords have control over the locks on your doors

To everyone that constantly whines about copy protection, maybe using a computer to produce music is not the best method for you and there are other methods available to you that do not require copy protection. It seems people spend more time complaining about something that is not going away. I'm so sorry that copy protection has ruined your lives to the point where you cant help but complain every chance you get. For me, it's a very small inconvenience to face for all the actual conveniences my music software brings me. Tilting at windmills is still jut tilting at windmills

[elassi]

Keep in mind though of course he could've posted something like:

Now, the inevitable question is: Would you have done it this way being in his position and dilemma?

[T-CM11]

I dont think it's his ability to make good comparisons that's in question....if someone breaks into your house what do they do with the things they steal? Maybe sometimes they might keep it for themselves but typically they sell it. But also you contradict yourself by saying "behind a locked door", I think you kind of just made his point. Oh and btw many people do not own their homes, they rent and guess what? Landlords have control over the locks on your doors

Lock on my house = I protect my house from others.
Lock on software = Someone else protects my purchased* software from me.
So how is that similar?
And no, in this part of the world landlords don't have control over the locks. WE have a few privacy laws.


*Buying a license is not the same as renting software.

[chk071]

But it's also not the same as owning the software.

If you really want to hold a discussion about whether a copy protection is valid or not. Which IMO is totally beyond question.

[T-CM11]

But it's also not the same as owning the software.

Owning it for personal use. (Isn't that almost the same?)

[T-CM11]

If you really want to hold a discussion about whether a copy protection is valid or not. Which IMO is totally beyond question.

Nothing is beyond question... IMO of course!

[aciddose]

If he'd told the truth and said "this product doesn't make me any money, so f**k you guys, I'm going home and taking my ball with me" you'd have been a bit more pissed off, right?

Well you damn well should be.

Nope, the result is the same. I don't care how he says it.

Okay, although you do seem to vent your anger toward copy protection rather than at Linn's mismanagement, the developer being a pain in the ass, the limited market for the product you are a fan of and so on. I think those should be your real targets.

Mismanagement, well, everyone makes mistakes. Maybe software isn't his thing. No big deal in my opinion, unfortunate but not directly attributable.

The developer? We haven't heard their side. Perhaps it was "we agreed to write the software for 5k, wrote it, then Linn wanted a ton of upgrades for free". You never know without hearing their side of the story. It might also be "f**k you guys, give us more money!" depending on how you interpret it.

So the real bad-guy here is that the product wasn't successful in this market. It just wasn't well-suited to the market. Yes, copyright violation causes some trouble but I'd still expect the product to make more than 5k per year if it was ever worth it to develop in the first place.

Copyright violators, copy protection, license fees are all just hand-waving. Don't let that distract you.

If you want to focus on copy protection, perhaps the question is: Did the copy protection used in this product cause more trouble to the customers than the copyright violators? Did this result in loss of sales?

[Hink]

I dont think it's his ability to make good comparisons that's in question....if someone breaks into your house what do they do with the things they steal? Maybe sometimes they might keep it for themselves but typically they sell it. But also you contradict yourself by saying "behind a locked door", I think you kind of just made his point. Oh and btw many people do not own their homes, they rent and guess what? Landlords have control over the locks on your doors

Lock on my house = I protect my house from others.
Lock on software = Someone else protects my purchased* software from me.
So how is that similar?
And no, in this part of the world landlords don't have control over the locks. WE have a few privacy laws.


*Buying a license is not the same as renting software.

how are they protecting your purchase from you? Can you not use your software? I know, I know, it all comes down to dongles right? What if you lose or break your dongle? Then you cant use your software right? If you lose they keys to your house you cant get in right? If you break you key to your house you cant get in right? If you lose your keys to your car you cant drive it right? So it would seem to me that the responsible thing to do is to take care of your keys.

I think you and others just like to complain about this, face it that is the bottom line. I am only pointing out your misconceptions, I really do not let silly little things like this upset me. (I have plenty of serious things to get upset about. But I will say this, we have privacy laws too but laws do not stop people from doing things they are not suppose to do, they merely act as a deterrent. I cant imagine a landlord not having keys the property he owns.

I only brought up the rental thing to point out your err in ignoring the many people who do rent their homes. I do not think anyone thinks I suggested anything about renting software. But here's some news for you, there are hundreds of people with keys to your home and your car (if not more), not that they know it thankfully.

True story, a good friend of mine in the 80's started a job at a bank (in the town I think BERFAB lives in). He delivered supplies to other branches and his first day his supervisor gave him the keys to her car and said "it's a green Dodge in the back parking lot, bring it around and we will load it up".

