[tallscot]

richcon said:

itsjustme:

Obama is a (former) Illinois senator, which means he spent his time in the US capital representing the people of Illinois. He didn't work for the Illinois government (though he obviously has worked with them on certain issues), and even when he was a state senator, being so doesn't mean he's involved with the governor's private meetings. Different branches.

Obama was a state senator in Illinois before being a U.S. senator. Obama and Rham Emanuel served as a top strategists to Blagojevich in his 2002 run for governor.

Emanuel told the New Yorker earlier this year that he and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two."

David Axelrod, Obama's top advisor, worked for Blagojevich during his state elections before his governor run.

On the Chicago TV show "Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz" on June 27, 2002, state Sen. Obama said, "Right now, my main focus is to make sure that we elect Rod Blagojevich as Governor, we..."

"You working hard for Rod?" interrupted Berkowitz.

"You betcha," said Obama.

"Hot Rod?" asked the host.

"That's exactly right," Obama said.

In 2004, then-Gov. Blagojevich enthusiastically endorsed Obama for the Senate seat after he won the nomination, and Obama endorsed Blagojevich for his 2006 re-election race in early 2005.

In the Summer of 2006, then-U.S. Sen. Obama backed Blagojevich even though there were serious questions at the time about Blago's hiring practices.

At the time, numerous state agencies had had records subpoenaed, with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald telling authorities he was looking into "very serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud" with a "number of credible witnesses."

In an interview with the Chicago Daily Herald in July 2006, then-Sen. Obama said, "I have not followed closely enough what's been taking place in these investigations to comment on them. Obviously I'm concerned about reports that hiring practices at the state weren't, at times, following appropriate procedures. How high up that went, the degree at which the governor was involved, is not something I'm going to speculate on.

"If I received information that made me believe that any Democrat had not been acting in the public interest, I'd be concerned," Obama said.

That said, Mr. Obama said, "If the governor asks me to work on his behalf, I'll be happy to do it."

Apparently the governor did. At the Illinois State Fair in August 2006, Obama spoke on Blagojevich's behalf.

"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois," Obama told the crowd.

In January 2007, Blagojevich's office reserved the Old State Capitol for Mr. Obama's presidential announcement at Obama's request.

Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch told reporters that "Representatives for Sen. Obama contacted the governor's office regarding use of the Old State Capitol. We contacted the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and reserved the Old State Capitol for the Senator on February 10th."

[scotts13]

Add me to the list. I believe in paying for what I use, but I'll be darned if I'll put up with the inconvenience of being treated like a criminal. The very first time Windows told me my legal copy was unauthorized, I stopped opening my shrinkwrapped product boxes. They're all still on the shelf, but I run, ah, unencumbered copies of the software.
I suspect there are more like me than you think.

[Rugby]

Thank you Steve, my thoughts exactly. I BUY games but hey if somebody is crippling my way of using this software.........

I DO blame DRM, I understand why it is implemented and respect it BUT the way it is done sometimes is horrible

[tallscot]

Yeah, iTunes has a really hard time selling music because of DRM. Before iTunes, nobody downloaded music illegally. Then iTunes came out and everyone is protesting its DRM and downloading music illegally. Everyone except for the people who purchased over 5 billion songs on iTunes.

Why is Apple punishing me, a customer, by making me jump through all kinds of hoops with their DRM? ;)

[arkham999]

I didn't buy or pirate the game. But the DRM did prevent me from buying it when I would have otherwise.
I seriously considered downloading the crack in case I ever did decide to buy it. I don't mind some basic copy protection, but their system which only allows you to install after phoning home doesn't work. What happens if you want to install on an old computer 10 years from now, and the DRM activation server has been decommissioned?

[Steve_S]

minimalist said:

You act as though nobody involved in the industry has ever heard the DRM-only-hurts-honest-customers mantra repeated ad nauseum across thousands of discussion boards. Software makers are keenly aware of the problems DRM foists on honest customers.

Yeah, that's the shame of it all. Software makers are aware of DRM problems foisted on their honest customers, yet they continue doing it. Shame! ;)

Quote

But what do you expect them to do? It?s so easy to flippantly proclaim, as so many posters have done before, that ?they just don?t get it?.

