Yet Another Reason that Copy Protection is Wrong

ArsTechnica reports that the Microsoft Genuine Advantage program went down on Friday night, and paying customers couldn't activate a copy of Windows. Copy protection only hurts the people that pay for software, movies or other content, and the people that want to steal it will always find a way, despite complicated protection measures, so why bother?

Just for the record: I don't support piracy, as I've spent the past 20 years in software and other content-related businesses where my paycheck was based on people paying for stuff they use.

via Daring Fireball.

Comments

[hueristix]

While I have been annoyed by these schemes many times....

There still is purpose in copy protection. Here is a pretty spot on analogy:
A thief can still get in to your house even if you put locks on the doors, so why bother? Just like other odds games, when it comes to protection sometimes the best you can do is make the theft more difficult.

[Super-Bat-Man]

I disagree very much,

I've worked for companies that should have bought $1,500 worth of software for each person using it. Instead of buying 10 copies they bought one copy and just installed it on each computer.

So that company missed out on $13,500...just from one company. and lot of those people probably just took it home and installed it as well...and those were people that would've had to buy it otherwise.

think about this...I used to buy a couple CD's a week but I have only bought one cd in the last 4 years...because with itunes all I have to do is pop in a friend's CD and click import. It's not like I'm going out of my way to figure out a way to steal, they have basically given me the option to steal. and since record companies don't care enough to sue and complain about that, well, then I don't care either.

[Hunter McDaniel]

heuristix - suppose that anytime you wanted to change the oil in your car, JiffyLube had to call the DMV and make sure the car was really yours, and if the phones were down or the office was closed, or the title said Robert instead of Bob, no dice. Would that be OK?

[Steve]

In regards to the CD reference...

The music companies have done this to themselves. Growing up in the '60s/'70s, music was all about achieving primo sound. Alot of motivated kids (including me and my friends) would buy stereo kits (Heathkit, Eico, etc) and built very high quality hi-fi equipment for cheap. In turn, music companies put out pristine albums with beautiful album covers and sleeves - many would include large posters of the bands and other memorabilia.

I don't feel sorry for the record companies. They have been ripping off the artists and consumers for decades. They now sell crappy sounding 16 bit CDs in crappy 4.5" jewel boxes for $17.95 and artists sign away their rights to their art in exchange for the crappy sounding CDs. It's interesting not many musicians/bands have complained as bands primary source of income is touring and copyrights on lyrics/music - NOT on albums themselves.

What goes around, comes around...and there are those artists like Prince, Elton John and many others who are elated that the major label record companies are finally getting their just deserve.

So the way I see it, the music companies ripping off consumers and artists alike the consumer for ages are now getting theirs

[Old Timer Too]

Commercial Software from small companies are one thing and in that, I whole-heartedly agree that companies that buy one copy and then install it on multiple PCs are ripping off the developers.

On the other hand, companies like Microsoft have been ripping off the buying public at every turn. Plus, their product has become so bloated and hard to use for us single users that many of us have given up on them. I use open office for my writing and Firefox where I can on the web. Leaving Blockbuster's cumbersome anti-anything that isn't IE site is not going to hurt my feelings any.

For my e-mail, I use one of the best usenet readers around, Forte's Agent. I don't even have a usenet account anymore, but still fully support Agent with purchases and bought upgrades. A small company that actually doesn't charge exorbitant fees for software that works reliably and keeps me fairly free of computer viruses sent via spam.

As to the music industry, I now have four instances in which DVD and CD copies exist for the same performance. In each case, the DVD provides not only outstanding quality sound _and_ picture while the CD is plain old stereo and at least $10 more for the same performance without being to watch the artists!

On top of that, the DVDs often include additional material!

The music industry - oh, yeah. Rip off the artists and rip off the public. It is little wonder that people download and share freely. If the industry would just pay attention to why they are suffering and quit trying to blame the other guy, they might learn a valuable lesson and get their act together!

And while I'm on a rant, it really, really irritates to no end to pop in a DVD with family and friends and have to stare at that damned anti-piracy logo and warnings on DVDs I've paid for! It sure is tempting to gather the gear and make copies of everything I own, just to avoid having to stare at that thing! Talk about rub your face in it! Damn, but that's irritating!

I'd love nothing better than to pop in a DVD and have the movie start playing! Warner did this with a lot of their titles not that many years ago - Maverick (with Mel Gibson) is one that comes to mind. I loved it!

[steven]

I disagree with the analogy "A thief can still get in to your house even if you put locks on the doors, so why bother?" and I think drawing it is extremely naive.

There are intractable differences between house breaking and ripping media.

(1) a house breaker is likely to get caught eventually and suffer consequences

(2) we all know people who copy cd's or DVD's. Copying this stuff is relatively socially acceptable in ways that breaking into a house isn't, probably because it is impersonal and does not harm an individual directly. Would you shop a friend broke into another friends house and stole? A friend who ripped another friends cd? Yes and No.

This means that, whereas as locks on houses further deter a socially unacceptable and likely to be punished activity, protecting digital media does nothing of the kind.

