Slashdot Log In
id CEO Claims PC Hardware Manufacturers Love Piracy
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Aug 23, 2008 03:30 PM
from the arrrrdware dept.
from the arrrrdware dept.
arcticstoat sends a link to an interview with the CEO of id Software, Todd Hollenshead, in which he suggests that hardware manufacturers count on piracy to help drive profits, rather than doing something to prevent it. Quoting:
"...I think that there's been this dirty little secret among hardware manufacturers, which is that the perception of free content — even if you're supposed to pay for it on PCs — is some sort hidden benefit that you get when you buy a PC, like a right to download music for free or a right to download pirated movies and games. ...And I think that just based on their actions...what they say is one thing, but what they do is another. When it comes into debates about whether peer-to-peer file-sharing networks that by-and-large have the vast majority, I'm talking 99 per cent of the content is illicitly trading copyrighted property, they'll come out on the side of the 1 per cent of the user doing it for legitimate benefit."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What a secret! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What a secret! (Score:5, Interesting)
These days, if my parents buy a computer from anywhere that isn't a big box store, they expect it to come pre-loaded with software - even though they havn't paid for it. Otherwise, the computer doesn't "work", and they've asked them to fix it. That is the price for their customer loyalty (and money).
If I buy a computer with no software, it isn't a problem. I'm plenty capable of installing thousands of dollars of pirated software on it - by my self.
Parent
The days before OpenOffice (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when PCs came preloaded, there wasn't Lotus Symphony, Paint.NET, GIMP, Thunderbird etc. There was Lotus 1-2-3, Photoship, WinFax and Eudora - all pay-to-use, and later on crippled versions for "free". If you couldn't pay, the only alternative was piracy.
Open Source gives the freedom NOT to use pirated material.
Parent
Re:What a secret! (Score:5, Interesting)
PC games were pirated too, just as much if not more than Amiga games...
There were still plenty of games coming out, they just weren't as good as other platforms any more... The other platforms had caught up and surpassed the Amiga. Piracy had very little to do with it, although the rampant anti-piracy brigade did a lot to drive what few Amiga users had internet access away from the platform....
Pay for a TCP stack...
Pay for a (pretty crap) telnet client...
Pay for a (massively inferior to other platforms) web browser...
Pay for an IRC client
I mean come on, what other platform did quite so much to discourage uptake of the internet? And if you did pirate any of those apps, you could expect to be shunned from any amiga related forums.
The IRC client especially had a backdoor allowing people to see if it was pirated or not, if you went on irc to an amiga related channel with a pirated client you would get banned.
I recently tried setting up an old amiga i had in my loft, i was unable to acquire any of the software aside from demo versions... Even if i was willing to pay for it, none of the sites which sold it are still up, the only versions available are crippleware which crash out after 30 minutes.
Parent
Re:But does it run Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't even begin to make sense, I'm afraid.
One: Linux is basically unknown. Yes, we as Slashdotters know about it, and it runs on eight bajillion items, but the end user still remains basically ignorant.
Two: Linux doesn't require upgrades (in fact, it could really be argued that upgrading to the latest and greatest is a really bad thing for a Linux user, what with driver issues and all).
Three: Most of that pirated software won't run on Linux (or requires a bunch of screwing around to get working, hello WINE), so using Linux isn't a plus for people who want to avail themselves of that pirated content.
Open source software isn't the same as getting commercial software for free. As much as some of the gnulots around here would like you to believe, most of the time commercial software is still better--for an end user, although not always (or even often) from a technical perspective. (Just look at Windows versus any of the major Linux DEs. It's pretty obvious that Microsoft has UI experts and programmers who are paid to work with them, as opposed to "scratch your own itch" open source programmers. Nobody can, or should try to, force open source programmers to work on them, but there is a corresponding failure of usability inherent in such.)
Parent
Re:But does it run Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would a hardware maker of any sort want to back a platform that decreases the incentive to upgrade and buy more hardware?
Parent
Re:But does it run Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Built like an M1 Abrams, it is a hardware manufacturer's worst nightmare. Lesser, more "modern" laptops with their shiny metallic cases and accelerometer-protected hard drives would shit their boot sectors at the merest mention of the horrors this computational Sisyphus has endured. It is a laptop for the End of Days; I've faster gear, and I've better looking gear, but when the zombie apocalypse finally jumps off, I know which laptop will be strapped to my back while I grind my way through fields of the undead with shotgun and machete. It weighs somewhere around 12 lbs fully loaded, sports a crudely spray-painted camouflage paint job and, in a pinch, can be used as a bludgeoning weapon.
Parent
Re:But does it run Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Manufacturers tell people all the time what to want. It's called advertising.
Parent
years ago Piracy give windows and office a big.... (Score:5, Insightful)
years ago Piracy give windows and office a big boost to where they are now.
Re:years ago Piracy give windows and office a big. (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 3.1 and WFW 3.11 came on something like 11-13 floppy disks and there was NO copy protection of any kind. NONE. People were used to DOS but could now have this fancy GUI-driven "operating system" for the cost of a box of 3.5" floppies. NO ONE that I knew in the PC world ever had to buy a copy of Windows 3.1 because they always had either a friend or someone at work who had the floppies.
The availability of Windows 3.1 through piracy "sneakernet" made it the de facto standard on all PCs once it was clear that the world was leaving DOS and going to Windows. That laid down almost the entire user base for Windows 95, who then moved to 98, etc.
The dominance of most of the major software out there ESPECIALLY Windows is due to piracy, and the software companies know it.
