🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:51:08 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>Sorry to hear Re's John (the Mighty) Lewis's  "comprehension
>problem"..hopefully it is indeed Teeny Weenie.
>...The fact that lots want to discuss the Spore DRM is clear , powerful
>symptom
>that the game is not interesting them , not enough anyway to take the
>collective minds(s)
>off the DRM
>.
>If the game itself is in fact interesting enough to deserve a Thread then
>one of those interested here would have started one ?
>It would be far to arrogant & forward for one such as I to go against the
>clear desires of the masses & start such a Thread .
>(\__/)
>(='.'=)
>(")_(")  mouse(yea that told 'im proper !)

Huh, you show yourself in your "true colors" - just a timid little
mouse.......... Here let me oblige on your behalf...

John Lewis

John Lewis

>
>
>

In article 
<94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>
DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> 1Up.com http://atu.ca/647
>
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM

"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
http://atu.ca/675

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
<nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

>"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>http://atu.ca/675

Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
are on a moral crusade.

No wonder PC gaming is dying.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Andrew wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>> http://atu.ca/675
> 
> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
> are on a moral crusade.
> 
> No wonder PC gaming is dying.


Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play it 
but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that people 
that might normally have bought the game, that might normally be averse 
to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up that they're 
looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be interested to see an 
independent study of that.

Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses> writes:

> Andrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>>> http://atu.ca/675
>>
>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>> are on a moral crusade.
>>
>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>
>
> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play
> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that
> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally
> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up
> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?

None. They *claim* thats why they download. But in reality they know
full well that in the "vogue" period they would never install it 5 times
anyway. Like all DRM like this they know it will be cracked or opened up
later.

They are thieving scum. Nothing more, nothing less.


> I'd certainly be
> interested to see an independent study of that.

-- 

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:50:51 +0100, Shawk <shawk@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
wrote:

>Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play it 
>but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that people 
>that might normally have bought the game, that might normally be averse 
>to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up that they're 
>looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be interested to see an 
>independent study of that.

If people want to protest, don't buy the game, and email the
publishers telling them why. Publishers have no way of knowing which
of the millions of warezed copies are just the usual thieves or those
"making a stand" (no difference in my mind) so therefore no useful
message is sent.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Shawk wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - http://atu.ca/675
>>
>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>> are on a moral crusade.
>>
>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
> 
> 
> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play it 
> but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that people 
> that might normally have bought the game, that might normally be averse 
> to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up that they're 
> looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be interested to see an 
> independent study of that.

Unfortunately the whole article has the air of trying to justify why 
someone is right to pirate a game ... to me it's just a really weird 
sense of logic that can come to this conclusion.

On Sep 8, 11:05 am, DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> 1Up.comhttp://atu.ca/647
>
> If you take a look atSpore'slisting on Amazon.comhttp://atu.ca/SPOREyou may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM (via Destructoid).
>
> ..Spore'sDRM limits owners to only three activations of
> the game after installation. The point is to prohibit
> software pirates from sharing and reusing activation codes
> over and over, but it also means that if a user happens to
> uninstall and reinstallSporemore than three times for
> completely legitimate reasons, they'll have to contact
> Electronic Arts customer support to request and have
> approved a new authentication on a case-by-case basis.
> Which is precisely what has Amazon users up in arms.
>
> A quick scan of the negative reviews reveals some bitterly
> sensationalistic headlines: "DRM Kills another potentially
> great game," "Not a chance until the DRM goes," and "DRM
> complicates life, removes value." One reviewer, who calls
> the DRM "draconian," even likened a purchase to a rental as
> opposed to an actual ownership of the game, since a player
> could theoretically be barred from playing their copy ofSporeif they use up their activations and EA refuses to
> allow more. "What you will be left with is a nice, colorful
> $50 coaster. And you will be required to pay for another
> copy/license if you want to continue playing," the user
> writes.
>
> And believe it or not, this backlash comes after EA and
> Maxis madeSpore'sDRM less stringent, when fans decried
> the originally announced plan to require online
> authentication every 10 days. As for how much the Amazon
> debacle will affect sales of the game remains uncertain,
> but it's probably a PR problem that EA and Maxis could have
> happily lived without.


same at Best buy, sunday the 15th of september, only a thee star
rating out of maybe six or seven stars and most people had terrible
experiences with this.

