139
Subscriptions ain't so nice now, are they
(sh.itjust.works)
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/25331613
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
139 points (96.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
53939 readers
387 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm honestly fine with DRM, as long as it's removed within my definition of reasonable time. I'd say a year vor two.
Once the DRM is removed it allows for archiving and preserving the piece of media — as well as pirating copies.
Considering companies can easily sell new copies of games after 2 years, I'd still be fine with a longer period of time. I want developers to make money.
I've seen a Kickstarter that would open source their game after 2 years if they raised $4.4 million or so. They didn't reach that goal, but they open sourced the previous game in the series after about 10 years.
For just removing DRM, I think somewhere between 2 and 10 years is the sweet spot. I mean, I've still got 10-year old games on my list I'd be willing to buy, haha
Not having DRM is a plus value. People with money don't actually bother to pirate.
I believe the comment I replied to changed what it said. I recall something about making it a law that DRM should be removed after a reasonable time period of 1 to 2 years.
I agree that DRM sucks. I didn't agree that it should be law to remove DRM a year or two after release.