>you're entitled if you think software should be free or if you pirate it
Why do people say this?
>>54197777
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1461449925684.webm
>>54197777
fuck i shouldn't be laughing so hard
>>54197777
because you feel the labor of the person who made it to be worthless.
I pirate because of ownership issues. But if I was for example buying a product and not a single use license I would NEVER pirate shit. People have the right to be paid for what they make. And only entitled commies think otherwise.
>>54197777
Because might makes right in this world of ours (that includes laws like property rights), and you're entitled if you expect otherwise. Nice quads btw.
Free as in freedom, not free as in beer
>>54198350
>because you feel the labor of the person who made it to be worthless.
That's not it. It's more a "freedom to tinker" thing. If you buy a lawn mower, they don't force you to agree never to take it apart to see how it works, try to fix it if it breaks, or paint it blue when it's designed to be red.
It isn't "I want you to make all this stuff for me for no pay", it's "This is my machine and I should be allowed to tinker with it if I want."
>>54198572
The difference is that in the real world, you can't replicate the lawnmower with ease and send copies of it to your friends, it's physically impossible to do so. Thus the lawnmower people will make as much money regardless of whether or not you tinker with your lawnmower. In the virtual world, you can copy a computer file endlessly, thus the people selling copies make less money because each copy you share is one less copy they sell.
Now keep in mind, I'm not saying whether I think this is good or bad. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in your analogy due to the difference between physical goods and computer programs.
>>54198661
It doesn't even have to extend to giving everyone I know a copy of programs on my computer. It's okay to ask for a little money for something nice you put a lot of time and effort into making. However, it's not okay to put in restrictions like these, especially after you've charged me money for something:
>you aren't allowed to take it apart to find how it works
>you aren't allowed to modify it in any way
>it has various DRM fuckery
I should be able to modify a program to work the way I want if it doesn't already. I should even be allowed to distribute the modification to others for free. --Note that even that wouldn't interfere with an author selling the program, if I'm only distributing the changes, not a complete patched copy of the package.
>>54198661
>The difference is that in the real world, you can't replicate the lawnmower with ease and send copies of it to your friends
No but you can tell your friends HOW you modified it.
That's really what source code is, instructions.
>>54198817
Then invent a way to make software digital rights management work with open source software.
>>54198865
>digital rights management
This needs to be killed.
It's cancer.
>>54198828
That would be more akin to a patch file, which would be an acceptable way to distribute modifications to an open source program that costs money.
Idea is you buy the program and you get both binaries, full source and makefiles needed to build it. The source is only as available as the program. You're allowed to analyze, tinker with and modify the program as much as you like. Then if you want to post those modifications to the internet, you post a patch so that it's not giving a free copy to everyone but lets people who bought the program use your modification.
This system allows for paid software while not restricting the right to tinker. It is however honor system since people *can* distribute full copies even if it is against the law. Then again anything short of unbreakable DRM is honor system as well -- once one person breaks it, getting a copy is as simple as downloading the torrent. And even closed source DRM'd software can be reverse engineered and modified, it's just a much bigger pain in the ass to do so.
>>54198865
Why would you want such a thing? It does very little to deter piracy, and often tends to drive legit customers away while the pirates get a better experience since they're using a version that's been stripped of the DRM.
>>54198886
Yes, people making for coding is killing the software industry.
Just like paying people money to fix cars is destroying the automotive repair industry.
I guess also paying people to grow food is destroying the agricultural industry too.
>>54198939
DRM when done correctly increases sales. If people can't pirate a game, some will buy it. Most PC players have Steam on in the background anyway, which is DRM. Hardly anyone doesn't buy games because they're Steam only.
>>54198942
DRM is a way to lock consumers in.
If you buy a car, you're not forced to get it fixed by the producer. You're not forced to buy future cars from the producer.
>>54197777
Never purchased anything, always took it from RuTracker or TPB
>>54198939
>Idea is you buy the program and you get both binaries, full source and makefiles needed to build it. The source is only as available as the program. You're allowed to analyze, tinker with and modify the program as much as you like. Then if you want to post those modifications to the internet, you post a patch so that it's not giving a free copy to everyone but lets people who bought the program use your modification.