I feel that the most "intelligent" user reviews tend to be on amazon!!

freestone

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:39:26 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
><nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
>>"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>>http://atu.ca/675
>
>Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>are on a moral crusade.
>
>No wonder PC gaming is dying.

No.  Get too offensive about the DRM and people will pirate rather
than put up with it.

Spore isn't going to do nearly as well as they expected because it's
simply not up to the hype.  They will of course blame piracy but
that's not the real cause.

JAB wrote:
> Shawk wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - http://atu.ca/675
>>>
>>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>> are on a moral crusade.
>>>
>>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play 
>> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that 
>> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally 
>> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up 
>> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be 
>> interested to see an independent study of that.
> 
> Unfortunately the whole article has the air of trying to justify why 
> someone is right to pirate a game ... to me it's just a really weird 
> sense of logic that can come to this conclusion.


Its that kind of site though Jab - pro-sharing.

That's why I'd like to see an independent study - I think it'd be of 
interest to publishers and devs.  I'm sure that a number of people who 
read the outcry on Amazon and other sites but were looking forward to 
the game may well have though I wonder how hard bit-torrent actually is 
to use?

Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like 
a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm 
sure he's right for a percentage of people.  Andrew has a good, common 
sense point but I'm not sure that 'if' normal non-thieving bastards 
suddenly decide to d-load Azureus of UTorrent because they've had enough 
of DRM whether they are bothered about sending a message or just want to 
play.

This game is the wrong one for such a study anyway by the sound of it. 
Even without DRM it hasn't turned out to be much of a game and I'm not 
sure 'any' of those million d-loaders would have paid for it...

Shawk wrote:
> JAB wrote:
>> Shawk wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>>>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - http://atu.ca/675
>>>>
>>>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>>> are on a moral crusade.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play 
>>> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that 
>>> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally 
>>> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up 
>>> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be 
>>> interested to see an independent study of that.
>>
>> Unfortunately the whole article has the air of trying to justify why 
>> someone is right to pirate a game ... to me it's just a really weird 
>> sense of logic that can come to this conclusion.
> 
> 
> Its that kind of site though Jab - pro-sharing.
> 
> That's why I'd like to see an independent study - I think it'd be of 
> interest to publishers and devs.  I'm sure that a number of people who 
> read the outcry on Amazon and other sites but were looking forward to 
> the game may well have though I wonder how hard bit-torrent actually is 
> to use?
> 
> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like 
> a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm 
> sure he's right for a percentage of people.  Andrew has a good, common 
> sense point but I'm not sure that 'if' normal non-thieving bastards 
> suddenly decide to d-load Azureus of UTorrent because they've had enough 
> of DRM whether they are bothered about sending a message or just want to 
> play.
> 
> This game is the wrong one for such a study anyway by the sound of it. 
> Even without DRM it hasn't turned out to be much of a game and I'm not 
> sure 'any' of those million d-loaders would have paid for it...
> 

Like all these things trying to work out the real figures is going to be 
difficult as a simple example I'm one of those d/l but I also bought the 
game - Amazon's predicted delivery time was way to long! Saying that I 
can see there being people that because of the hype surrounding the DRM 
then justified pirating the game because of that or even didn't realise 
that sites like pirate bay even existed. In the end the sales figures 
that will really count.

Oh and as a game I really like it if you can get past the it's more a 
pastime than a normal game IMHO. I liken it to something that's easy 
just to spend the odd hour here and there just playing around with. I 
love STALKER but it's nice to have something "fun" to play occasionally.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:27:19 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Loren Pechtel
wrote: 

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:39:26 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>><nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" - 
>>>http://atu.ca/675
>>
>>Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>>are on a moral crusade.
>>
>>No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>
>No.  Get too offensive about the DRM and people will pirate rather
>than put up with it.
>
Case in point:

In the 80's, I bought M.U.L.E., Archon, Seven Cities, and Heart of Africa for
the C=64. You'd wait 3 or so minutes while the famously offensive, anti-copy
_EOA_ loading screen just sat their and changed the color of their logo, one
stripe at a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electronic_Arts_historical_logo.svg

was all you saw for about 3 minutes.

