I personally hate copy protection, especially on the music CDs I buy. I mean c'mon, I bought and paid for it, it's now mine to do whatever I please. It's not like I'm going to make a million copies and turn around and sell them on Ebay! And I do believe that the main reason music sales are down is because of copy protection. It's not so much people are buying music downloads, it's because more and more people are tired of the music industry trying to push petty garbage (IE Gwen, Britney, "X-Tina", even Rihanna), and the people are tired of it. We want, no... NEED real music.

Anyway, forgive my rant, but do do you support copy protection?

Well, I think some types of copy protection on games and DVDs (NOT music) are a good idea, you'd be surprised just how much money the games industry loses through pirating (I don't have an exact figure to hand atm, but it is pretty high). I don't like it when you have to validate your game online (like bioshock), as that can be bad for people without access to the internet, or who want to play offline, but otherwise, I think it's a necessary evil.

No, atleast not for games. It didn't take long for people to crack Bioshock, and there is not a single thing companies can do to stop it. Totally worthless. When I buy a new game, I usually update it (if there is any updates, that is ), then I download a crack for it. It isn't illegal either, as long as you use it for personal use.

Music is also another... well, rather interesting topic. Many people say that pirates are slowly drying the music companies to a halt, and says it's bad. Others, however, says it's good, because we need to change the way we live or something like that (don't see how, though ).

But then again, that's just my opinion.

I guess it depends on what someone is trying to protect. I understand that some game companies are only trying to protect their investments (I'll admit I'd probably do the same thing too), but sometimes it's in the best interests of the consumer, and not the producer. Remember the Sony rootkit fiasco in '05? Imagine if that happened to computer games (it almost did with BioShock, although that really never installed malware like Sony's XCP)

Next to making a profit, the main basis of a capitalist economy is protecting said profit. I fully and wholeheartedly support any sort of copy protection, copyright laws, etc., because the producers who release the game, movie, music, etc. are entitled to the profits for their products, and copy protection is a way to do that. A capitalist economy is made for the producer, not the consumer. The only reason places like stores and whatnot have a "the customer's always right" policy is because the way for a store to make money is by getting the consumer to buy things. If you don't like that, go somewhere else, like Africa; they really don't have any sort of economy.

And the only way for someone to make a profit is to be fair to their customers. You're not going to sell a thing if you treat your customers like dirt. That's the difference between a "free" market, and a "fair" market. I'm in support of fair and ethical business practices, not who's going to make the most money. Remember that old saying "Money is the root to all evil"? Money can sure make people do evil and wicked things.

I normally take the side against piracy on these sorts of things, but copy protection does more to screw over consumers than it does to prevent theft. Between online registratons, CD keys that don't work past the first install, to protectiuon software that just vulks up your system and requires 15 steps to get the game running. And as said, most of the protection gets cracked soon after the games are released, making all that headache meaningless. Until companies can come up with data encryption which cannot be accessed without an installer, and an installer which cannot be copied and used outside of a specific media type, it will never be solved. It shouldn't be too hard to make a portion of a DVD read in a way which burners would interpret as garbage data, but the game software could use. A flaw like that wouldn't be taken if someone tried to copy the data, and wouldn't be easy to reproduce on another disk. Like a DVD watermark. Or even reading some sort of key data from somewhere not normally accessible or noticable (like a few bytes on the outside)durring installation.

As for music. The main reason why songs get downloaded is because people like one or two songs from an artist and paying $30+ for a CD with 1 song you like, and 8 that just suck is just stupid. Downloading is also a bit more conveniant than going to a store, trying to find someone who actually has that artist (let alone in the right place) and buying it in person. Many bands have found greater following because they have embraced those fans online and have answered their needs. Others just blame online downloads for their poor sales rather than accept the fact that they now suck (Metallica anyone?). Those groups that attack people who download their songs are only hurting themselves because people who liked their music, and might have gone to a concert, shared their interests with others, or bought that CD to see what else is on it, have been alienated. Music downloads also allow lesser named artists the ability to stand among those with big record contracts and actually compete. I'm not saying that those downloads should be done illegally, atleast not as long as there are reasonably priced services to get those songs, Just that the transition from offline to online sales is a step in the right direction. Atleast until they start charging you based on the amount of times played (and they probably will once they find a way). For the record, when I listen to music, it's on commercial radio. Even if I wanted to take the chance downloading songs, or pay for them, there really aren't enough that I'd want to really listen to, let alone take up space.

Well, as much as I don't agree with it, I had to admit that the capitalist market is indeed a place for producers to make their profit. Then again, as the producers do what they can to earn the best of what they invested, the consumers are also bound to search for the best deal.

For example: If someone doesn't have the budget to buy an official (lets say) music cd, but that person really wants to hear the songs in it, that person could buy a pirated version of the cd which comes cheaper. The reason that copies of a cd could be even cheaper than the original version, is because the producers refuse to lower their prices.

In the media market, the system isn't like the rest of the market (to some extent). The media market's profit calculation is based on first copy cost, where (as an example) you only pay once to make a movie, then pay a small amount for the copying and distributing (as opposed to the production cost) that way, the more copies made available, the lower prices can go.

