When you buy a piece of software, you're not just getting the end result - you're getting all the work leading up to it.
Yeah, that's another total bullshit argument. Cars don't grow on trees either. Not even the blueprints for cars grow on trees.
It's like buying a music CD and getting the band. I'm sure this is where someone will jump in and say 'but you can copy a music CD!'. Which is true, but music degrades gradually when copied, making for a built in limit to pirating. One copy of a game can spawn an unlimited number of copies in a very short amount of time.
No it doesn't. A digital medium is a digital medium. Doesn't matter what you put on it, a copied CD is essentially a perfect replica.
None of which matters, because illegal copying, or even illegal selling of illegal copies is no excuse for treating paying customers like shit. And make no mistake, it is only the paying customers who get hit. And don't even get me started on DVDs with unskippable ads and trailers before the movie.
And there's no way you can remaster Britney's latest with your own voice and sell it as your own - whereas there's nothing to stop you in the case of software.
Um yes? The law? Same thing that'll stop you if you try to rip off a musician, or an author or pretty much any producer of intellectual property. Which is the only thing IP law was originally intended to do - prevent people from profiting by selling the works of others. It was not meant as a blunt instrument to be wielded by the industry against competition and customers alike, as is the case today.
All other arguments aside, music has been an established retail product for centuries. Software is not - we don't really know how to sell it, buy it or use it in a way that suits both producer and consumer.
Yes we do. There are companies that aren't hostile towards their very customers. There are even some that don't use DRM at all. And they can still turn a profit. Because, surprise, surprise, you can't stop "piracy" anyway. CD-keys are a proven concept that works, and it does the only thing that is possible: preventing multiple copies of the same software from being used online at the same time. Everything else doesn't. More "protection" is impossible. Assassins Creed 2 has had the probably most draconian DRM yet, requiring constant internet connection, and pausing the game if it ever drops. And yet, it was cracked in under a day.
Strictly speaking you're not buying anything - you're leasing.
Yes that's what the software companies would like me to accept. But it's bullshit. And it has been called bullshit by courts whenever they tried to push it through so far. There are significant differences between leasing and buying contracts, and none of the usual contracts used to make money with software fit a lease. Big companies lease software all the time. But a leasing contract with MS for example means they pay for a service: a running MS Office package, and MS is then obligated to make sure the promised service is being provided. If something breaks down, they have to fix it. If it does not run, they don't get any money (or even pay, depending on the contract). The conditions you usually get when buying a game, for example that whole "software excempt from returns unless unopened" is mutually exclusive with a leasing contracts terms.
This is why you're explicitly agreeing to a licensing agreement when you install the software.
They're not binding actually. A contract you cannot read and agree to before signing (by paying) is never binding. The contract which applies is the store's default policy unless they make an exception for software. But the included EULA is never binding because you can't read it before buying, and they won't let you return the software if you read it but don't want to sign.
Furthermore, there's nothing to stop you from taking and using their stuff, and selling the software on. This is why, technically, it's a breach of contract to sell software you've purchased.
It's not. Many software manufacturers have tried to argue so in court, they've always lost. So they don't get any money when someone else sells on their product? Boo-fucking-hoo. Mercedes doesn't get a single dime from used car sales either. Being extra greedy doesn't give software companies any extra rights.
Herein lies the problem - they're selling a 20th century product in an 18th century market.
On the contrary. They're trying to sell a 20th century product like it was an 18th century market, where the producing guild has total control over all transactions with a certain product.
Look at it this way. When Activision keeps pumping out crappy Guitar Hero sequels in hugely expensive boxes, they're treating you like the enemy (and an idiot for that matter).
Nah, that's just catering to the lowest common denominator. I'm ok with that, i don't have a right to get good games, and they don't have a right to get my money for bad ones. Sooner or later some compromise will be found between producing the cheapest game possible and me not buying it because it's not worth playing.
Treating a customer like the enemy is forcing him to watch annoying anti-piracy ads before a DVD movie. Or forcing him to stay connected to the internet permanently to play a single-player game. Or hiring companies which advertise that they can track down and sue people for copying music at a higher profit margin for the music industry than actually selling the music would have yielded. (Luckily, where i live punitive charges go to the state, not the plaintiff)
When you sell your old games, you are the enemy and they're fully within their rights to try and stop you.
They're not. They're being whiny little children who think their greed is more important than basic consumer rights. They have no more right to prevent someone from reselling a game than an author has to prevent someone from reselling a book.
When Valve tries to create a new market that benefits both producer and consumer, and promises to trust their consumers by avoiding DRM, they're treating you like a responsible adult and asking that you do the same. Where's the problem?
The problem is that Valve doesn't avoid DRM. While it may seem mild in comparison to Ubisoft, Steam is still excessive. Controlling how often i can install a game? Or on how many different machines? None of this is any of their bloody business. If steam would only check online to see if the same registration key was already up and running it'd be still unnecessarily intrusive (forcing one to go online for a single-player game) but somewhat tolerable. But that's not even the real point. The real point is that none of these schemes actually work. The only games that are "piracy" proof are those which have actual online play, i.e. they are in communication with an online server which provides game relevant data. Everything else can and will be cracked. Even a scheme that tries to simulate that (as AC2 shows). The only people who get to deal with the problems those systems cause are the paying customers. Or more precisely, even of those only the paying customers who don't buy the game but still use a crack.
