• masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    PC games that don’t have DRM still sell like crazy through Steam.

    Steam… IS a DRM. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm

    Steam is not popular because of its DRM. And again, in this scenario, everyone would have access to everything. The system’s only job would be tracking what gets downloaded / played and rewarding creators based on that.

    But it doesn’t sound like you care to imagine a different system or why it would be better, you seem to just want to demand that the concept of ownership stay exactly as th US Congress and Court System, in all their unquestionable wisdom, determined it should be.

    Nope, just asked to to clarify how this ***magic ***system can work without someone to enforce it. And you’ve yet to answer that.

    Given that you’re dismissively talking about a “magic system” while trying to defend against being closed minded towards it, that defense rings pretty hollow.

    And I’ve never said there wouldn’t be anyone to enforce it, I said there would be no incentive not to use it.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Given that you’re dismissively talking about a “magic system” while trying to defend against being closed minded towards it, that defense rings pretty hollow.

      When you’ve proposed nothing that actually holds anyone accountable… You’re not winning anyone over.

      GOG as an example would have been better. But you didn’t choose that. You chose a system that DOES have DRM and DOES act like a publisher and takes a cut. That isn’t a good way to sell your “new system” when Steam does EVERYTHING the “old system” does.

      Edit: And now, because you simply don’t agree with me, you downvote the comments after the fact. Just because I called out how your idea doesn’t work. Congrats!

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        GOG as an example would have been better. But you didn’t choose that. You chose a system that DOES have DRM and DOES act like a publisher and takes a cut. That isn’t a good way to sell your “new system” when Steam does EVERYTHING the “old system” does.

        Given that you can see a different comparable example, and yet instead of just going “yeah like GOG”, or thinking to yourself “yeah GOG would be a better example, I get what he means though”, you’re going “YOU didn’t SAY gog WHAT an ASSHOLE”, I again, urge you to reflect on whether you’re having a good faith conversation or whether you just have a stick up your ass about something and are venting online.

        And no, Steam prevents people who haven’t purchased a game from playing it. You are fundamentally not understanding what I’m writing if you’re not seeing how that’s different from a system where everyone has access to everything.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          you’re going “YOU didn’t SAY gog WHAT an ASSHOLE”

          No. My point is that when you think of YOUR perfect system. You don’t actually think of one that actually more closely meets what you described. That shows the innate problem with your idea as you haven’t even fully thought through it enough to even recognize what it looks like. And ultimately how it oftentimes does work for developers that wish to be more protective of their assets.

          Regardless. Let me show you why even GOG doesn’t work out. Forget the fact that they need to take a cut still anyway (and be the middleman) for at the minimum of costs of infrastructure.

          You can’t beat the cost of a torrent. Either in actual costs, or their distribution.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              … Nothing you wrote addresses any of the concerns/criticisms that I’ve levied in return. There’s nothing additional to read and you’ve failed to furnish more. Talk about bad faith discussions. You’re response is literally “go google it”… “go read it again”, same bullshit hand-wavy nonsense.

              1. You cannot have a central repository and require people to enter ALL their digital works into it. This violates a number of freedoms.
              2. You cannot maintain such a repository without funding, and a fuckton of it.
              3. You cannot enforce that companies must use such a repository.
              4. Even if you did… stolen materials would appear outside of repository and cannot be contained regardless. and arugably having this central repo would make it easier to steal (whether just outright theft, or theft of attribution).
              5. Even if you did. And a book got 100,000 downloads, how do you determine what value they get? What if the writer determines that’s unreasonable?
              6. How does a creative person in any form make money on this system?
              7. This doesn’t stop at just “creative” works right? This must include things like code and other digital works right? Oh shit, I just recorded a vlog on my phone. Gotta upload it to your magic repository!
              8. How is malicious use of that central repo mitigated? Remember… you don’t want a middleman taking anything.

              You seem to think that you can do ANY of this without some form of DRM and copyright. Remember, you stated

              we have all the tools we need to build a middle man free service

              While at the same time outlining a literal middleman service as your standard. If a writer/artist/whatever wanted to self-publish. Nothing stops them. Open a website with magento, woocommerce, Prestashop… whatever you want. And sell it for whatever you think is fair. That would be the best case instance to cut out the middleman. This doesn’t mean you can just strip a person of their rights to their works just because it’s “free” to make duplicates of it. It’s wild that you start the premise with that requirement from the get go, going down the premise proves that it wouldn’t work, which was most of the point of my comments. But you seem wildly disinterested in actually discussing anything. You’re nearly as bad as the people who claim communism works… but we just never saw true communism. (which is just as bad as people who claim any absolute system works… when we’ve never seen it work at all).

              and the only way that stories and songs and ideas were passed on was through chains of people copying and retelling them.

              From your original comment. There’s a difference in rights to the works vs rights to the performance/recording. And further there’s a difference between “personal” and “commercial” usages. The reason those stories and songs are passed down is because personal use is effectively unenforceable (and retelling in your own words would be what we call “fair use”). In your world, you’d make it also unenforceable for commercial usages as well.

              • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Again, you don’t understand what I wrote. Read more and write less.

                Maybe try being less of an angry gnome.

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Imagine actually attempting to continue a conversation.

                  Don’t actually do it. Just imagine it.

                  Nah, you need to read more!