That's because they don't get it! - yes, I said that flippantly ;) The problem here is that software publishers make the mistake of thinking they are smarter than you. They recognize a problem and try to solve it. The problem is, they haven't solved anything. If I want to steal Spore, I very readily can. If I want to steal music, again, I very readily can. Has DRM stopped piracy in any way? No, obviously, it hasn't. So, that begs the question of why legitimate customers are forced to deal with such problems. Common sense should make it clear that you should do everything to make your customers happy. I have specifically not purchased Spore because of it's DRM. (Note: I didn't claim to steal it either).

>But if you were in a position of power where they are in charge of the financial health of a company and thousands of people?s jobs depended on that company?s profitability you would definitely see this issue differently.

FWIW, though I'm in management now, I've spent many years as a software developer. At one time, I did have software that I worked on personally pirated. Nothing is going to change that, including DRM. So, no, I don't see the issue differently. I'm not condoning piracy, but I do acknowledge that it always has and always will exist. I also acknowledge that every pirated copy doesn't necessarily equate to a lost sale. Surely some sales are lost, but I'd argue most downloads would have never been sales anyway.

Quote

Because in spite of all the claims that these companies should just ?give the people what they want and they will stop pirating? the little data we have suggests something very different. Look at the Radiohead and the Nine Inch Nails direct download experiments. People could have chosen to pay a dollar if they had wanted to (or even pay nothing at all)? and STILL there were more people who pirated the content than got it legitimately.

Yes, that's an unfortunate realization of our culture as it exists today. DRM doesn't change that. Which again, begs the question, why punish those who do pay?

Quote

The fact of the matter is that lots of people just don?t see anything wrong with downloading stuff off torrent sites and have grown up thinking that there is nothing wrong with this because their peers reinforce that its acceptable and because they have never gotten caught. So playing apologist for people by saying ?it?s wrong? BUT? ... the record companies brought this on themselves or EA brought this on themselves is giving implicit approval to their acts. If it?s wrong it?s wrong.

I agree that wrong is wrong and that piracy is wrong. However, life is about choices. When you give someone the choice of obtaining DRM-free (music or software) at no charge versus DRM-laden (music or software) for a premium price, you (as a software or music publisher) have to ask yourself what incentive you are giving people to do the right thing.

>There should be no ?buts? about it. And the author is right. If people don?t like DRM then they should vote with their wallets.

The problem then comes... did my piece of software not sell because it had DRM or simply because it's a piece of garbage? How does one get a company to interpret that? How do you get a company to interpret lost sales due to DRM? Counting the number of pirated copies seems to tell the publisher that the title was popular at least. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine if people are pirating but never would have purchased, or if people are pirating due to DRM, or if people bought the product, then "pirated" it so they could use the product without the hassles of DRM. Everyone is very quick to show sympathy for the poor software/music publisher when they show illegal download statistics, but nobody knows the true impact on sales or the statistical breakdown of illegal download by motivation.

>But for them to claim ?you made me do this? is a just an excuse to justify what they would have done anyway.

It's not an excuse as much as it is an explanation. For many, the moment an item is made available only with DRM, it's a lost sale. I certainly understand that. Do you?

[Steve_S]

tallscot said:

Yeah, iTunes has a really hard time selling music because of DRM. Before iTunes, nobody downloaded music illegally.

As usual, your argument is just silly. Nobody ever claimed products won't sell with DRM. Clearly, many don't care or simply just don't know better. Also, before iTunes, music wasn't available for legal download (not including subscription based nonsense).

[frgough]

Riiiight. Because legislators never work with governors. Do some research. Obama was a prominent part of Blogokevich's election and re-election teams.

[Frost7]

Macworld said:

I say dubiously because attributing heavy downloading of one of the most anticipated games of 2008 to some sort of anti-DRM protest in any capacity is as wild a guess as assuming Barack Obama is ?kind of in bed? with Rod Blagojevich just because some in the media think it?s cute to display photographs of the two Illinois politicians smiling at one another.

What the F? You've gotta be kidding me. This is supposed to be news about computers and technology, not shilling for crooked politicians. This is PCWorld/Macworld, not MSNBC.

[minimalist]

@Steve S

Which choice sends the clearest message:

1. Not buying Spore because you disapprove of the DRM and sending a letter to EA letting them why their sales are down?

2. Not buying Spore because you disapprove of the DRM and then downloading a copy off the torrent sites anyway causing the piracy numbers to increase?

