GFWL shutdown so nice Microsoft did it twice: MS e-book DRM servers to go offline, refunds will be offered

[The King of the Undead]

DRM is bad we know this moving on water is wet and fire is hot

[The King of the Undead]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

-snip-

Just how drunk are you?

[Derangel]

43 minutes ago, Nowak said:

On the subject of piracy, while I do believe that it's wrong to pirate, especially when the creator of that thing worked so damn hard to get it out there (I told several friends who wanted to pirate Cuphead to buy it instead, because buying it supported the Moldenhauer Brothers far more than pirating it did), Gabe Newell defined it as a "service issue". That is, make it inconvenient and hard for people to get your product, and they will look at piracy as an alternative means to get that thing.

 

That isn't to say that it absolutely is morally justified to do, because it isn't, but the idea that it's because of availability (or a lack thereof) is a big part of why people pirate. It's not always people being self-righteous jackasses.

 

That being said, if you absolutely can avoid it, don't pirate anything. Support creators instead by buying their things. Anyway, I digress.

The service argument would be valid if stuff like Microsoft Ebooks were the only option. DRM free services exist. Plus, there are things like Kindle Unlimited that, while not DRM free, offer a way to read tons of books for a cheap monthly price. I believe some libraries have ebook options these days too. Ebook piracy really is not a service issue at this point.

[RejZoR]

This is why DRM is cancer that needs to die. In the end it ALWAYS punishes those who are honest and pay for things while pirates use shit without any issues.

[EldritchMoose]

With regards to piracy, I'm roughly where Chris Rock was on the O.J. Simpson trial in his Bring the Pain show:

Quote

I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand.

Ever since a solid, reliable and fairly-priced method of buying copyrighted media has been available, I have gladly used it. I buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs on Amazon and in stores, games on Steam and GOG, music from the artist or at festivals, etc.

 

However, with very few exceptions, these purchases have had more than their share of ways to "punish" the end user for having bought them legally. These range from unskippable anti-piracy ads (like, yeah, I wasn't going to pirate - I thought the fact that I had bought this fucking disc would be an indication from that), unskippable movie trailers, malware that would clog up my pc if I were to try and transfer my legally-bought music to my MP3 player, mandatory access to an unstable server even for games that have no online features (yay! Assassins Creed 2 is out! Fuck! the server is down, guess I'll go play some Epic Pinball then, because at least that one predates the internet being required). 

 

All of these measures exist so that I, an actual customer, need to PROVE to the publisher that I do not fly a skull and bones flag when it suits me. As far as the publisher is concerned, every user is guilty until proven innocent.

 

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft is doing is akin to breaking into my house and burning my copy of Windows 7 and burning every book I bought through their service simply because they don't want to continue their service. Refund or not, they're destroying bought goods and I would not be surprised if this policy is recorded in the EULA of their service. The only reason they're offering a refund now is because the debate around games as live services and game platforms as live services is a hot topic today that does not need any bad press.

 

To paraphrase Chris Rock: I'm not saying you should pirate media, but I can certainly understand those who do.

[imreloadin]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

So you think because long term support isn't always a good proposition people should just use the product and not pay for it at all? 

I never said that. What I'm saying is that shit like this only burns people who play by the rules and likely makes them turn to piracy afterwards. This is literally them shooting themselves in the foot because people go "huh, well let's make sure that shit doesn't happen again" and just like that you've lost a paying customer and they now pirate your content instead.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

I never said that. What I'm saying is that shit like this only burns people who play by the rules and likely makes them turn to piracy afterwards. This is literally them shooting themselves in the foot because people go "huh, well let's make sure that shit doesn't happen again" and just like that you've lost a paying customer and they now pirate your content instead.

Like all battles, the innocent in the middle always get burned.  But don't make out like the pirates are on some moral high ground in all this.  If they didn't steal the product then we wouldn't have such shit DRM like we do now.     Companies would not waste millions implementing DRM if there was little to gain from it.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, EldritchMoose said:

With regards to piracy, I'm roughly where Chris Rock was on the O.J. Simpson trial in his Bring the Pain show:

Ever since a solid, reliable and fairly-priced method of buying copyrighted media has been available, I have gladly used it. I buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs on Amazon and in stores, games on Steam and GOG, music from the artist or at festivals, etc.

 

However, with very few exceptions, these purchases have had more than their share of ways to "punish" the end user for having bought them legally. These range from unskippable anti-piracy ads (like, yeah, I wasn't going to pirate - I thought the fact that I had bought this fucking disc would be an indication from that), unskippable movie trailers, malware that would clog up my pc if I were to try and transfer my legally-bought music to my MP3 player, mandatory access to an unstable server even for games that have no online features (yay! Assassins Creed 2 is out! Fuck! the server is down, guess I'll go play some Epic Pinball then, because at least that one predates the internet being required). 

 

All of these measures exist so that I, an actual customer, need to PROVE to the publisher that I do not fly a skull and bones flag when it suits me. As far as the publisher is concerned, every user is guilty until proven innocent.

