wanderson:
wizdum:
wanderson:
If there is harm, it is not caused by the law or the copyright holder.And who started requiring the use of copyright bots against fair use? The copyright holders. Mostly because of this: Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. - Wikipedia.
No one requires the use of such software, as evidenced by your own cite stating they would stop using such software. Oh and the software is not designed to prevent fair use, but rather prevent illegal uses--the mistakes are related to the lack of intellegence in the software, not intent. The software is simply an easier way for such corporations to make sure they comply with the law--they are not the only way.
wizdum:
You can lock down the content and pour the entire world's resources into stopping copyright infringement, and you still wont stop pirates. You are trying to control the distribution of something that is infinitely copy-able for zero cost. Its not going to happen. All you do is hurt innocents and drive more people to piracy.It is happening. That is why so many of your complaints and arguments against it are people who got caught stealing and they don't think the punishment is fair...
wizdum:
It is sad that so many people pirated the Humble Bundle, but you have to look past the percentages. That is a movement that is mostly only known to computer savvy people. Pirates are generally computer savvy. When compared to a game like Battlefield 3, the Humble Bundle sold next to nothing (which is not the same as wasn't much used). You also have no way of knowing how many of those pirates were the "try-before-you-buy" variety, or even how those numbers were created.Yes argue about the degree of pirating... We are talking about a piece of software that costs as little as something can possibly can, and yet people steal it... Which I believe is adequate evidence against the earlier arguments in this thread that pirating was just being caused by the greed of the sellers...
The software is required if you want to avoid being sued into oblivion. Find me one company that doesn't use it. They are not stopping use of all bot software, they are stopping the use of that particular software, and finding a different solution (and only because someone "famous" was hurt). One that honors fair use would be nice. Speaking of overzealous anti-piracy measures : YouTube Flags Democrats' Convention Video on Copyright Grounds | WIRED It happened again today.
The RIAA and MPAA have both the FBI and ICE working for them. There are entire departments at Time Warner Cable and Google that are dedicated to finding pirates, and yet... it continues. Meanwhile, I can't even play a singleplayer game that I purchased, without an internet connection anymore, due to the DRM.
I am not arguing the degree of pirating, I am arguing that the comparison is unfair and the metrics used are smoke and mirrors. You are comparing two different pools of users. The Humble Bundle is going to have a higher percentage of pirates because it is only known in the pool of users that know how to pirate things. If I were to go to Times Square and randomly ask people how many of them knew what an Atmega 168 was, i'd see a very low percentage of correct answers. If I asked here however, the percentage would be much higher. The percentage here isn't higher because of a sudden interest in ICs, it was because I changed the pool. With the Humble Bundle example you successfully argued that some people are dicks.