Parent
Missed opportunity for a follow-up question (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: It's the barrier-for-entry thing isn't it? It's really easy to pirate PC games whereas console games are much harder to pirate so the returns are better. What can PC hardware manufacturers do to make it harder for pirates?
Todd Hollenshead: There's lots of things that they could do but [...]
The next question should have been:
Such as what? What exactly are you proposing hardware manufacturers do about software piracy and peer-to-peer networking? You've said there's lots they can do but provided no examples. Give some.
"...rather than doing something to prevent it." (Score:5, Insightful)
comments are a long way from shareware (Score:5, Insightful)
old school id, 3d realms and apogee folk must be cringing at this kind of comment for it was the shareware "revolution" that created the major games industries we see today. if TH starts anti-piracy trolling, someone might have to remind him of his roots: episodic gaming is just the connect equivalent.
You've gotta love the blame game (Score:5, Insightful)
It is complete and utter nonsense that hardware makers should be somehow held accountable for the dissatisfaction of software makers.
Software was free to begin with. The idea that software is a product is the notion that doesn't quite work. Hardware makers follow industry standard specs for the most part and add benefits here and there and ultimately strive to lower costs. It's a classical capitalistic market. Supply and demand rules fit neatly here.
Software, on the other hand, does not. The supply is LIMITLESS and the demand is limited. Software-as-a-product people are attempting to create a market where none naturally exists. But this is generally the case of all products that have a limitless capacity for production.
One fact is known by all players -- lower costs bring more buyers. Software people know this too. Unfortunately, they believe their "product" is worth more than is actually is. The "demand" side of the equation demonstrates that demand levels at the prices they set does not always yield the sale numbers that suppliers would like to see.
In some extreme cases, software people seem to believe that the use of software should determine its value. Ultimately, software people are intending to leverage their software to get a piece of your labor pie. Just look at the cost of CAD or other design and engineering software. The prices are utterly ridiculous! Their expectation is that people who use this software will probably make a lot of money and as such, they want a lot of the users' money. Could you imagine what would happen to the price of other tools simply because they might be used to create some very expensive product or end result? My god, those would be some expensive hammers and nails! It is unrealistic for software makers to demand such exorbitant prices.
Meanwhile, real product makers will go on doing what they do -- give the consumer what they want for the lowest price they can so that consumers will buy more of it.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
"Please give us a hardware-based lockdown solution for software authorization."
This argument has been tried before (Score:5, Informative)
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) [wikisource.org] (emphasis added)
Here's an idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Create games that run perfectly on 3 year old computers and people won't spend money on new hardware, and instead (maybe) spend it on software.
Re:Simplest solution to stopping "piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to elaborate how this would stop piracy? Obviously after that date nobody can pirate those products anymore but the vast majority of piracy (at least the piracy that really bothers software developers and movie makers) occurs in the first 6 months of release.
Are you suggesting that people knowing that the copyright will expire sooner will cause them to wait 5 years until things are available legally for free? I honestly don't think that's true, so unless you've got something to back that up I think we can discount that as a valid argument - especially given that 90% of games are available for a fiver in the bargain bin within 18 months of release.
I'm no fan of DRM, Trusted Computing, or any other anti-piracy measure currently employed by major software publishers, but I don't see how copyright law has any tangible relationship to this subject.
Parent
Re:Simplest solution to stopping "piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge difference between tangible property and intellectual property.
Don't mingle the two.
Parent
Re:Simplest solution to stopping "piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Define property.
This is where the problem starts. Once we can agree on this point, then we can move forward. The problem is that the sides of this debate define property differently. Many people define property as tangible stuff that they own. Other people define property as stuff that the courts will enforce your right to control.
The right to control is the most basic property right, so it makes sense that some folks will use that definition. But most people deal with the right in the context of their house, their clothes, or their car, but not in the context of ideas or expressions.
Until we agree on a meaning, the sides will be talking past each other.
--AC
Parent
Re:Simplest solution to stopping "piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Creativity will NOT be rewarded in the future.
On the contrary. Creativity is precisely what will be rewarded in the future. It is distributors who will not be rewarded because the market for distribution of ideas was obsoleted by the internet. But creativity will always be in demand.
Parent
Re:Simplest solution to stopping "piracy" (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Simplest solution to stopping "piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does every discussion of IP have to include someone pretending to not see the difference between a product with unlimited supply (data), and a product with a supply of one (the GP's house)? You know it's not the same thing, so why the silly act?
Instead, how about you explain how giving data artificial value through copyright is A Good Thing, and stop with this silly argument already?
Parent
Re:Simplest solution to stopping "piracy" (Score:5, Insightful)
With regards to "The ones that are still selling well after this period..." -- well, why the hell should they be prevented from continuing to profit?
Why should they be allowed to? Copyright exists for one purpose - to encourage people to create. Once they have made enough profit that it was worth creating it in the first place, then copyright has already served its purpose. If shortening the copyright term encourages people to write more then that's even better, although most of the people still making a significant profit after five years already made enough that they never need to write again.
You claim to be speaking on behalf of writers, but most of us don't want you to. You'd be surprised how few authors support copyright terms longer than 5-10 years. They don't benefit us, they don't benefit society, and they make people less willing to respect copyright in general.
Parent
Re:Time to start... (Score:5, Insightful)
...pirating id's stuff.
That's how Id got big, remember? Doom was pirated a lot, and that made it a big hit.
Parent