I bought Epyx Fastload. No help. I'm pretty sure EA's loader loaded custom
firmware into the 1541 drive. You could do that with a 1541 because the
hardware was very flexible (and notoriously slow with its default firmware). I
also used to use EA's loader as a test when I was realigning the heads, too,
because if you weren't in *perfect* alignment, EA games would _not_ load.

*Everything else* would read just fine, but EA disks would choke.

Eventually, I found a pirate authored "load and dump" program that would
capture the data the EA loader grabbed, and then dump it to a normal file.

With Fastload, those games went from taking 3 minutes of corporate advertising
on load to 5 seconds. 5 seconds! I used to get up and make a sandwich while EA
games loaded, no more!

That's just my personal story. I cracked every EA game I bought. I bought every
EA game I played. They were one of the best companies out there at the time.

EA has a *long* history of putting DRM before customer satisfaction, but at
least they *used* to care about quality. That was how they got away with it in
the 80's.

-- 
Zag

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...Ben Franklin

Shawk wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:49:00 -0600 (MDT), DC
>> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, Thanks to DRM" -
>>> http://atu.ca/675
>>
>> Spore: Most Pirated Game Ever, by a bunch of thieves pretending they
>> are on a moral crusade.
>>
>> No wonder PC gaming is dying.
>
>
> Absolutely they should have bought the game if they're going to play
> it but I do have to wonder.  Is there any merit to the argument that
> people that might normally have bought the game, that might normally
> be averse to d-loading something for free are now getting so fed up
> that they're looking to d-load because of DRM?  I'd certainly be
> interested to see an independent study of that.

I've never pirated a game or downloaded a cracked version but there have 
been several that I would have bought if not for the DRM or other malware 
that would have had to be installed with them.

-- 
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08 

Shawk wrote:
> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like 
> a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm 
> sure he's right for a percentage of people.

"Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of 
seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people 
don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to 
be so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.

It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying 
and cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has 
trouble taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who 
never bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting 
pissed off enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to 
start downloading, just because of DRM.

I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay 
article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted 
pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just 
as silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of 
their one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead 
of 100.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Shawk wrote:
>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving 
>> like a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals 
>> and I'm sure he's right for a percentage of people.
> 
> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of 
> seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people 
> don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to 
> be so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.
> 
> It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying 
> and cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has 
> trouble taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who 
> never bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting 
> pissed off enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to 
> start downloading, just because of DRM.
> 
> I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay 
> article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted 
> pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just 
> as silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of 
> their one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead 
> of 100.


That was my point David.

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> Shawk wrote:
>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like a 
>> criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm sure 
>> he's right for a percentage of people.
>
> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of 
> seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people 
> don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to be 
> so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.
>
> It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying and 
> cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has trouble 
> taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who never 
> bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting pissed off 
> enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to start 
> downloading, just because of DRM.
>
> I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay 
> article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted 
> pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just as 
> silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of their 
> one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead of 100.

I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
ever seen.

Thanks David.

CC 

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> Shawk wrote:
>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving like a
>> criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals and I'm sure
>> he's right for a percentage of people.
>
> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word.  Laws have a wide range of
> seriousness, and there's lots of evidence that many (maybe most) people
> don't consider some of them (say, speeding laws, or jaywalking laws) to be
> so serious as to be worth obeying if it's inconvenient to do so.
>
> It has long been clear, since at least the days of cheap photocopying and
> cheap audio cassettes, that a large fraction of the public has trouble
> taking copyright seriously.  I can easily imagine people who never
> bothered to figure out how to pirate anything suddenly getting pissed off
> enough about laws they barely respect in the first place to start
> downloading, just because of DRM.
>
> I am not trying to justify breaking any such laws.  While the Pirate Bay
> article may well have been trying to do so, I think many newly-minted
> pirates might just be saying to themselves "f**k it, that rule is just as
> silly as a 100km/hr speed limit on the 401".  They might think of their
> one download as pretty much equivalent to driving 105km/hr instead of 100.

I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to
say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've
ever seen.

Thanks David.

CC

Shawk wrote:
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> Shawk wrote:
>>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving 
>>> like a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals 
>>> and I'm sure he's right for a percentage of people.
>>
>> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word. 
> 
> That was my point David.

