Frequently, when pressured into this very rare confluence of circumstances, he becomes the third type of thief I mentioned-- the kind that defeats locks because he hates the very existence of locks. It incentivizes him to become better at breaking locks, for the sole goal of breaking locks.
I think for most pirates (who will be mostly content pirates), this consists of going to TPB and grumbling when there is no download, then either just buying it (because they actually really wanted it), or just forgetting about it (because they were only kind of curious). Most pirates just want the software, and software is just not very expensive.
I think at this point, most people realise, at least tentatively, that piracy is bad, and generally don't go around rebelling against the concept of a lock after making a genuine attempt at breaking in. Either that or their rebellion consists of ineffectually complaining about it on Reddit or something, than possibly purchasing it anyway. So I dispute this "frequently" part.
It's completely sensible not to purchase a game with online DRM if you have no internet connection, obviously, as you won't be able to play it. There are heaps of PC games though, physical stores may not stock much due to the huge popularity of online distribution, and the fact that PC gaming has formed it's own unique niche, as not just a "superior console".
see my first post about what motivates an "honest" person, and its implications.
The very idea that an honest person will gradually become dishonest when faced with constantly having to make the bad choice while being castigated by the software maker, indicates that "honesty" is a spectrum.
At the very bottom, where the honesty value is "zero", you have the true, consumate pirate. The argument you just tendered, is for somebody that for at least some classes of circumstance can be viewed as an honest user. (They still have a conscience, and a desire to use the software the right right way if the gatekeeper would stop being a prick.)
My statement is about this person at the bottom of the curve. They can be forced into buying a legitimate license, but doing so only angers them, and that anger is a powerful enough motivator to make them go out of their way to assure nobody else has to suffer that "indignity."
This is the primary mechanism by which a content thief becomes an ideological thief. The counter-argument that most people engaging in piracy (due to onerous locks existing, causing them to pick up piracy as a last resort) have trepidations, and would rather do it the right way (Due to having some degree of honesty still) is a nonsequitor. Apples and oranges.
To summaraize, my thesis looks like this:
The existence of onerous locks erodes the honesty of the userbase, driving them to the bottom of the decision curve, the more onerous the lock, and the more time you spend trying to enforce it.
When a user hits the bottom of the honesty curve, the only way to stop them pirating is to offer it free, (really free. Not even ads.) because otherwise all they have to do is wait if they are not skilled enough to break the lock themselves (the lock only needs to be broken once for all interested to get access.). Having hit the bottom of the curve, they hold only enmity for you. Rather than feel some form of guilt at improper access, they feel vindication, and pleasure when they succeed. This initiates a behavioral cycle where breaking locks becomes pleasurable.
It is practically impossible to get somebody back up into the honesty curve once they hit the bottom. You certainly wont get them there using an exclusive lockout.
Modern content creators, however, are in love with the idea that a "perfect DRM" is possible-- a DRM that forces *ALL* users to be legitimate ones.
Their desperate search for this mythical perfect DRM introduces ever more onerous restrictions on their userbase, (Like always online activation for offline games, overloaded servers for authentication, treating users that have auth problems like pirates immediately, et al.) causing them to be pushed down on the honesty curve, towards the black hole at the bottom.
This love affair they have with "Perfect DRM" creates a prisoner's dilemma, because the customer pool is shared.
The dreamy eyed (eg, greedy and delusional) content creators that are seriously and earnestly searching for this mythical means of draconian, "ultimate solution" type enforcement, cause the userbase of less delusional, less greedy content creators to become less and less honest, after those users are exposed to the draconian horseshit.
This means that they begin experiencing greater and greater incidences of piracy than they did in the past, as people become less and less willing (Due to the behavioral consequences of being subjected to draconian bullshit) to gain legitimate use rights to works, and less and less guilty about getting such illegal access instead. More and more people end up in the black hole at the bottom of the curve.
Like all singularities, once you go in, you almost never come out-- and when they reach a critical mass, they become very self-sustaining. Whole communities of users unite under a common flag, and breaking locks becomes a community effort, even a praised sporting event. The pirates are all too happy to help other pirates break locks, viewing it as a community service.
The goal of the mythically perfect DRM is to completely eliminate this singularity. In reality, it does only the opposite, and the more tightly the fist grips, the more people rush to the black hole, never to return.
The ideal DRM is not this "mythical" "Perfect DRM". The ideal DRM understands that its goal is to minimize, but not eliminate the singularity, and keep this population at manageable levels.
EG, it prevents free access with a simple but effective restriction that is not obtrusive to people who have a license. It is too simple to be a real challenge to people in the singularity (It's about as much fun as watching paint dry.) and it causes a pang of guilt in people who still have some honesty. It creates a little barrier to stop people sliding into the singularity at the bottom of the curve. By preventing people, and the talent and creativity they possess, from falling into the singularity at the bottom, the pool of skill for breaking locks is diminished. Total piracy diminishes.
DRM is not itself evil, or always counter-effectual. It becomes counter-effectual when it forgets what its real purpose is.
It forgets what its real purpose is, when content creators suffer the ideological equivalent of a narcissistic body image disorder, and demand that all people must adore and worship them. (EG, when the content creators feel that their work is so amazingly awesome, that anyone even wanting to look at it needs to pay full licensing, and imposes draconian enforcement to [attempt to] assure this is the case)
Again proper DRM only is effective against preventing people still on the honesty curve from falling into the singularity of piracy at the bottom.
Once they get there, any DRM is ineffectual at best, and counter-effectual at worst.
This is why things like NetFlix have been so vastly effective at combating video piracy. For a very affordable monthly fee, held behind a very thin restriction of a username and password, there is a universe of videos to choose from, with no restriction on consumption. Click and watch to your heart's content.
This is an example of an effective and proper DRM. You dont get access to netflix's media archive without paying the monthly fee, (going through the gate keeper), but this act is painless. (The gatekeeper just smiles and waves you through if you show your pass, and does not look too closely.) This ease of access makes the idea of breaking the streaming security disgusting to just about anyone still on the honesty curve, (Really, is 8$ a month really too much to pay? honestly?) preventing them from falling into the singularity, and thus starving the singularity of fresh talent and imagination needed to break the streaming format.
The consequence? Netflix ALONE dropped video piracy rates from filesharing sites by more than 30%, according to many reputable metrics firms.
A similar story exists for Valve's Steam service, in terms of games. Steam will authenticate your copies easily, and with just a simple username and password validation. It will let you install that game many times, and tries its best to not get in your way. The service itself is free, and gets the heavy hand of the publishers off your back as much as it possibly can.
There are still pirates who seek to break Steam's DRM on packages, but they exist inside the singularity. Steam puts a net up and stops people falling in. It is effective and proper DRM.
This horseshit from Microsoft though? Forcing a legitimate user to have to look for another set of credentials, because of a belligerent gate keeper? Forcing them to pay, AGAIN, for access, just because they ugraded a part inside their machine?
That drives people DOWN the curve.
It is not just ineffectual at combating piracy, it actively encourages it.
Author
Topic: Fuck you Microsoft (Read 19188 times)