Being a kid and pirating games because you can't afford them is different than most pirates. While some pirates do it because they actually can't afford it or something like that, most of them just do it because it is free and they are, as StingingVelvet puts it, "selfish and not givining a fuck about anyone but yourself." I also completely agree with Delixe that most of them try to morally justify why they pirate.

You realize that EA started as what you'd consider an "indie" studio today. They just started many years ago. There'll be more than Minecraft. Geez man, you have free engines today that are capable of doing stuff nearly as nice as the original Crysis. You wouldn't be stuck with just Minecraft:)

You can slice my examples however you want, they were an aside and only to point out that, yes, you do indeed end up not paying for all things you consume. If stuff you are intending to buy turns out to be crap you can avoid paying for it in many circumstances (even if you've consumed part of it, such as with a bad restaurant meal). Not so with video games in most countries. Again, though, it was merely an aside.

I was leary of Crytek continuing the trend since Far Cry of deviating more to set piece then sandbox, and the reviews I've seen tend to confirm that. Combine that with their demo, EA is involved, and DirectX 11 functionality apparently being such an afterthought it's still not done and I've seen no reason to care about their latest project. May look back into it in a few years when it's bargain priced as part of a Steam sale.

Now Deus Ex: Human Revolution that I am paying attention to, although I don't see picking up until October 2012 or later do various issues related to the fast paced Master's program I just applied to.

I take it you were in a cave during BOTH Humble Indie Bundles, the name Richard Stallman has no recognition to you whatsoever, and you're oblivious to the commercial success of the site you're posting on? Or that some publishers have actually been nice enough to patch off their own DRM?

There's no need to beg for anything. Drag yourself off that floor and ask them, like a man, to follow the Id open source trend is one thing, groveling is another.

This makes absolutely no sense. All current consoles are running either modified IBM or ARM CPU designs, with nVidia only having a contract for PS3 and ATI graphics handling the other two current gen -top consoles. Sony's NGP actually apparently uses PowerVR instead of the old ATI IP Qualcomm has finally used in the Adreno 3xx series GPUs or... nVidia's Tegra.

Intel was only ever involved in the console market with the original XBox which was financially a failure for Microsoft as a direct result. The entire principle nVidia or AMD are obsessed about what's at best a small royalty fund for ancient designs is patently absurd.

Nevermind the _only_ reason Intel made it big in the big machine market was a direct consequence of the PC market standardizing on IBM PC compatibles, and if that was shutdown wholesale thereby killing a significant fraction of their revenue they're liable to be finished off by *Insert chip design firm of your choice.*

Furthermore, not aimed at you but in general terms, consoles have always intrinsically been about "DRM." They just started forcing it through proprietary hardware, which they could choose to discontinue and leave any console user with the problem of a dwindling supply of obsolescent hardware at a whim. The open approach first championed by the IBM PC is unique in there even being a reasonable expectation of being able to go back and play old games with new hardware.

Netbook is a term bordering on obsolescence, and hardly some kind of all consuming market. Yes, people like inexpensive lightweight computers they can take with them. No, a C-series APU powered one that's able to play Crysis on Low at 1024x600 is not _that_ weak considering the current version is kind of just shoved out there to have a product before the 28nm high-k metal gate process hits maturity later this year.

At which point the entire concept of the netbook should be more or less obsolete in favor of some variant of Ultraportable. Even new Intel Atom parts should be reasonable with the newer nodes and licensed technologies. If Intel's really serious about shifting to 450mm wafers their master plan is to dominate all mobile and embedded space, as otherwise they'll be overextended in a rather ridiculous fashion.

For AMD that'd be just about every press release or marketing ad of consequence this year that had anything to do with gaming. Particularly as related to DirectX 11 and that one quirky article about developers desiring to shift to thinner APIs.

nVidia's stuff tends to be more about pushing PhysX and showing off quirky things you can do like lifelike hair. The professional renderer market is afterall their major stronghold with the chipset division having been shutdown and folded into the ARM SoC division.

Do they now? And why invest in the fringe market, if we remove Nintendo from the equation, for utterly obsolescent hardware instead of the massive iOS and Android markets? Nevermind the FOSS people, who apparently don't exist. Id who apparently doesn't exist. The guys who make STALKER apparently are just too small. The guys who imported Reccetear and became a rapid commercial success through digital download services are also apparently not relevant.