He found the car, the key didn't work in the door lock but the car was unlocked. This was not uncommon back then, door locks, trunk locks etc being broken or lost keys. (then some cars had one key for the ignition and one for the locks) He got in, put the key in the ignition and the car started. He drove it around to the front of the building and his supervisor asked "what is this?" He had the wrong car, he rushed back to park it where it was but there was a frantic old woman standing there with a cop yelling "THAT"S MY CAR, HE STOLE IT". Of course he didn't get in trouble and of course no one is going around trying their keys in doors but it can happen...meanwhile...talk about a bad first day on the job

[aciddose]

Unfortunately though Hink, you do indeed "rent" software. You don't own it any more than you own the music on the album you bought. You merely "rent" a right to use it.

That is how software/music/copyright works.

You own the hard copy, not the software itself.

Just like you own the pages of a book but not the words.

[T-CM11]

Okay, although you do seem to vent your anger toward copy protection rather than at Linn's mismanagement, the developer being a pain in the ass, the limited market for the product you are a fan of and so on. I think those should be your real targets.

My first post in this topic was "asshole!"... but without this kind of CP, it wouldn't have mattered what kind of a person he is. Unless one is the logical result of the other.

[T-CM11]

Unfortunately though Hink, you do indeed "rent" software. You don't own it any more than you own the music on the album you bought. You merely "rent" a right to use it.

That is how software/music/copyright works.

You own the hard copy, not the software itself.

Just like you own the pages of a book but not the words.

If that were so, the developer could legally stop renting to a user... which they can't. Compare a renting contract with a ('regular') software license, they are not the same.
There's no such thing as absolute freedom anywhere. If you buy a baseball bat, but are prohibited from bashing someone's brains in with it, does that mean you're just renting it?

[aciddose]

In this case, the consequence isn't that the software goes away or stops working. That's nonsense just as much as it being nonsense that your ability to read a book goes away with the author throws a fit and claims you haven't got the right to do so.

Nonsense, you own the book, you can look at it / read it however you like, it isn't up to anyone. We can talk about the legal issues, but ultimately for anyone to force you to do anything requires a violent act of enforcement. Without enforcement, legal issues are simply a joke. Do we really expect to have the FBI raid our home to confiscate the book we're reading? Okay, maybe with the way things have been going lately this isn't too far off from something we might worry about, but it is still absolutely ridiculous.

Keep in mind this copyright business is imaginary. These rights only exist because we allow them to exist, we agree they are for our benefit and that they are worthwhile to enforce.

The author isn't going to be able to make your book light itself on fire... er... unless it's an ebook in which case they might.

Anyway, the real consequence is that you're not going to see a x64 AU version, you're not going to see it run on your ipad, it isn't going to be upgraded or patched and you probably can't do any of that stuff yourself.

You can go ahead and feel bad about being forced into a position where you can only use the software you purchased if you cross some legal threshold into a scary gray area. The fact is though, if the software is not being sold and you already bought it, there is no possible way to justify any consequence for whatever you might do with it on your own PC, not involving anyone else.

I think they know this. So the "we won't be providing license activations anymore" isn't as much of a "f**k you" as it seems, is it?

[aciddose]

Unfortunately though Hink, you do indeed "rent" software. You don't own it any more than you own the music on the album you bought. You merely "rent" a right to use it.

That is how software/music/copyright works.

You own the hard copy, not the software itself.

Just like you own the pages of a book but not the words.

If that were so, the developer could legally stop renting to a user... which they can't. Compare a renting contract with a ('regular') software license, they are not the same.

I can stop you from using Xhip, in fact you're not licensed to use it in the first place. Ever think of that?

In addition, if you bother to read the license agreements you'll find that they almost always reserve the right to end the contract if you break any of the terms of the agreement. For example say you post a screenshot, you've now violated the copyright and they have the right to end the contract without notification. You are now no longer licensed.

[T-CM11]

The author isn't going to be able to make your book light itself on fire... er... unless it's an ebook in which case they might.

It shouldn't be ok just because now they can (in case of the ebook). (Doesn't that sound like the same motivation of a warez user? )

[T-CM11]

In addition, if you bother to read the license agreements you'll find that they almost always reserve the right to end the contract if you break any of the terms of the agreement. For example say you post a screenshot, you've now violated the copyright and they have the right to end the contract without notification. You are now no longer licensed.

But you can't stop me from using it (legally) if I don't violate the contract. I can do anything I want with it, in the privacy of my own home, as long as I live.