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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.