More run-around. The simple fact is that insulting you (which is your perception of their comments, not a fact) is not a reason to take their second game without paying. Not one little bit. Also the idea of video games as culture that everyone should have access to on day one without compensating the creator is flat-out ridiculous. I'm sorry, you've floated that before and it just don't fly. A person suffers no detrimental effects what-so-ever for not playing Crysis 2. They are not ostracized, out of the loop or held back in society for having not played that game or any other game. Maybe, MAYBE, you could make a case for something like Super Mario, but only years after the fact and not the day it comes out, or anywhere near when it comes out.

Your first sentence reads like forum post from one of the people who used to run thepiratebay. No "right to own an idea?" Seriously? You're going to wade out into those disgusting waters? Crysis 2 is not just information, it represents years of hard work and investment by hundreds of people. No matter how much you try to dodge the point with talk about culture and ideas and moral gray areas the simple fact is they worked hard to make something and you don't have a right to use it no matter what. That's the simple fact you still cannot address and people like you always ignore.

Converting you is likely impossible, but I am trying to show you the flaws in your logic. I am trying to stop you from thinking about abstract morality and cultural philosophy and see the very simple truth. My argument is not about black and white morality or laws... if anything it's about empathy, which is pretty much what I rule my life with. The people who made Crysis 2 invested a lot of time, work, creative thought and financial investment into the game. Taking the results of all that without giving something to them in return is being selfish and uncaring.

It's that simple.


I like how you try to take the moral high-ground on me by calling me an asshole and a douche. Way to go there Mr. Rogers, you're a beacon for for good manners.

The simple fact is I get tired of the bullshit justifications, and frustration means anger and anger means hate and hate means the dark side. Or whatever. I don't think I called Orcish any names directly, unlike you just called me two in one paragraph. I was speaking against movements and ideas and I used colorful language because it's just so damn infuriating to see smart people reduced to idiots because they over-think and endlessly justify actions which are easy to see as wrong. Sometimes the simple-minded person knows the answer way before the genius because the genius thought more about philosophy than facts.

Taking something, anything, that people put hard work, time, investment and creativity into without compensating them is wrong. There is no way to turn that over and examine it, to twist it around and philosophize about it. It's a simple truth... taking it is wrong, period. Nothing you or anyone else will ever say changes that, I'm sorry.

Quoted for truth.

Crysis 2 is a very enjoyable and professionally made shooter. I would have liked Crysis 2 to be more like Crysis. Sure. But it is what it is, and it's good. I'm glad it's out for the PC, and I am glad I supported it by buying it. I don't want the PC to be the platform for indies and not much else, I want the big AAA-games to come out for it no matter how console-friendly they are, because when it's all said and done I WANT TO PLAY THESE GAMES ON MY PC.

Indeed, I feel the same way. Even the most basic console port is better on the PC than it was on a console. If nothing else it will be in higher res and have a better framerate. I want to play these games, the PC is the best place to do it, bring them all out on the PC kthanx.

All that said though if others disagree that is fine. Boycott every EA and Activision game that exists for all I care, I'm not trying to float some kind of "you must buy PC ports" agenda. As Batou says though, a boycott means a boycott... don't buy them, don't play them, let the companies know why. If enough people agree maybe you get something done... don't download the game and play it anyway and call it a boycott. Like I said before, that's just boycotting paying for things, it's not boycotting a game.

That's the long and short of it really. It lends no weight to our arguments when the majority of PC gamers don't pay for games and at the same time pirate them anyway.

Your view of culture is incredibly myopic. People participate in their culture. This is why people paint themselves when they go to football games, why you see intricate fan-made costumes as PAX and Blizzcon, and why the internet is full of fan-art and fan-fic.

People do have a right to their culture and it's not nearly so restrictive a thing as you might think. The idea that people can "own" ideas is incredibly European in origin. It was rejected by the US for a very long time (until the mid 1900s in fact, maybe as late as the 1960s, I'd have to look - that was the first time we complied with the Berne convention). This has allowed us to produce creative industries that literally dwarf whole other regions of the world (you have no further to look than Hollywood, and for all the tripe they shovel out the world would be the poorer without it). Yes, much that is created is trite, but huge penis vases from ancient Greece probably were considered a bit trite back then as well.