>This system allows for paid software while not restricting the right to tinker. It is however honor system since people *can* distribute full copies even if it is against the law. Then again anything short of unbreakable DRM is honor system as well -- once one person breaks it, getting a copy is as simple as downloading the torrent. And even closed source DRM'd software can be reverse engineered and modified, it's just a much bigger pain in the ass to do so.
This would be a golden middle way between full FSF mode and still allowing proprietary models, yes.
It's the same thing done with many source code licenses today. Companies get the license to the source code. They're not allowed to distribute it, but they can build their own binaries and distribute them semi-freely.
>>54199008
That's because reality has drm built in, because you can't make copies of the car.
>>54198942
You'd have a point if DRM actually resulted in the pirates paying up. However, it looks like DRM'd games get pirated at similar rates to DRM-free ones ( http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ ), and DRM frustrates legit customers. It can even drive customers to get the pirate version so they can actually use what they bought without constant hassle, then they may start to wonder why they spent money buying it if they had to break the law and get a bootleg copy to actually use it.
>>54199000
>DRM when done correctly increases sales.
[citation needed]
>If people can't pirate a game, some will buy it.
What can't be pirated? Since you're going on about Steam, everything on Steam that isn't using some additional draconian DRM is easily pirated. SteamEmu is a thing, and I used it to play purchased games back when the Steam client sucked ass, to avoid the constant updating cockblocking me when I just wanted to play a single player offline game.
>Hardly anyone doesn't buy games because they're Steam only.
No, people mostly don't avoid a game because it's only available on Steam. That doesn't mean they don't just head over to Pirate Bay to get it there instead.
>>54199027
I could if I had a car factory.
The real reason is because the competitive advantage is often patented. I'm all for patents and copyrights, but not for DRM.
>>54199033
Except now there's drm games that have been out for months and are currently uncrackable due to new anti tamper technology making the binary completely break when trying to modify it. Rise of the Tomb Raider and Just Cause 3 haven't been cracked.
DRM games are usually aaa games, and games without drm are smaller and can't afford it, and are usually not pirated as much because of it, so of course the statistics are going to be skewed
>>54199073
>new anti tamper technology making the binary completely break when trying to modify it.
>buy new lawnmower
>one of the blades breaks off
>try to replace it
>the lawnmower is now completely useless because of anti-tampering technology
>>54199056
We're talking about reality. Cars and other physical objects are protected by the magnitude of the requirements to produce duplicates. It would cost you more money to duplicate your car than it does the factory to make a new one, even if you could copy it.
>>54198572
I'm agree with you.
I respect a company enough to abide by their terms when it comes to software. That said, it's a rare fucking day when I buy software that doesn't let me do whatever I want to do with it, especially since dropping MS.
I've made donations to FOSS stuff before. I have a subscription to Tutanota (1 Euro/month), for example, even though it would be possible for me to just build and maintain my own.
I have no problems supporting what I like. I just hate this, "you're not allowed to even look under the hood" bullshit that a lot of software companies push.
>>54199093
The main binary is unmodifiable, you can still patch the game with dll files and other means.
And if the game doesn't work, you can get support and they fix it for free.
>>54198572
Kerbal Space Program cost $30 instead of $15 out of beta.
The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series will always go down as the best series that could have been, if it's supporters would have paid the developers rent and bills so he could just sit in his house and developed that game for us.
>>54198942
No, drm is more like you can only pay the car manufacturer to fix your car.
>>54199135
Except you can still fix and mod drm games.
>>54199143
That has nothing to do with what I said. I was merely pointing out that most DRM force you to a specific platform rather than stopping people from pirating which means that companies use it to force you to continue to use their platform if you want to use the product. They don't even give you ownership of the game, they merely give you a license to use the product and they can revoke your use of it any time. Modding games usually requires reverse engineering the code unless modding has been supported. This means when you mod a game you are effectively breaking the DRM because the license says that you cannot modify or reverse engineer the source code. And if a game does support modding, you are usually very superficial and restricted in what you can mod. This is nothing like the power you have in modifying free software as you have the source code and the legal ability to modify and improve the product as you wish without be lock down by DRM.
>>54199118
>they fix it for free.
*break it for free
>https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/c98ecee9-9d9a-463d-928d-30804c1f2d40/drive-free-space-is-missing-in-windows-explorer-why?forum=w7itproui
also go back to /v/
because they are too dumb to write it, OP
>>54198865
DRM is the exact opposite of free software. Which is why the FSF started Defective by Design www.defectivebydesign.org