 

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft is doing is akin to breaking into my house and burning my copy of Windows 7 and burning every book I bought through their service simply because they don't want to continue their service. Refund or not, they're destroying bought goods and I would not be surprised if this policy is recorded in the EULA of their service. The only reason they're offering a refund now is because the debate around games as live services and game platforms as live services is a hot topic today that does not need any bad press.

 

To paraphrase Chris Rock: I'm not saying you should pirate media, but I can certainly understand those who do.

DRM free alternatives for ebooks have existed as long as the ebook market has existed. Modern libraries in the US have ebook programs, for free. Even from the major publishers, ebooks are relatively cheap. Kindle Unlimited offers thousands of ebooks for people to read for a low price per month. People need to stop acting like services like MS Ebooks have ever been the only legal way to get ebooks.

[Trik'Stari]

5 hours ago, will4623 said:

Just how drunk are you?

Was fairly.

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Drunk enough to think everyone can take what they want and people will still create and distribute content at their own expense.

As opposed to being drunk enough to think that there won't be a significant rise in piracy over stuff like this, combined with further segmenting the streaming market (not an entirely unrelated thing).

 

How long before I lose all those movies I bought on Amazon because some jackass lawyer or accountant somewhere decides the company needs more money, from the thing I already bought?

[TechyBen]

7 hours ago, Derangel said:

 

If you pirate ebooks you are an asshole. Its hard enough for most authors to make money in these days without self-righteous jackasses stealing their work.

You do know the invention of books was argued against the same way? Right?

Quote

How can we make money as story tellers/stage performers, if all these "books" can write our performances down? You are stealing our work!

I agree, we should pay the authors/creators. But it's not stealing any more than someone singing their own tune is stealing from a musician.

 

It's about trust. It's about contracts or social responsibility. It's not stealing... if it is, then any photographer/writer/etc who ever took an image or idea from someone else (without permission or possibly paying) is also "stealing".

 

This makes it a lot more complex.

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Was fairly.

As opposed to being drunk enough to think that there won't be a significant rise in piracy over stuff like this, combined with further segmenting the streaming market (not an entirely unrelated thing).

 

How long before I lose all those movies I bought on Amazon because some jackass lawyer or accountant somewhere decides the company needs more money, from the thing I already bought?

If that's a genuine concern then your country needs stronger consumer protection laws. 

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You do know the invention of books was argued against the same way? Right?

I agree, we should pay the authors/creators. But it's not stealing any more than someone singing their own tune is stealing from a musician.

I'd like to see the history on that.

 

Stories were written on cave walls, carved into stone and on message sticks long before the concept of paid stage performance was a thing. Books and written language have evolved alongside if not just before a lot of what we consider to be entertainment. 

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I'd like to see the history on that.

 

Stories were written on cave walls, carved into stone and on message sticks long before the concept of paid stage performance was a thing. Books and written language have evolved alongside if not just before a lot of what we consider to be entertainment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Early_developments

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BzLXGUxV4CkC&pg=PA15&dq=Areopagitica+freedom+of+speech+britain&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Areopagitica freedom of speech britain&f=false

 

Basically it allowed people to "copy" works. Before that, you owned a physical copy, and the physical limitations of copying it, were the value of the copy. Not the "intellectual rights", unless you were the Church and owned that right. Where as other types of writing, were not "owned", and the value was in the original/copy process, not the physical ability to copy it (if someone else laboriously wrote it down as a copy, then while the author might not like is, society saw it as a legitimate thing to do).

 

Once the printing press came along, then you have a reason to limit copy ability, because it's now "easy" for anyone to make a copy, you can no longer put the value in the original creation process/copy process alone. You have to find a new revenue system.

 

That's not a defence of piracy. It's a natural result of having information freely available. It's freely available. The cost/remuneration then is not on the ability to move than information, but on the ability to ask/persuade someone to pay for it, and more so, pay only certain people for it (the author and legit copyists, not "illegal" copiers).

 

 

[Sauron]

I guess that's what you get for buying ebooks (or anything really) with DRM. "The books will stop working", lmao. Imagine if you bought a book from a book store and when the store closed the owner came to your house and burned the book. DRM should be illegal.

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue I have with many of the of people who use the supply argument is that they are in first world countries with very  minimal they can't get legally.  if you live in china and want access to news then sure,   but  if you live in nth America with decent internet and you think windows is over priced then you have entitlement issues.

There's a difference between being able to afford something and thinking it's worth the price. Especially when Microsoft has bought its way into a monopoly so that a lot of people simply don't have a choice. I'm not saying it justifies piracy but asserting that Windows is overpriced is perfectly reasonable.

[DildorTheDecent]

Inb4 Winblows Store re-release.

[imreloadin]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

But don't make out like the pirates are on some moral high ground in all this.

You're the only one saying anything about having the moral high ground. All I said was that people who pirate don't have to worry about this issue, I never once said that it was a good thing so quit putting words in my mouth...

