McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420535]The alternative is not caring about people who reap the benifit of your work without compensating you for said work[/QUOTE] Treat your customer nicely or don't complain when they don't act loyal to you

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420479]What i'm saying is people need to get the idea of being "entitled" to entertainment out of their head. If you couldnt buy it, dont play it.[/QUOTE] I don't, but I also don't feel the need to boast with my superiority by telling people who are causing no real harm that they are awful.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40420627]You have no proof that pirated copy is lost revenue. You simply don't.[/QUOTE] [quote]Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer. Sadly developers are not gamer banks, willing to effectively loan gamers money until we decide we like them enough to pay them.[/quote] [url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/those-who-defend-game-pirates/]Source[/url] It's not an argument whether it's a loss sale, it's the fact that they weren't compensated for it.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420584]Looks like they did, shit like this. Pirates dont realize the consequences of their actions.[/QUOTE] Hahahaha so now pushing lobbying for criminalizing legislative is marketing strategy. Okay.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40420747][url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/those-who-defend-game-pirates/]Source[/url] It's not an argument whether it's a loss sale, it's the fact that they weren't compensated for it.[/QUOTE] Okay, you should probably paste the entire paragraph [quote]Maybe, maybe not. Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer. Sadly developers are not gamer banks, willing to effectively loan gamers money until we decide we like them enough to pay them. [B]Besides which, again, where is the empirical evidence to demonstrate that piracy is not a lost sale?[/B][/quote] And where is the empirical evidence to demonstrate that piracy IS a lost sale? As far as I remember, it was usually presumed that if you claim something exist (sale loss), you have to prove it's existence, nobody has to prove it's lack-of-existence. Presumption of innocence and such stem from that, too. Burden of proof is on you.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420769]Thats good because neither do i, but thanks for trying to undercut my argument without actually providing a real argument.[/QUOTE] Sorry, what argument? You are providing no argument whatsoever. You are saying "don't do it because I said so". That's not an argument, that's a command from the position of... uhm [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420817]no, its a better alternative (in the eyes of the company) you don't have to worry if your appealing to the right demographic, you just have to target the majority of pirate traffic. Lets be real now, pirates are the reason we have shit drm, and isp's that block torrent traffic. Get off your high horse, piracy causes harm; wheather you see it or not.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it causes harm, there where people are completely mishandling the situation.

Besides, you are the one on high horse, flopping around morality and damage caused in name of evil. [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420836]I'm saying piracy stems from an entitlement complex, you feel entitled to be entertained, but cant/ wouldnt pay for it, so you download it illegally. Pirates aren't "freedom fighters against drm" their childeren who want that new shiney toy[/QUOTE] Which is claim of your own, not an argument backed up by any data or anything. You don't go around surveying pirates, looking for their reasons and searching for psychological clues of feeling of entitlement. You just say it as a fact and pretend it means something. [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] I [I]could[/I] accuse the companies to feeling of entitlement to revenue or profit or whatever, and you could argue that the entitlement is apt due to the work they put into their title. That's a fallacy though, because many many projects end up with bazzilion of workhours and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on them, and the revenue doesn't cover it, just because the resulting product sucks and nobody wants it, for free or otherwise.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420836]I'm saying piracy stems from an entitlement complex, you feel entitled to be entertained, but cant/ wouldnt pay for it, so you download it illegally. Pirates aren't "freedom fighters against drm" their childeren who want that new shiney toy[/QUOTE] If anything, view them as protesting against unreasonable prices and shitty service

