25 Arguments for the Elimination of Copy Protection

Tchnologizer ^ | 13 October 2008 | Harry McCracken

[ShadowAce]

[pnh102]

Excellent article. I couldn’t agree more.

[steve-b]

[ShadowAce]

That’s definitely one of his better panels in that strip.

[jmc813]

It’s so easy to pirate nowadays, I still can’t believe people actually pay for music.

[SampleMan]

Actually, come to think of it, if there was a form of copy protection that was never a hassle for paying customers but which effectively prevented piracy, I might enthusiastically support it.

So theft is OK if the alternative is "a hassle". OK, I find this whole working thing to get money is kind of a hassle, when all the money I need is just down at the bank. Good to know that stealing it is now justifiable.

And the next time that I get stuck in a long line at the grocery store, I'm just going to roll the cart around the check out and on out to my car. How glorious that by being making buying their product a hassle, the owner has given me a justifiable reason to just take it.

[ShadowAce]

I would still pay for music, if any music was being produced that was worth paying for. I haven't purchased anything since Bat Out Of Hell III came out. Before that, it had been at least 10 years.

I just don't like much of today's stuff.

[ShadowAce]

That’s not what he was saying. Read it again.

[The Louiswu]

Used to be, back in the good old days, an album had 3-4 hits and a few misses, but now albums seem to have 1 hit and 12 or 13 misses.

I will pick up a song or two from albums but I rarely buy an entire album anymore, just not worth the cash.

[richmwill]

I remember when I purchased “Mortal Kombat” for the PC when it first came out. The copy-protection for the game was that you had to type in a random word from the instruction manual (they gave you a page number, line number, etc.). And the word was different every time. So, if you ever lost the instruction manual, the game was useless.

[SampleMan]

I read it. His point is that copy right protection makes things a hassle. That isn't new. People who purchased a song on an LP had to purchase it again if they wanted it on 8-track, ditto cassette & CD. But now people feel that its too much of a hassle to get locked into a format.

He listed 25 things that are bad about copyright. Let me list one thing that is bad about no copyrights.

1. People will stop working hard to innovate and produce competitive quality in the market place. All you'll get is amateur hour rehash. If you prefer Youtube productions over studio produced music and feature films, then you'll be in heaven.

So yes, getting rid of copyrights will definitely solve all of those hassles. Just like socialism solves all of those other consumer hassles.

[ShadowAce]

I remember that type of protection. I had forgotten about it until now.

I forgot which game I played that used it, though. I thought that really sucked. Also, I thought it was kinda useless--just go to the library and copy the manual.

Ah well. I don't have the time (or the inclination) to play those games anymore.

[ShadowAce]

His point is that copy right protection makes things a hassle.

Yes--for legitimate purchasers of said property. He also said that if it would do it's job and prevent actual piracy, he'd support it. He's not advocating piracy just because it's easy, he's saying how bad today's state of copyright protection is not doing it's job, and it's making things harder than they really need to be.

[Tribune7]

He’s right. Megadittos.

[dieudonne]

But he isn’t actually speaking against copyrights. He is speaking against copy protections. To be even more specific he is speaking against copy protections that are ineffective, insulting, and flaky.

That is simply not the same thing as condemning copyrights. I believe you need to read closer AGAIN.

[dieudonne]

Consumers will vote with their feet. The generation coming up is now flatly refusing to buy IP with DRM. Note that they are not refusing to buy music, movies, games, etc. They simply will not be burdened with flaky DRM.

The bottom line is that it is now SO easy to acquire the pirated goods that proper purchase is almost certainly the result of a deliberate choice not to pirate. If I have made the choice to pay you I don’t want my honesty and integrity called into question through shady DRM practices that artificially limit what I should be able to do with the goods I paid for.

[Tribune7]

He listed 25 things that are bad about copyright.

No he didn't. He listed 25 things that are bad about copy protection i.e. DRM.

And there is world of difference between stealing (taking something from someone which that someone no longer can use) and violating an arcane contract or a set of laws which ultimately handicap only those who wish to abide by them.

And I'm not defending piracy but common sense.

[SampleMan]

Convenience is a marketable aspect of a product. It is not a right. You have no entitlement to convenience.

In fact, it is greater convenience which has caused this whole problem. When it was difficult to pirate music and movies, piracy was a minor issue. But now that the product is so convenient to access, people are demanding that their be no restrictions at all. Boo hoo.

There is no justification for stealing.

There are no doubt better ways to do things. Perhaps the ability to pay for a song for life and then be able to download it once a year in any format you wish.

If there is a better way the market will find it. But there will be no market if there is no copyright.

[ShadowAce]

But there will be no market if there is no copyright.

As Tribune7 has already mentioned--this isn't about copyright. He's not against copyright. His second sentence in the article says he believes people ought to be rewarded for their efforts.

You've set up a straw man and have effectively knocked it down. Now let's discuss the actual article.