DRM

[Skybird]

In case you have missed it, simHQ published two essays recently dealing with the pros and cons of DRM, and both articles, while represening opposing poles of the spectrum of opinions, do so in a fair, balanced and adult manner. I found both being a worthy reading, although I oppose DRM in general, question most arguments defending DRM, and thus agree with the contra-essay while not agreeing with the pro-essay.

Both authors did a good job in trying to base on arguments, not emotional ranting.

If you comment, please keep it adult and polite. We all know that this issue can easily break the dam of just controlled emotions.

Pro:
http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_091a.html

Contra:
http://www.simhq.com/_commentary/all_092a.html

[mookiemookie]

I resent DRM for the same reason I resent having my reciept checked as I walk out of Wal Mart - I'm a law-abiding paying customer, and I will not abide being treated like a criminal. That's why I don't shop at Wal Mart, and I avoid games with onerous DRM schemes.

Punishing the innocent to put a temporary road block up for pirates is a good way to alienate customers.

[Aramike]

I resent DRM for the same reason I resent having my reciept checked as I walk out of Wal Mart - I'm a law-abiding paying customer, and I will not abide being treated like a criminal. That's why I don't shop at Wal Mart, and I avoid games with onerous DRM schemes.

Punishing the innocent to put a temporary road block up for pirates is a good way to alienate customers.Someone checking your reciept is not treating you like a criminal. One would have to be obscenely aloof to think that way, in my opinion.

Most retailers that check receipts do so as a measure against CASHIER error, which is responsible for most of the losses retailers occur.

In any case, what I find odd is that you believe that, because you find yourself to be trustworthy, people who invest substantial sums into their businesses should therefore trust a very untrustworthy public-at-large. I don't like DRM either, but for different reasons. But I certainly can understand why they do it.

But your idea that it's alienating customers (like Walmart) doesn't hold a lot of water - sales are up at Walmart, and people have shown that they'll buy great software regardless of DRM.

[mookiemookie]

Most retailers that check receipts do so as a measure against CASHIER error, which is responsible for most of the losses retailers occur.

How is that a check against cashier error? Do the receipt checkers know that the toothpaste I just bought is on sale for $2.99 instead of the $3.59 I just paid just by taking a cursory glance at my receipt?

In any case, what I find odd is that you believe that, because you find yourself to be trustworthy, people who invest substantial sums into their businesses should therefore trust a very untrustworthy public-at-large.

Don't pull out the strawman argument. I said that I don't like being treated like I've just shoplifted something when I've done nothing to warrant it. I in no way said that retailers should "trust" the public. They should take every measure in order to prevent shoplifting...cameras, store cops, etc. But I draw the line where I am forced to subject my personal belongings (the merchandise becomes mine and my personal property as soon as the payment transaction is complete) to a search when they have zero evidence of any wrongdoing.

[Aramike]

How is that a check against cashier error? Do the receipt checkers know that the toothpaste I just bought is on sale for $2.99 instead of the $3.59 I just paid just by taking a cursory glance at my receipt? I said they are checking for CASHIER errors, not register errors. Retailers lose a MASSIVE amount of money through cashiers simply forgetting to scan something (like on the bottom of the cart), through "passed" merchandize, etc.

Cashiers don't know any better than anyone else what the prices are, so why would you think I meant that the people at the door are checking that?Don't pull out the strawman argument. I said that I don't like being treated like I've just shoplifted something when I've done nothing to warrant it. I in no way said that retailers should "trust" the public. They should take every measure in order to prevent shoplifting...cameras, store cops, etc.That's not a strawman argument. It's a logical conclusion, which you in fact help make a case for, except that you want the line where YOU perceive it should be.

On the other hand, the retailer has decided to put the line where it wants it to be.But I draw the line where I am forced to subject my personal belongings (the merchandise becomes mine and my personal property as soon as the payment transaction is complete) to a search when they have zero evidence of any wrongdoing.That is the strawman argument. You in no way legally have to submit to a search. However, as a private business, they in no way have to allow you back in. Ever.

In any case, you resolved the issue by saying you won't go back there. Which I'm sure they couldn't care less about. However, from MY perspective, the fact that you feel that participating in an arbitrary reciept check is "treating" you like a criminal, makes you seem, well, aloof.

Just curious, though - when you return merchandise do you get upset when asked to produce a receipt?

[antikristuseke]

For the most part I don't really disagree with either article, exept for the part in the first one where it mentions that drm does not stop piracy, but hinders it. No it does not, drm is no real hindrance for pirating software.

[mookiemookie]

I said they are checking for CASHIER errors, not register errors. Retailers lose a MASSIVE amount of money through cashiers simply forgetting to scan something (like on the bottom of the cart), through "passed" merchandize, etc.

Cashiers don't know any better than anyone else what the prices are, so why would you think I meant that the people at the door are checking that?That's not a strawman argument. It's a logical conclusion, which you in fact help make a case for, except that you want the line where YOU perceive it should be.
Ok, I'll go with you on that one here, except the line I'm perceiving is that of personal property rights.


On the other hand, the retailer has decided to put the line where it wants it to be.That is the strawman argument. You in no way legally have to submit to a search. However, as a private business, they in no way have to allow you back in. Ever.

In any case, you resolved the issue by saying you won't go back there. Which I'm sure they couldn't care less about. However, from MY perspective, the fact that you feel that participating in an arbitrary reciept check is "treating" you like a criminal, makes you seem, well, aloof. Wal Mart has no right to demand to examine my property any more than I have the right to demand to see what's in the receipt checker's wallet or purse. And you're right, they can bar me from entry if that's the prerogative. But many of the receipt checkers will tell you that you can't leave the store until they've checked the receipt, which is BS.