The first choice sends a very clear message: "treat us like honest customers and we will be happy to buy your product". Its quantifiable and people are not hiding behind anonymity so the company gets the message. The second choice just makes things worse because it says "we may buy your stuff and we may not and you'll never really know because in spite of all the self righteous noise we make about DRM our willingness to pirate anything and everything shows we really don't live by any principles".

If as you say, "life is about choices" then what about the choices of the pirates who claim claim they are making a principled stand against DRM and yet they are making the thoroughly unprincipled choice to download off torrent sites? What incentive do they give content people to continue to make games? The incentive argument works both ways.

Its not just about what you say. Its about what you do.

[Frost7]

minimalist said:

@Steve S

Which choice sends the clearest message:

1. Not buying Spore because you disapprove of the DRM and sending a letter to EA letting them why their sales are down?

2. Not buying Spore because you disapprove of the DRM and then downloading a copy off the torrent sites anyway causing the piracy numbers to increase?

The first choice sends a very clear message: "treat us like honest customers and we will be happy to buy your product". Its quantifiable and people are not hiding behind anonymity so the company gets the message. The second choice just makes things worse because it says "we may buy your stuff and we may not and you'll never really know because in spite of all the self righteous noise we make about DRM our willingness to pirate anything and everything shows we really don't live by any principles".

If as you say, "life is about choices" then what about the choices of the pirates who claim claim they are making a principled stand against DRM and yet they are making the thoroughly unprincipled choice to download off torrent sites? What incentive do they give content people to continue to make games? The incentive argument works both ways.

Its not just about what you say. Its about what you do.

^ THIS.

I admit I've pirated music, but I knew it was wrong and I later made good on it by buying the CDs. I never tried to justify it as "sticking it to the people who won't pay the artists" (please) or something like that.

I think it's all part of this ridiculous self-centered entitlement culture we've developed. People don't want to deal with crap from DRM, so they vote with their wallets and don't buy it. However, they really WANT that game, so they feel they're somehow still entitled to it... so they help themselves to a free copy via piracy, and just rationalize it as standing up to DRM.

[Steve_S]

minimalist said:

2. Not buying Spore because you disapprove of the DRM and then downloading a copy off the torrent sites anyway causing the piracy numbers to increase?

You make a good point. Clearly, that would be the better response. But, I don't think that's a very practical suggestion. If it were just one company or just one service we are talking about, that might be a practical solution. As it stands, I don't think it's very practical to suggest writing a letter for every potential purchase that people skip. In reality, people will take the path of least resistance. Companies need to realize this. You say it's a two way street and to some degree that's true. However, ultimately, it's the company who is selling a product that needs to understand their customer's requirements and not the other way around. In the end, it comes down to treating your customers like customers rather than criminals. Criminals are the ones doing the illegal downloads. Customers are the ones who purchase your goods. Once you start to treat one group like the other, you're headed down the wrong path and essentially asking for trouble (i.e. more piracy).

[dillinger23]

"I say dubiously because attributing heavy downloading of one of the most anticipated games of 2008 to some sort of anti-DRM protest"

That would be valid had it not been a totaly worthless flop of a "game". There is no fun to be had in this "game" I bought it and installed it on mine and my wifes macs and we probably played a total of 10 hours combined before both of us were bored shitless.

So i could see it being a protest pirating scenario, I would even bet that at least half of the downloads were not even installed. Just my 2 cents though.

[arcadeos]

I second dillinger23's opinion. Creature Creator is a fantastic idea, but the rest of the game is near worthless. Played for about 6 hours (mostly messing with the creature creator portion) then haven't touched it several months, and don't plan to go back.

I have personally told my experience to at least 3 people, who then decided not to purchase the game.

I believe its wrong to illegally download games (or other content), but keep in mind there have been some stories about game publishers enticing game reviewer to "buff" their ratings. I would argue that this is just as wrong as individual downloading. Lying to your customers to get them to buy your product is theft in my opinion. Im not saying EA did it in this case, but using it as a general statement. However, I do find it a stretch that the several pre-release reviews that I looked at gave this game such a high rating...

In terms of DRM, I don't have a huge problem with it as long as its well implemented, easy to use, and provides the assurance that you will be able to use the product in the future. If EA goes under, customers will not be able to reinstall the game when they buy new hardware (unless EA would release a DRM disabler).

I would suggest that DRM does prevent casual downloading in many cases, but those who are determined will always find a workaround. I strongly believe that simple, nonintrusive DRM is just as, if not more effective, than the complex, intrusive, and limiting DRM that Spore and some other games utilize.