I think what was going on is that I was objecting to what Walt said and 
supporting what you said in (I think) a suitably different way to be 
worth saying.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Shawk wrote:
>> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>>> Shawk wrote:
>>>> Walt's confident that no decent person would be driven to behaving 
>>>> like a criminal even if people consistently treat them as criminals 
>>>> and I'm sure he's right for a percentage of people.
>>>
>>> "Criminal" is a pretty loaded word. 
>>
>> That was my point David.
> 
> I think what was going on is that I was objecting to what Walt said and 
> supporting what you said in (I think) a suitably different way to be 
> worth saying.


...and saying it much better (I've applied to your fan club)  ;-)

Magnate wrote:
> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
> ever seen.

I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should 
never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should 
be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> ... a legislature should 
> be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.

Should have finished with: Because that increases disrespect for the law 
in general.

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> ... a legislature should be wary about passing laws they know are going 
>> to be largely ignored.
>
> Should have finished with: Because that increases disrespect for the law 
> in general.

Agreed again. When are you running for president?

(Just finished season six of the West Wing - suddenly US politics is 
interesting!)

CC 

Magnate wrote:
> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
> Agreed again. When are you running for president?

Ineligible: Canadian.

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> Magnate wrote:
>> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
>> Agreed again. When are you running for president?
> 
> Ineligible: Canadian.


Even better... no-one in the World really hates you

In article 
<94b9b5835db6b616cfdd9f7dd549cf0b@pseudo.borked.net>
DC <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> 1Up.com
>
> If you take a look at Spore's listing on Amazon.com
> http://atu.ca/SPORE you may be surprised to notice that the
> game (as of this writing) has an abysmal user rating of one-
> and-a-half stars. But that isn't necessarily an indictment
> of the game's quality -- out of 184 customer reviews, 159
> are one-star ratings, and just about all of them have one
> thing in common: pure, vile hatred of the game's digital
> rights management, or DRM

ZDNet - "Spore DRM could kill PC gaming" 
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2617

Shawk wrote:
> David Alex Lamb wrote:
>> Magnate wrote:
>>> "David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote
>>> Agreed again. When are you running for president?
>>
>> Ineligible: Canadian.
> 
> Even better... no-one in the World really hates you
> 

Bin Laden put us on his List a year or two ago.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:27:35 -0400, David Alex Lamb
<dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:

>Magnate wrote:
>> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
>> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
>> ever seen.
>
>I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should 
>never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should 
>be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.

Agreed.  DRM just encourages hostility towards the game makers and
thus encourages piracy.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:38:51 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:27:35 -0400, David Alex Lamb
><dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>
>>Magnate wrote:
>>> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just have to 
>>> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that I've 
>>> ever seen.
>>
>>I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should 
>>never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should 
>>be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.
>
>Agreed.  DRM just encourages hostility towards the game makers and
>thus encourages piracy.



Yes from what I have read is that SPORE is now the most pirated Game out.


Plus the other problem the DRM   would not be Valid here in NZ, I often have
to reinstall XP a few times, I play with stacks of software and some Beta's,
our Retail laws stated that it must be fit for the purpose it was made for so
restricting the reinstalls to 5 as I think it would be illegal here.

"Brian Adams" <ba@none.cnn> wrote in message 
news:o8lil4p391pppnch23pionq22faksl00jd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:38:51 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenpechtel@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:27:35 -0400, David Alex Lamb
>><dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Magnate wrote:
>>>> I've resisted the temptation to join this thread so far, but I just 
>>>> have to
>>>> say that that's the best explanation for why DRM is a bad thing that 
>>>> I've
>>>> ever seen.
>>>
>>>I guess it's an application of the basic idea that an officer should
>>>never issue an order he knows won't be obeyed, and a legislature should
>>>be wary about passing laws they know are going to be largely ignored.
>>
>>Agreed.  DRM just encourages hostility towards the game makers and
>>thus encourages piracy.
>
>
>
> Yes from what I have read is that SPORE is now the most pirated Game out.
>
>
> Plus the other problem the DRM   would not be Valid here in NZ, I often 
> have
> to reinstall XP a few times, I play with stacks of software and some 
> Beta's,
> our Retail laws stated that it must be fit for the purpose it was made for 
> so
> restricting the reinstalls to 5 as I think it would be illegal here.
>
>

that's old news...