nintendo are a strange bunch

I'm going to pretend that you are smart enough to figure out that this is a principled argument and that I am intentionally being a drop in the bucket in the hopes that you will become as such.

 

Claws are out tonight, eh?

Also, drop in the bucket? What's that then?

 

Except if you look at stats, piracy is barely an issue, and I highly doubt any major company doesn't actually know this
But you know what it does let them do? Manage your digital rights. They can use piracy to get an early foot in the door and change the standard for what we accept as digital ownership

 

By refusing to contribute to violations of my liberties as a paying customer, I am putting my money where my mouth is and doing what I can to force them to stop. If many others were as responsible as me about protecting their own consumer rights, we might be able to cull these DRM habits and force devs to come up with less harmful ways to sell their products.

They will do that either way. I have two choices regarding how to handle this:

1. Boycott the whole product due to the DRM unto forgoing the art of the product itself.
2. Boycott the whole product due to the DRM but still enjoy the product itself by circumventing it.

Are you arguing that the first is less likely to invite ever worse encroachments?

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

Probably because that's not a counter in the first place. You don't put in DRM to increase sales, you put it in to avoid losing them. Sure, maybe with DRM that game would still have sold 144 units... but those 50,000 people aren't entitled to having the game in the first place

 

I disagree completely. Those who cannot afford the market price for art still ought to have access to it. I buy works not because I feel obligated or because piracy is wrong, but because I want to contribute to the developers and like what they are doing. Other times, I like collecting physical copies of things. I do not 'owe' the artist anything. I pay them because I am a decent person who wants to. If they are willing to sell me only the good parts of their content, I will buy it. If not, they have lost their rights to the content by attempting to screw me over. The artist-audience relationship is not any more sacred than any other bargain. If anything, it is less sacred because they are claiming to be able to control what patterns I put on my own discs using my own lasers on my own time.

 

...

 

That's a ridiculous notion. f you can't afford something, you GO WITHOUT IT. An artist needs to make a living, you don't get to pay them if you FEEL like it, they're providing you with a SERVICE. A person isn't allowed to go and steal a car because they can't afford it. You can't go to a store and take what you want. Being digital doesn't suddenly wave a person's RIGHT to be PAID for their work

 

This is a common misconception. When someone pirates something, the company does not automatically lose money. The most that they lose is the potential money that that person would have spent had they chose to buy the product.

Which of the following is better for the company?

• Person A does not buy their product.
• Person A does not buy their product, but pirates it.

Spoiler: The Answer

Neither. They are equivalent. Anything else is moralization. The company did not lose any more money in either scenario; the difference is that they 'feel' cheated in the second one.

Emotions are bad business.

 

no, it's not equivalent, because a person is taking a product that they put time and effort into making. They have deemed it costs money and you are saying 'lol no, because I wouldn't have bought so they didn't lose any money'
if you WANT something, you have to pay what it's WORTH. Just because there are infintie copies doesn't mean you suddenly are given the right to pay whatever you want. Want it? Buy it. Can't afford it? LEARN TO LIVE WITHOUT IT
What job do you work at? How would you feel if you only made money on the off chance someone decided you were 'worth' it?

 

Actually, I do get to pay them if I feel like it. That's exactly what I get to do. If I go to an art show, I can choose not to purchase a painting. See how that works?

I might take a picture of said painting and I have not stolen from them. I am not paying them for the work they did. I am paying for the product. Since I didn't go home with the product, I did not pay.

The artist is making a gamble on supply and demand when they try to sell their product. I have a lot of respect for artists, but it has to be earned respect. When someone tries to screw me over, I stop seeing their side as worth caring about.

Let's go into a more concrete, less emotional example. Say I want to buy a car and I believe the price and the product are good. I am ready and willing to pay for the car as is. Then the dealer adds in some stipulation or modifies the car such that it will inconvenience me.

You know what I will do? I will 3D print that car if I can because I do not take well to being screwed with by the dealer. I will get my own materials and do my best to enjoy the product on my own just to spite their machinations of control. This is about standing for my liberties as a consumer and when it comes to that I have no tears for those who try to put me at a disadvantage or sell me my own shirt.

 

I'm almost positive the made it so you have it linked to some account. It's a new Nintendo account thing not Club Nintendo.

 

...

 

...

 

I'm all for contributing to the artist; like I said, I love the work itself. But I am not willing to pay for the privilege to screw myself over.

I want something without the DRM. Offer me a version without the DRM and I'll buy it. If they aren't selling it without the DRM, then I'll take an edited version.

Why not buy the DRM version, then pirate it? That's pretty simple. I can't pay for the main version after getting the pirated version in good conscience because the dev will only see that I supported the DRM version and not that I supported the non-DRM version. The only way to cast my vote for the content itself, but NOT for the DRM is to take the game, but not take the DRM.

How do you propose I put my money where my mouth is?

 

No, you make use of the resources as the artist sees fit. If you can enter the art exhibit for free, and they say you're allowed to take pictures, it's fair game.
If you have to pay a fee to enter, and you aren't allowed to take pictures, you're wrong. There's no way around that

So now you bring 3D printing into the deal. And that's the thing, do you not SEE how ****ing impractical it is to say everyone is owed something for free? If you 3D print the car, why would the car company make the car in the first place? If a whole bunch of people do, and suddenly cars are barely selling, they lose the funding they need to make new, different or better cars.
You take an artist, trying to do something using their talents to make a living, and you say "You know what? I am owed the ability to have your thing, but you don't deserve my money. You have deemed that this thing you create be accessed in this way, but I'm BETTER than that, I am entitled to your thing because technically it's not stealing. Sure, I'm taking your product and giving you nothing, but lol it's supply and demand!

 

What they say doesn't change anything; if I take a picture and they don't know I did then what is stopping me?

How about because people want better cars? Commissions for work done are a thing. A one-time payment for the work done is where I see a lot of things going in the future. Artists get commissioned to make specific works on a one-time basis every day. Kickstarter has many examples for larger scale projects like games and technological advances.

I don't believe anyone deserves anything unless it is explicitly agreed upon by both parties. If I am not able to have their work, then I won't feel miffed about it. I don't think I deserve to have it. But if I can have it... What is the point in not enjoying the thing?

It is indeed supply and demand. I will refuse to buy the thing either way, on principle. Suppose I physically could not pirate the work. I would still boycott it just to make the point that I hate DRM. Me being able to pirate it is just icing on the cake.

Here's an example where I pirated something I bought to avoid unintended DRM: GBA games save using a watch battery inside of the cartridge. I bought a game but did not finish it before the battery died, rendering me unable to save my progress. I pirated the game to finish it.

Here's an example where I just boycotted a game because of intentional DRM (can't pirate it yet): Dual Destinies

I repeat, I have not pirated this game. I cannot do so. Yet I will refuse to buy it because it is just that important to me that this DRM get as little support as possible. Should they port it or rerelease it without the DRM, I will gladly buy it.

What part of 'they will make more of this DRM if I buy it' don't you understand?

What part of 'piracy only matters if they would buy it otherwise' don't you understand?