[QUOTE=Simski;40420895]If anything, view them as protestors against unreasonable prices and shitty service[/QUOTE] I think I agree that simply not buying the product would send a stronger message because it would really reaffirm that you do not want their product regardless the price, but majority of the companies don't seem to be getting the message, either way.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40420805]Okay, you should probably paste the entire paragraph And where is the empirical evidence to demonstrate that piracy IS a lost sale? As far as I remember, it was usually presumed that if you claim something exist (sale loss), you have to prove it's existence, nobody has to prove it's lack-of-existence. Presumption of innocence and such stem from that, too. Burden of proof is on you.[/QUOTE] There is no empirical evidence that points in either direction because piracy is impossible to accurately to record. But it doesn't ignore that piracy results in lost sales. Take a set of people who pirated something, there will always be a subset of people who consumed it and didn't pay for it. Unless that subset is zero, however many people in it are lost revenue.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420916]Why do people pirate in the first place? Because they cant/wouldn't pay for it. So its safe to assume that said pirate feels that they should be entertained without paying for it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you are? You can go play hopscotch or dance or sing or whatever. As long as you are causing no harm, it's nobody's issue. Where does the "false" part come in at? [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40420947]There is no empirical evidence that points in either direction because piracy is impossible to accurately to record. But it doesn't ignore that piracy results in lost sales. Take a set of people who pirated something, there will always be a subset of people who consumed it and didn't pay for it. Unless that subset is zero, however many people in it are lost revenue.[/QUOTE] I can argue that there's also subset of people who bought it only because they pirated and tried it or because they got persuaded by somebody who pirated it and advertised it. Neither of the subsets can be counted or quantified, so the argument is completely moot.

[QUOTE=Rents;40420459]DRM often makes piracy worse, less people want to pay for something they know will be an inconvenience when an alternative that's both free and simpler to use exists.[/QUOTE] I bought a DVD recently that came with a [I]Free Digital Copy for iTunes and UltraViolet.[/I] I don't care for that because both of those services are crazy DRM. iTunes video files can only be played on iTunes, and UltraViolet is some sort of online account streaming service? If I want to watch the movie on my computer, I'll put the DVD in the computer. I also could rip the video from the DVD or pirate a digital copy [I]of the movie I already own[/I], but I ain't putting up with their funky DRM.

imagine how much stuff doesn't get invented because companies spend billions on protecting their millions in profits

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40421056]Lets explain my argument with an example: a game comes put with 0 drm, costs 40$, and has no reprocussions from pirating it (for the pirate anyway) lets say the game is p. good, do you buy it; or pirate it?[/QUOTE] I, personally, would buy it or not get it at all. Possibly leave it for later when the price goes down.

[QUOTE=Rents;40420271]"lost potential sales" doesn't mean shit, ever looked around a store and didn't buy everything you saw? [I]Hundreds[/I] of potential sales, all lost.[/QUOTE] Did you use any of those products for personal use for as long as you wanted without paying? Make sure your analogy makes sense before you use it.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40421092]Did you use any of those products for personal use for as long as you wanted without paying? Make sure your analogy makes sense before you use it.[/QUOTE] Except if I used them or not doesn't make any difference to the seller if I don't pay for it, so it actually makes, and you don't.

[QUOTE=Simski;40420895]If anything, view them as protesting against unreasonable prices and shitty service[/QUOTE] They're still showing interest in the game or movie or music when they pirate it, though. Boycotting and protesting doesn't work like that. You can't have your cake and eat it too when you're "protesting bad business/ shitty DRM."

i mean look indie games sell waaaaay more than the million dollar DRM loaded games, according to EA's logic (just an example of a drm company) any game that offers copys of itself for free would not make any money because everyone would pirate it, but the exact opposite actually happens, game devs make it a slight inconveinance to get the game free, because they will maybe keep the paid version one patch ahead, but they make money and people actualy [B]choose[/B] to buy the game, even though they don't have to

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40420916]Why do people pirate in the first place? [B]Because they cant/wouldn't pay for it. So its safe to assume that said pirate feels that they should be entertained without paying for it[/B]. Like it or not thats how people are.[/QUOTE] I fail to see how you could draw this conclusion. People pirate because they want to watch / play / use something, not because they feel like they should be allowed to do so but simply because it's possible. It has nothing whatsoever to do with entitlement.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40421116]Except if I used them or not doesn't make any difference to the seller if I don't pay for it, so it actually makes, and you don't.[/QUOTE] It DOES make a difference. Using Nerts' logic, one could say that literally everything you don't buy in your life is a lost potential sale. Piracy can be considered a lost potential sale because somebody obtained and USED the product without giving compensation. Walking through the store is not comparable to potential sales lost in piracy because you aren't magically copying each and every item you see to use in your house or whatever without paying.

