Unless, the watermark would actually be embedded into one of those game files that they are repacking, without which the game wouldn't run at all. And the file would be encrypted with 262144bit encryption which takes one million years to crack with Chinese supercomputers.

Quite a far-fetched scenario, and even if it happened like that, the user could simply state to GOG that that is exactly what happened, here is the police report of the burglary. GOG would be like "ok cool, I guess shit happens, be more careful next time", and then the guy would be like "Yes sir! Right away sir!".
Not embedding technical barriers to the games (=DRM) was never a promise that you are free to do whatever you want with said DRM-free products.

It is mainly about trust, and you suggest it is a-ok to break that trust because you consider the whole world as your "social structure" who should be able to play for free the game you bought. Or maybe you could even take a "nominal" fee for those downloads, + ad revenues for your download site, just to keep the pirate server running amirite?

I think you mistake something here, I didn't LIKE the higher frame rate. It was a detriment to my enjoyment of the movie.
I don't THINK 60 FPS or higher frame rate will become the standard. HFR was what 3D became for movies, a novelty and the latter had a stronger practical use case.
Case in point, Korean Drama's, even the primetime ones, use to be shot at a higher frame rate and are now all universally shot at 24 FPS except for the daytime Drama's that are over 100 episodes.

Aside from basically being DRM little different to Steam CEG, as mentioned if you want custom watermarks unique per customer, that means GOG would have to create new offline installers from scratch for each account for every download. Clicks Download Game = 'Please wait 50 minutes whilst we create your custom personalized watermarked offline installers from scratch, only then can the download start...". It would be a logistical nightmare that would completely collapse GOG's download servers...

Last time I was in an art gallery, they allowed photography of the non-flash variety; the flash would ruin the chemistry of the painting. In both that parallel and concerts, there's additional value in experiencing the art in-person, despite how the crowds usually ruin it. No so with digital goods, which are as "in person" as they'd ever be, regardless of cost.

There's always the argument that those who pirate wouldn't have purchased anyway; but assessments like that can never be purely true. Justified as it might be with big publishers, there is a loss of business with unregulated giveaways. I'm all for responding to "get used to not owning it" with "get used to not selling it", but the law is the law. It's better to be a self-aware crook than to pathetically deny legal wrongdoing.

It is easy enough to turn this one around. I mean, do you take other people for fools or what? Theft is one of the most common practices all around the world, and you are simple enough to complain about stuff taken when you take no security measures whatsoever. I suggest you keep this attitude only for when you visit the butterfly ball

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoALdH-Cpsc

Which is more amusing, the simple responses you have observed or the brazen behaviour of the thief that returns to the to the very merchant he stole from, requesting assistance? I suppose that tells you something about the security measures in place.

Consider me hypocrital and unprincipaled, but despite wishing for and supporting legitimate purchases, I'm still going to help them if I'm able. Though the hot tempered youths should seek help elsewhere. Curmedeonly and principled men aren't very forthcoming.

I'm no fun at all. I just get stuck at the thought of how the thief in question probably is not even aware of his social status, and probably in the near future will be herded with his fellow thieflings towards future's with even less chance of obtaining any form of 'true' happiness compared to nowadays.

Let's hope GoG is the answer

... and then GoG could add Denuvo on top of that --- to protect all the watermarks and encryption against modification and/or removal. What a fantastic idea, if I may say so myself. And dang, I gave it away for free without an exorbitant consultancy fee.

People, don't do drugs.

Agreed. Watching something on a cell phone or TV isn't comparable to in person. HOWEVER, in person i've been to 2 events where i'd rather have watched them on a TV. First was a dinosaurs show, where they wear suits and people bringing dinosaurs to life. Second was a Jeff Dunham comedy show. In both cases the affordable seats are SOOOO far back that you either see things as though they were 2" miniatures, or you have to watch the live screens they have set up which looked like blown up 200x200 pixel video screens. Not very good.

Yeah i suppose i could have spent thousands to be further up and closer to the action, but sorry i don't have that kind of currency, especially as a kid.

Maybe. But there's 10x more likelyhood of extra sales from people who liked the content, some bands and companies that never got off the ground except that they put their stuff out for free and then got customers where the big bands like the Eagles were all you'd be able to find, and unless you can listen to something you never know if what you're buying was a dud or a gem.

Is there? Keep in mind, 90% of your profits for games seems to be the first month of release, and then it tapers down. Same for movies in theaters.

Free giveaways may not result in sales at that time. But if i feel i have gotten sufficient good credit from a company from goods or services, i'd purchase. Back in 2010 or something i felt like i actually had money to spend, so i bought 10 CDs from my favorite game musician, and he slipped me an extra 2 discs. This totaled either $120 or $150 back then. And i don't feel i wasted my money, i bought directly from him so he got all of it, and i enjoyed his music literally for years before that point. (Keep in mind it was mp3.com and other public sources before torrenting was a thing)

Perhaps. But the MIAA and them found out that suing and going after people doesn't stop the problem, and only gives you a bad name in the process. Certainly a few people were punished, but they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars taking people to court that were ordinary people. And many of the laws are flawed and need revamping.

It's also said you would prefer someone to be downloading your stuff even 'illegally' than for no one to be doing it.