I'm not sure why you think this is being aloof...If I've given them no indication that I've stolen something and should have my purchases examined, why then should they examine my purchases to make sure I haven't stolen something or been passed items by an unscrupulous cashier?


Just curious, though - when you return merchandise do you get upset when asked to produce a receipt?Completely different issue.

[Aramike]

Wal Mart has no right to demand to examine my property any more than I have the right to demand to see what's in the receipt checker's wallet or purse. And you're right, they can bar me from entry if that's the prerogative. But many of the receipt checkers will tell you that you can't leave the store until they've checked the receipt, which is BS.Walmart has the right to ask for (demand) anything they want to ask. Likewise, you have the right to deny them.I'm not sure why you think this is being aloof...If I've given them no indication that I've stolen something and should have my purchases examined, why then should they examine my purchases to make sure I haven't stolen something or been passed items by an unscrupulous cashier?Because, at WORST it's mildly inconvienient (even though I've never even slightly inconvienienced) and by helping insure the integrity of their processes (as well as helping to deter shoplifters to some extent) you assist them in keeping their margins up so prices can stay down, which also helps their customers, which, as I'm sure you've noticed, include the quite poor.

All I can do is see it from my perspective. Asking me to check my just purchases bags and receipt doesn't bother me at all - I understand why. Now, if they asked me to turn my pockets inside-out, that would be a different story altogether.

I am also forced to wonder - do you get offended when a cashier asks for your ID when using a check or credit card?

[Onkel Neal]

Wal-mart has to check receipts to inhibit dishonest people from stealing them blind. Want to blame someone for this travesty against your rights? Blame the jerks who shoplift.

I gladly show my receipt, glad to have a chance to help.

[CaptainHaplo]

The only time I have ever been asked for the reciept is if there is a really large item that could easily have been missed by the cashier if I didn't point it out (which I have had to do on occasion). True, I could tell em no, but whats the point? They are looking to stop big ticket losses through cashier error or attempted theft. As a law abiding - and a law UPHOLDING citizen, I am more than happy to let em scan the reciept for 5 seconds to see that the item is listed, and then be on my way. By doing so, I am helping them keep prices lower. After all, if someone gets a $1200 flat screen because it wasn't checked - that loss has to be made up from somewhere.

Yea I could be an ass and refuse and let em make a stink and then sue them over the fact I had paid for it and they didn't have a right to stop me leaving with MY merchandise. But like I said - is it really worthwhile to make an ass out of yourself over them simply trying to stop high dollar losses?

[Aramike]

The only time I have ever been asked for the reciept is if there is a really large item that could easily have been missed by the cashier if I didn't point it out (which I have had to do on occasion). True, I could tell em no, but whats the point? They are looking to stop big ticket losses through cashier error or attempted theft. As a law abiding - and a law UPHOLDING citizen, I am more than happy to let em scan the reciept for 5 seconds to see that the item is listed, and then be on my way. By doing so, I am helping them keep prices lower. After all, if someone gets a $1200 flat screen because it wasn't checked - that loss has to be made up from somewhere.

Yea I could be an ass and refuse and let em make a stink and then sue them over the fact I had paid for it and they didn't have a right to stop me leaving with MY merchandise. But like I said - is it really worthwhile to make an ass out of yourself over them simply trying to stop high dollar losses?Exactly. It's one of those little things that can help a great deal.

To look at it as though you're proving that you didn't steal something is the wrong perspective, as proving that you paid for something does not necessarily mean stealing.

Btw, I recently bought a TV from Best Buy, and they checked my reciept too.

[Skybird]

well, until last year, early summer, I part-time-jobbed as a cashier in a small warehouse for some years, and occasionally I and colleagues did ask for receipts of people if they carried items that were sold in that shop, too. It is perfectly legal to do so, and the receipt is the only evidence that you legally bought something, that's why it is important that you take that damn piece of paper with you even if buying just some chewing gum - and then enter another shop.

And if you are being stopped and asked for a receipt, you cannot sue them for asking you, not under german or EU law. They do not have the right to search you if you do not comply, but they have the right to hold you, to hinder you from leaving, and to call the police. And the police has the right to search you, without you being able to sue them for that, don't be mistaken there. And that's what happened quite some times while I was jobbing there.

They ask, you prove that you legally bought the item in question by showing your receipt. That simple it is. What is the freaking problem?

Shoplifting was a big problem there, even more since they were fighting for their economic survival. The daily loss equalled 2 worker's monthly payments. That's a mark where the fun ends at the latest, I would say.

And what has all this to do with software DRM? Nothing.

Let's get the thread back on track.

DRM is meant to hinder piracy, and more and more it is also meant to prevent second-hand selling of software that the producers prefers to sell himself at full price. So DRM last but not least is about controlling and ending the second hand market, like it was with preventing the legal possibility to record public programs from TV and radio buy encoding CDs with copy protections - legally you still are allowed to record their content. It's just that you are not legally allowed to crack their copy protection scheme. that you cannot do the first without doing the second is - an unfortunate coincidence only, of course. Who could have forseen that complication?

[Platapus]

There are stores where in the process of checking your receipt also mark it to prevent the practice of reusing a receipt which used to be a pretty good way to shoplift.... or so a "friend" told me.. yeah that's it. My friend. :O:

[SUBMAN1]

The RIAA gave up on DRM now, so even they know its not in their, or anyones best interest for that matter.

As for software, Oblivion had no DRM and I happily bought the deluxe version to support that model. Fallout 3 had minimal DRM and I bought that too.

RIAA Spokesperson Declares DRM Dead (http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Spokesperson+Declares+DRM+Dead/article15739.htm)

http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Spokesperson+Declares+DRM+Dead/article15739.htm

-S