For an example:
If making a movie costs (for example) 10.000$

making 10 copies of the movie (in cd/dvd) can sell for 100$ and already reach break even point (in real case, cost of buying cd/dvd would also be taken into account, but will not significantly affect the overall cost and need only increase the price a little to gain profit.

then, making 100 copies of the movie, the producer can then place the copies at 10$ to reach break even point (of course they need to consider the cost of cd/dvd for copying in real case)

But overall, I don't have much concern for these producer, their profits (usually) aren't significantly effected by piracy, just like now, Bill Gates is still the successful, even then, he still allowed non genuine windows to operate, and still give them the choice to purchase a genuine license (while still allowing the non genuine windows to operate)

So in conclusion, I don't have that much concern for the media industry, as they struggle for their best profit, as consumers, we also struggle for our best deals.

This is why gov't HAVE to be involved in their country's economy, so they can set rules and regulations to keep the producers in check so that they don't become overly greedy (which I can tell you most certainly will happen, even if there's gov't involvement with the economy). Case in point - Sony-BMG. They're still trying to control what you listen to, and like I said, the only thing they're pushing is petty garbage.

Think of it this way: if someone who is only selling bags of garbage, why try to hire a security guard to watch over it when that's all it is is just garbage.

Just something I remembered about CD-protection: has anyone heard of StarForce before? That crap takes up space (it made a 1.5 GB game take 4.2 GB instead... now THAT'S crap...), and sometimes made the game unplayable.

But please, don't mind me. Continue the discussion about the gov't. It's interesting.

Of course, your statement is ignoring the fact that companies only exercise this sort of power becuase they have a government-granted monopoly.

You do realize that Sony is Japanese, and, therefore, not controlled by our government. Even if (and that's a BIG if) the government stops CD protection, Sony will still do it.
One more thing, do you actually think the government getting involved will be any better to you, the consumer? No, no it will not. In fact, a government controlled economy (communism) is the worst for the general public. You talk about the people in charge of companies as being corrupt, but the government is even more corrupt than that, a lot more. If America became communist, to "balance out the wealth," they won't give money to the poor, they'll take money from the rich. Then, instead of some people being rich, some people being poor, and most people being intermediate, you'll have everyone being poor. Also, this is all hypothetical. The Constitution makes it so the government can't be communist, and if they do become so, we have the right to overthrow it. The best economy for the people is a traditional economy, but with that, America as a whole will crash and burn. Traditional economies just suck overall.

Government regulation is good?


Government regulation is bad?


Look, I realize that, at least for the most part, you know what the words you're using mean. However, do you know what they mean when you put them together in sentences? Think about the answer to that question.

@ Marxist ßastard: The only reason gov't would grant monopolies to companies is if they get a share in the profits of whatever goods are being sold. So in essence, that would mean the gov't is still involved in the economy indirectly. And that's when things go from bad to worse.

@ ninja_lord: In reference to Sony, I was referring to them as "Sony-BMG", and while they may carry the Sony branding, they really have nothing to do with their parent company. And when in the hell did I ever say "communism is the way to go"? NEVER. I believe in gov't intervention in the economy, yes, but not so much that it has no benefit to the people OR the country. That's what's great about Canada's "mixed" economy. In Canada, we have slightly more gov't intervention than in the US, but of course, we still have our fair share of Big Business screwing over the consumer.

I can tell you right now that when the day a company screws you over for a load of money, you won't be saying the things about not having gov't regulations in place. Think about it. All what you said ninja is one huge contradiction. Either you support gov't intervention, or you don't. From you stated, it's clear you want Big Business and gov't to take your hard earned cash from you.

You believe copyright should be abolished, then?

Well, when it comes to huge corporations, the government tends to soften up, they certainly can do with tax.

@Abramul

Well, I'd agree with copyright, if the intellectual property has no protection, there's bound to be many authors of much things of the media cease appearing as they knew that they would not be appreciated. I would just prefer, if the PROTECTION for copyright is softened up.

No... I don't think that has anything to do with copy protection (which actually is more like "copy restriction"). I think the whole thing about why I posted this up is that many people have a hard time trying to figure out just how much protection (or restriction, however you look at it) companies can have while not infringing upon our privacy. THAT'S the $1,000,000 question, I think - just how much protection (restriction) is too much?

Yeah... And it takes only 5 minutes longer to crack the first time. I don't know why they even bother anymore. A simple cd check, that's all a game needs. Or something that is impossible to crack and doesn't screw you over.

Bioshock took awhile, IIRC. It was because of its Internet confirmation stuff.

In the log run most copy protections only do one thing... annoy the hell out of the legitimate users! Sooner or later all protections get cracked (they said Vista was crack protected until some people came up with versions that can even download upgrades from Microsoft, install them and still function like a genuine Vista) so most are able to get passed the activation. But as a legitimate user you're stuck with a lot of problems with software that you paid for. No company has been able to come up with a decent copy-protection... but then again you can't let your copyrighted work get copied that easy, now can you?

It seems to me companies that use copy protection are probably in cahoots with those that make viruses and malware and those that make anti-virus software. It's one gigantic and elaborate conspiracy if you ask me , one that sees the people who already make tonnes of money every nanosecond make even more money than we can shake a stick at !

So...the companies that try to protect their own creation are somehow working with the sad, pathetic losers who can't get laid living in their mothers' basements who make viruses because they have nothing better to do? Somehow I don't believe that.

Of course you do realize I'm not serious about that - *sigh* you take life a little too seriously, kiddo ...