We've already been over the reason you buy games for which you're unwilling to accept the DRM (and yet also unwilling to deny yourself the pleasure of playing said game) I'm not sure I see your logic in deny the privilege to another. You may very well fall into the piracy count for said games by downloading a crack for the DRM, you believe you don't, but I doubt you have any concrete evidence of that.

You act as if the Crysis 2 team hasn't been paid, they have been paid for their work no matter how much piracy happens at this point. You may forget, I write software too, and I'm telling you, their model is certainly not the only way to get remunerated for artistic work or software (nor do I necessarily have any right to demand that I can make a living writing software specifically, ask the thousands of starving musicians, actors, and artists out there if they can force people to pay them to follow their bliss). I don't know why people think their 5 dollar Crysis 2 purchase 18 months from now during the Steam 2012 Christmas sale is going to make much of a difference on whether Crytek gets a green light for Crysis 3.

What I really see when I read comments like yours and Delixe's (and sorry Delixe, you've generally have been polite to me) is that you're worried that someday you won't get to play Crysis 5 and that the PC will be abandoned. It's mostly a selfish argument really. You'll willingly tell publishers you'll accept any DRM, lose your right to resale, and think contentedly that "I'll just crack it down the road" all so you can have your cake and eat it too. To use your terms, it's "selfish and uncaring". No before you write it off, think for a second: Is you're right to play Crysis 5 more important than some poor Korean kid's right to experience SC2 when SC was so formative for him (and if you don't believe SC permeated Korean culture you haven't been looking).

I'll make a projection, if PC gaming implodes it will be mostly the industry and its customers reinforcing bad behavior until even they are literally not willing to put up with it anymore. Because despite all the cries of piracy on the PC, PC sales are still staggeringly huge and video gaming grosses more than Hollywood. If developers aren't getting their due and creativity itself is being crushed, I'd say it's our fault for supporting the likes of EA.

Ask any game dev if they ever pirated a game they probably could have afforded when they were kids, almost without a doubt you'll get a universal yes. Where do you think tomorrow's genius developers will come from if we lock our culture up today and slap an expiration date on it all?

Also, on a side note, when a developer makes a denigrating comment about PC gamers, of which I am one, I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't assume that person included me in their count. It's like the jerk off in the room that makes an offhand racist or bigoted comment about *insert minority group*, then looks over at the person in that group who's present and says "Well, not you of course..." Yeah sure, I don't buy that and I'm not sure why you think anyone should.

I know you think you're view is the only "rational" one, but it's merely a point of view weighted in favor of those in whom you see the most value, and like many views, is likely colored more than a bit by self interest.

Again, I don't think all people who pirate stuff are justified or even necessarily nice people. Probably many aren't. But to always color it black and white like you have leaves a large amount of people who don't actually fit into your stereotype lumped all together.
Boycotting games hasn't seemed to historically work very well to effect change. Another poster mentioned an organized boycott, well, I'm not sure that will work any better, but they're welcome to try.

I do know that if you don't like an expiration date on your culture, as I've said before, you should discourage that behavior.
I haven't pirated a game in over 2 decades, I suppose I could try and organize an "official" boycott, but I doubt it will be very effective. If someone wants to say I'm covered in mud to discount my argument, I suppose they can, but I can't make the argument if I'm not allowed to, you know, make the point. So if making my point gets me discounted by anyone who can change anything well, I guess I'm no worse off than I already was.

If I can just jut in a few points, I think what Batou was trying to articulate (I apologize if I get this wrong) was that they way you make your point matters. Boycotting DRM'd games, removing yourself from the system, and encouraging others to do the same may require huge effort to pull off effectively, but in the end sends a clear, unequivocal message that while you'll buy games, you won't buy them with DRM. Pirating a game just makes it seem like you want the game for free and won't pay for games because there are a lot of pirates who do operate like that. So one has to take the extra step of morally justifying your actions when pirating, something that is unnecessary when you are boycotting. Pirating for social justice muddles the argument, makes the point you are trying to make less convincing, and actually helps convince publishers to step up, not remove DRM.

