- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:32:58 +0000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > I mentioned the Spore case in the earlier paragraph, there are a number of > similar cases in recent history showing that the less DRM a game has, all > other things being equal, the more people buy it instead of copying it > from less legal sources. "The Register"s analysis doesn't support that conclusion. They summarise as follows : > But Gibeau is right in one sense: The vast majority of > Spore players are probably blissfully unaware of its DRM > and the internet kerfuffle surrounding it. EA could have > kept the restrictions in place and still raked in the cash > from game sales. Angry gamers be damned. In other words, a small minority of people care enough about DRM to prefer to acquire a pirate, unlocked, copy rather than pay for a copy that imposes what they regard (arguably reasonably) as unreasonable restrictions. The vast majority, however, care not tuppence about DRM and/or these "unreasonable restrictions", and buy the product regardless. However, your original assertion was that "the more desirable the product, the more DRM will lead to licence violations", and I have still seen no statistics to support this (specifically, no justification for the "desirability" aspect of the assertion). Philip TAYLOR
Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 16:33:51 UTC