Maybe something they should do is make all content available for free. Oh i'm not saying you have the high quality content up, maybe you put out TV shows and movies and anime at SD 640x480 or 720x480, and at 22050 rather than 44100 or 48000 rates, possibly mono rather than stereo. Then offer the good stuff on Blueray or the like. Best of both worlds.

I'd also help and give advice; Though the product itself it 'use at your own risk'.

I figure if you beat them over the head they are bad, they are likely to close their ears, and continue on with or without help. But if they have a good experience, they are far more likely to purchase products they enjoyed, even if it isn't right away.

Which goes the opposite direction. If i get a very bad experience from a game and assuming i hadn't paid for it, then i'm far more likely to NOT purchase the game even if i found it was an anti-purchase or DRM measure, because the experience often will stick far harder. 'I can't seem to beat this guy, and i can't seem to go forward. Game must suck, check that off my list' vs 'Wow this game is awesome! I can't wait for it to go on sale!'

There's also, literally more music than you can listen to in your lifetime,
more movies than you can watch to in your lifetime,
more games than you can play to in your lifetime,
and more books than you can read in your lifetime.

If something comes up as not worth your time, you can move to something else, and you're unlikely to look back. Don't beat down someone who didn't pay, welcome a gamer, and encourage him to support companies and entertainment he loves.

Of course, which is why I look for general profile activity and other little telltale signs of a genuine user. Also note that the recent poster who sparked all of this conversation was a brand-spanking-new account, so it wouldn't likely be suffering from that old bug. When I see 0 games, but it's an older account, I already tend to give a bit more benefit of the doubt.

Good advice that the 0 games could be a bug, but that only applies to accounts prior to 2024 at least. In no way am I advocating that every 0 game account be attacked/ignored, but I do personally view them with a pinch of suspicion and thus a measure of caution.

Why does it matter how long do I need to make a profit if I am the author - If I make a game or write a book, why would you limit my ownership to 20 years? Maybe I misunderstood something... Time before something goes to public domain is open to debate, but ownership of someone's original/creative work is a different subject.


About piracy: don't care about casual consumers, do care about dealers/providers/enablers

Because that's the argument used over and over to extend the copyright length.

Besides, who created/invented the Little Mermaid? It wasn't Disney, they just made an iteration FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN that they then claim rights over, and if anyone would do a better job than them they would sue them into oblivion. We've seen this already with the later Alice in Wonderland movie(s).

And as we see things going into public domain, like Whinnie the Pooh, had it been shorter i'm sure the first thing that others would do, is further stories of Christopher Robin, and other tales, not horror films Blood and Honey. Shorter duration would mean those with a passion and love for it would likely extend the story and works far better and faster, rather than someone picking it up purely based on the name of familiarity.

Also as i've seen over and over, companies that buy up intellectual ideas and rights, overload themselves become complacent fat and lazy and the most evil companies you can imagine (EA, Disney, Activation Blizzard) who were once lean and very competitive and good companies. They have such backlogs of properties they feel they can resell it infinitely forever. No, if the duration of copyright was short, then companies would have to... ACTUALLY be creative and make things rather than revisiting the old well over and over again.

Worse companies see ownership of properties as such where they'd rather destroy it rather than let everyone have it. Don't believe me? There's many racing games, console games, arcade games that are lost to time or don't run at all because they require online connectivity to work, and they won't have the sources when it's time to release it, no they are vapor-ware, and far more would be if archiving wasn't being done. And with the greediness of current companies they want all the older stuff to go bye-bye so you have to get the newest latest and greatest which they can turn off at any time, or to outlaw emulation and make older games you buy only live within the window when THEY decide to release hardware or discs, which isn't very often, once they let it go they expect it to die, or flip a kill switch, or never having it on hand in the first place (streaming) Permanently, as much as you will own nothing.

Because you can't own it forever. Copyright is a lot like a patent, back in 2010 when patents expired for drugs, you then got generics that were just as effective but 1/10th the cost.

Now just because it goes public domain doesn't mean you don't get credit, and it doesn't mean you works cease to be. But people could iterate on your works. And like blood and honey, you want them to iterate on it when they love it, not because they hate you for it or don't care for the property at all.

It needs to be long enough to make a profit, but short enough that everyone benefits from it. Right now it's so long that companies effectively see owning stuff forever. Pretty sure 3 times in a row i believe, Disney extended copyright in order to keep Micky Mouse within their clutches and control. Even now they are trying to keep it via Trademark laws.

Here's a brief overlook of copyright law.

It's also worth pointing out that not everyone has a public profile.

If someone has "acquired" GOG content from elsewhere, then surely the best approach is to encourage them to purchase it legitimately? Point out the neverending sales with up to 90% off and ask if they really cannot afford the sub-$1 prices offered there?

It is easy for casual browsers to get taken in with search results that include the illegitimate sites and given the number of giveaways GOG has offered in the past, not totally implausible for a third party to claim to offer something similar. But the more people that support the legitimate service GOG offers, the more future content they are likely to get - so converting the heathens could be a win for everyone. :)

Sigh. Back in the day they use to get all drugs from nature and create synthetics of said compound. Now they create something that has NEVER existed before in a lab...no wonder there are side effects. We need to let these drugs hit generic status a lot faster.
Maybe if that happened we could start to get some breathing room for synthetic versions of plant based treatments some breathing room. Ffs, Atrozine is a compound from Nightshade that relaxes your eyes and the latter is a poison. That being said White Willow Bark is safe in general along with a number of others.