[The King of the Undead]

1 minute ago, imreloadin said:

You're the only one saying anything about having the moral high ground. All I said was that people who pirate don't have to worry about this issue, I never once said that it was a good thing so quit putting words in my mouth...

they have a variaty of other issues though...

[TechyBen]

56 minutes ago, will4623 said:

they have a variaty of other issues though...

TBF I cannot think of one.

[The King of the Undead]

Just now, TechyBen said:

TBF I cannot think of one.

the illegality (guess that is a word) and the drm could be a bigger problem possibly

[S w a t s o n]

Kind of crazy when you think of it as Microsoft just borrowing their money. Their coffers are so deep they dont care they dumped money into the service. A complete write off

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

 

There's a difference between being able to afford something and thinking it's worth the price. Especially when Microsoft has bought its way into a monopoly so that a lot of people simply don't have a choice. I'm not saying it justifies piracy but asserting that Windows is overpriced is perfectly reasonable.

As my position did hinge around living in a free first world country with access to these products, then the price does not justify the crime unless the product is essential for survival and there are no other options (I.E the only food you can source is over priced and you literally don't have the money, then steal it).  But for content that is purely optional entertainment (movie or game) and the issue is the consumer "feels" it is unfairly high price, then there is nothing to debate.

 

When it comes to windows,  I think the cost of entry seems high, but in reality it works out to $30/year (roughly) if you buy the OEM with every major PC upgrade (so about 10% of the PC cost for mid range enthusiasts).  Windows is not a static product, like all OS's, it does require constant upgrading and maintenance.

 

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

When it comes to windows, I think the cost of entry seems high, but in reality it works out to $30/year (roughly) if you buy the OEM with every major PC upgrade (so about 10% of the PC cost for mid range enthusiasts).  Windows is not a static product, like all OS's, it does require constant upgrading and maintenance.

Things that almost all its competitors offer for free to their home users. Microsoft doesn't need the home user to pay for a Windows license to still make money off of them and off of Windows. Back in the '90s Microsoft would intentionally spread pirated copies of Windows to gain as much market share as possible.

 

Since the simple fact of using Windows makes Microsoft money (it reinforces their monopoly and lets them beta test their system on you before they push the update to corporate customers who are their real source of money), the box price is too high.

[mr moose]

Just now, Sauron said:

Things that almost all its competitors offer for free to their home users. Microsoft doesn't need the home user to pay for a Windows license to still make money off of them and off of Windows. Back in the '90s Microsoft would intentionally spread pirated copies of Windows to gain as much market share as possible.

 

Since the simple fact of using Windows makes Microsoft money (it reinforces their monopoly and lets them beta test their system on you before they push the update to corporate customers who are their real source of money), the box price is too high.

 

It comes down to personal feeling regarding what competitors offer,  The only true free OS is Linux and that does not come with anywhere near the support Windows does for domestic users.

[Sauron]

Just now, mr moose said:

The only true free OS is Linux and that does not come with anywhere near the support Windows does for domestic users.

Aside from the fact that GNU/Linux isn't the only free operating system, software updates have never been one of its problems. The "support" it doesn't have comes from third parties that treat it as a second class citizen because Microsoft has a monopoly. 99% of the problems people have on Linux are due to bad or missing third party drivers and software they need that doesn't exist for Linux. And it's not like Windows Update has ever been any good.

 

Regardless, the validity of the alternatives doesn't change a product's value; if the competitors aren't competitive it just means the monopolist can choose not to care that their products are overpriced. Obviously there is some degree of subjectivity to how much you value a product so to you it may not feel that way, but by that same token you can't really fault people, or consider them "entitled", for thinking otherwise.

[mr moose]

Just now, Sauron said:

Aside from the fact that GNU/Linux isn't the only free operating system, software updates have never been one of its problems. The "support" it doesn't have comes from third parties that treat it as a second class citizen because Microsoft has a monopoly. 99% of the problems people have on Linux are due to bad or missing third party drivers and software they need that doesn't exist for Linux. And it's not like Windows Update has ever been any good.

I wasn't actually talking about hardware support in Linux but end user support from help lines and back to base.  OEM license means that all manufacturers have to provide support for windows.  While MS provide 24/7 for full versions.   Support costs money. That's why canonical/redhat charges additionally for it.

 

Just now, Sauron said:

Regardless, the validity of the alternatives doesn't change a product's value; if the competitors aren't competitive it just means the monopolist can choose not to care that their products are overpriced. Obviously there is some degree of subjectivity to how much you value a product so to you it may not feel that way, but by that same token you can't really fault people, or consider them "entitled", for thinking otherwise.

Value is still user specific.   If you live in India and only earn 50c a day then trying to charge them $120 for windows is unfair and I would not argue that opinion has anything to do with entitlement. 

 

But given I am specifically talking about people in first world countries with disposable incomes and access to all these products, paying 10% of your PC cost for an up to date OS that works with everything, then complaining it is too much is  an entitlement issue.  What right do we have to demand a company charge less for a product they have to maintain and are legally responsible for?