Its like McAfee don't want customers or something.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40421120]They're still showing interest in the game or movie or music when they pirate it, though. Boycotting and protesting doesn't work like that. You can't have your cake and eat it too when you're "protesting bad business/ shitty DRM."[/QUOTE] They're showing an interest, but also showing that they're not willing to buy the product yet, for reasons such as it being unreasonably priced or having other features that doesn't make it worth that much money

Here's an illustrated version of what I'm saying: [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3877425/temp/piracy.png[/img] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40420977]I can argue that there's also subset of people who bought it only because they pirated and tried it or because they got persuaded by somebody who pirated it and advertised it. Neither of the subsets can be counted or quantified, so the argument is completely moot.[/QUOTE] The former would be placed into the blue and the latter is irrelevant because the original pirate still hadn't bought it. And just because it can't be quantified, doesn't make it moot. The area in red that isn't covered in blue is all lost revenue, which so long as it isn't equal to zero means that piracy resulted in lost sales.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40421174]It DOES make a difference. Using Nerts' logic, one could say that literally everything you don't buy in your life is a lost potential sale. Piracy can be considered a lost potential sale because somebody obtained and USED the product without giving compensation. Walking through the store is not comparable to potential sales lost in piracy because you aren't magically copying each and every item you see to use in your house or whatever without paying.[/QUOTE] ...just as using a copy you wouldn't have bought isn't comparable to stealing something and causing direct harm to the seller. His post is a stretch reacting to your stretch, sorts of.

[QUOTE=Simski;40421204]They're showing an interest, but also showing that they're not willing to buy the product yet, for reasons such as it being unreasonably priced or having other features that doesn't make it worth that much money[/QUOTE] If it's not worth the money, don't buy it. How much more simple could it get?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40421056]Lets explain my argument with an example: a game comes put with 0 drm, costs 40$, and has no reprocussions from pirating it (for the pirate anyway) lets say the game is p. good, do you buy it; or pirate it?[/QUOTE] Buy? If it looks like it's worth the money, I'd buy it. [editline]25th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40421215]Here's an illustrated version of what I'm saying: [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3877425/temp/piracy.png[/img][/QUOTE] My eyes hurt. Are you saying that pirates are a closed circle and that purchasers have blue balls?

[QUOTE=Sableye;40421119]i mean look indie games sell waaaaay more than the million dollar DRM loaded games, according to EA's logic (just an example of a drm company) any game that offers copys of itself for free would not make any money because everyone would pirate it, but the exact opposite actually happens, game devs make it a slight inconveinance to get the game free, because they will maybe keep the paid version one patch ahead, but they make money and people actualy [B]choose[/B] to buy the game, even though they don't have to[/QUOTE] This is due to perspective. Let's say you pirate a big multi-million dollar budget AAA game. Who are you harming when you download that game? Faceless suits? Big publisher-backed developer? Pfft, who cares, right? They have enough money! Now let's say you pirate Hotline Miami. That game was developed by a very small team with an almost nonexistent budget. Because the devs don't have to appeal to investors or meet deadlines put on by a publisher, they have a lot more freedom. They made HM because it's fun, not because they're working on a project with a huge dev team and need to sell X amount of copies. When you pirate an indie game like Hotline Miami, you know the people you're harming, because they're closer to the community. Notch, Wolfire guys, Devolver Digital, Phil Fish (lol), even Garry to an extent. Indie games aren't being pirated less because of the DRM, they're being pirated less because gamers trust the developers more. They're not some faceless dev or pub, they're people that you can shout out to on Twitter and have a pretty good chance at getting a response from an ACTUAL developer.

Also because indie games are usually more reasonably priced (with exceptions)

Yeah that too. For me it's more of trust and personality. Indie games have character.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40421215]Here's an illustrated version of what I'm saying: [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3877425/temp/piracy.png[/img] The former would be placed into the blue and the latter is irrelevant because the original pirate still hadn't bought it. And just because it can't be quantified, doesn't make it moot. The area in red that isn't covered in blue is all lost revenue, which so long as it isn't equal to zero means that piracy resulted in lost sales.[/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5483751/Photos/piracy_pictorial.png[/img] Yay I can draw me some pretty pictures too.