All protecting digital media does is harm those who legitimately bought the media and are unable to backup their purchase or deal with incompatibilities introduced by the copy protection itself.

Of course the copyright owners are entitled to try to protect their property, but the fact that they are NEVER going to deter the even the vast majority of piracy, and only ever going to harm a law abiding minority, means that they are seriously ill advised to pursue this course.

I would be in favour or DRM if it punised theft and did not harm the law abiding. Unfortunately it does the reverse.

[steven]

I disagree with the analogy "A thief can still get in to your house even if you put locks on the doors, so why bother?" and I think drawing it is extremely naive.

There are intractable differences between house breaking and ripping media.

(1) a house breaker is likely to get caught eventually and suffer consequences

(2) we all know people who copy cd's or DVD's. Copying this stuff is relatively socially acceptable in ways that breaking into a house isn't, probably because it is impersonal and does not harm an individual directly. Would you shop a friend broke into another friends house and stole? A friend who ripped another friends cd? Yes and No.

This means that, whereas as locks on houses further deter a socially unacceptable and likely to be punished activity, protecting digital media does nothing of the kind.

All protecting digital media does is harm those who legitimately bought the media and are unable to backup their purchase or deal with incompatibilities introduced by the copy protection itself.

Of course the copyright owners are entitled to try to protect their property, but the fact that they are NEVER going to deter the even the vast majority of piracy, and only ever going to harm a law abiding minority, means that they are seriously ill advised to pursue this course.

I would be in favour or DRM if it punised theft and did not harm the law abiding. Unfortunately it does the reverse.

[steven]

I disagree with the analogy "A thief can still get in to your house even if you put locks on the doors, so why bother?" and I think drawing it is extremely naive.

There are intractable differences between house breaking and ripping media.

(1) a house breaker is likely to get caught eventually and suffer consequences

(2) we all know people who copy cd's or DVD's. Copying this stuff is relatively socially acceptable in ways that breaking into a house isn't, probably because it is impersonal and does not harm an individual directly. Would you shop a friend broke into another friends house and stole? A friend who ripped another friends cd? Yes and No.

This means that, whereas as locks on houses further deter a socially unacceptable and likely to be punished activity, protecting digital media does nothing of the kind.

All protecting digital media does is harm those who legitimately bought the media and are unable to backup their purchase or deal with incompatibilities introduced by the copy protection itself.

Of course the copyright owners are entitled to try to protect their property, but the fact that they are NEVER going to deter the even the vast majority of piracy, and only ever going to harm a law abiding minority, means that they are seriously ill advised to pursue this course.

I would be in favour or DRM if it punised theft and did not harm the law abiding. Unfortunately it does the reverse.

[steven]

I disagree with the analogy "A thief can still get in to your house even if you put locks on the doors, so why bother?" and I think drawing it is extremely naive.

There are intractable differences between house breaking and ripping media.

(1) a house breaker is likely to get caught eventually and suffer consequences

(2) we all know people who copy cd's or DVD's. Copying this stuff is relatively socially acceptable in ways that breaking into a house isn't, probably because it is impersonal and does not harm an individual directly. Would you shop a friend broke into another friends house and stole? A friend who ripped another friends cd? Yes and No.

This means that, whereas as locks on houses further deter a socially unacceptable and likely to be punished activity, protecting digital media does nothing of the kind.

All protecting digital media does is harm those who legitimately bought the media and are unable to backup their purchase or deal with incompatibilities introduced by the copy protection itself.

Of course the copyright owners are entitled to try to protect their property, but the fact that they are NEVER going to deter the even the vast majority of piracy, and only ever going to harm a law abiding minority, means that they are seriously ill advised to pursue this course.

I would be in favour or DRM if it punised theft and did not harm the law abiding. Unfortunately it does the reverse.

[kannibull]

I'm sure nobody will ever read this, but as I was reading some comments about analogies, I thought of one myself. Imagine a utopian society where ALL content was copyright protected. If you went to the President's inaugural speech, the speech writer has installed an audio modifying technology so that you cannot repeat the information to your friends. You sit down to read the news paper and there are smudges all across the page so that you cannot rewrite any of the information. Here's the rub folks "stealing" digital material is NOT STEALING it's copying and using at your leisure. If I make 100 copies and pass them out to my friends, I haven't STOLEN anything, because I've gained nothing and nobody has lost anything. This would be the same as taking my one DVD and letting 100 people borrow it and watch it, OR inviting 100 people to my home to watch a DVD on my tv. (the same is true about CDs and software except 100 people could not simultaneously use software) Neither of these is punishable by law is it? So in essence the only actual crime is providing convenience to lending. In fact I will often make 2 or 3 copies and tell people to pass them along, so the material might end up being distributed on a mass scale, ESPECIALLY if these people are making copies from the copies and progressing it forward. The point is, you can't steal what isn't really there. They just get their panties in a bunch when they don't make millions! I will say that movie pirating must be having an effect on Hollywood, because they have put out 99.9% GARBAGE in 2008 which is up from 99.5% in '07.