The success of sites like GOG.com and DRM-free games are what is needed to ensure DRM disappears - increasing piracy will have the opposite effect. While it is true in the publisher/developer model that the developer is already paid for their work, the publisher does use past history to judge funding for future projects. So the Korean kid would not even get SC2 if SC was only pirated and never bought and would thus never enjoy what added cultural value SC2 might have brought/did bring. (I realize Blizzard is both pub/dev, but the point stands and in fact is greater for that).

Now you are right that in reality that never happens and that publishers far exaggerate the effect of piracy on sales and take measures out of proportion to the problem. Piracy is not really affecting their ability to churn out games and the industry as a whole is growing rapidly. This is actually why I believe that as gaming and digital download for games become more mainstream, publishers will eventually realize that most people don't pirate and are relatively, by and large, honest. This has happened in several other industries where as digital downloads became more mainstream, DRM was removed. What happened with the music industry sets a great precedence for this. Neither Apple nor any of the major music digital download services sell DRM'd music anymore. I may be overly optimistic, but I suspect over time movies, eBooks, and games will go the same route. We just have to wait it out and support sites like GOG.com. More than boycotting or pirating, the support of DRM-free material will be the clarion call for change. As the success of DRM-free games/sites grows is proven to be sustainable, the publishers will come around. :)

I actually don't think PC gaming is in any danger of dying. It's definitely going through some growing pains during a much delayed puberty, but the money is actually there to make it a sustainable industry, even with what we are led to believe is rampant piracy.

I have 3 issues with how threads like this generally go, the third will take some effort to explain, so bear with me:

1) Boycotting is the only "moral" solution held out for people who don't like DRM or the conditions of current game sales. I could probably argue pretty convincingly that threads like this prove that a boycott can't work simply because there's too many people putting up with it because they believe paying for stuff, even if they don't like the conditions is the only moral course (note, this argument doesn't rely on whether they are correct or not) and that are unwilling to abstain despite their objections. So that leaves the conscientious abstainer/boycotter out in the cold, with an unworkable onus placed on him/her, made unworkable by the very folks who claim it is their only moral course.

2) Peoples' right to their own culture is nearly always ignored or heavily discounted. There is a long history to copyright and intellectual property, it is not consistent by country (Delixe's would be far different than my own, for example) but it's nearly always painted simplistically and like it's the only way the issue has ever been treated.

3) Okay this one is a doozy, there is basically one moral yardstick held out for the viewer to judge themselves (often both are held out). The sad thing is, they both it falls down fairly easily, yet it (or a variation on it) is held out as absolute and there is never any gray area accepted: creators deserve to be paid for their hard work, if you don't abstain or pay to play (sometimes, oddly, at the maximum price of the game), you are bad.

The reason I say it falls down is the following generally fail said yardstick:
1) Is the second hand buyer moral? (they don't directly reward the creator)
2) Is the person who rents moral?
3) Am I moral if I buy a copy and rent it out (this is actually legal in the US, despite what EULAs say), I mean Redbox did it with DVDs and no one could stop them, except by offering them sweetheart discounts to not do it!
4) What about the copy of TFU2 and Halo Reach my buddy and I swapped after we were done with the games, is that moral?
5) What if my buddies and I pool our resources, and buy five games at a time, and trade them around as we finish them? Is that moral?
6) What about PSN policy that allows 5 downloads to any console for any PSN title? There are pools of people who buy once and distribute the downloads to each member instantly (they are, of course, SOL should their console die), are they moral? They actually are abiding by the stated rule.
7) What if I buy Torchlight 2 3 moths late, in order to get the copy without DRM in the box at Best Buy, the creator only gets around 4 bucks for this sale, if I'd paid on Runic's site I'd have given them 18 or so, am I bad for this (the lead Runic dev actually gave me a very dirty look when I told him that I'd done this - in all fairness they've tried to be very cool with their activations, so I can see his POV even if I disagree)?
8) What about the guy who waits for Torchlight 2 Christmas sale and buys it for 2 copies for 2 bucks each a year after release to play multiplayer with his family, is he better than the guy who buys 1 copy retail at release (thus giving the devs full remuneration for one copy) and then cracks it to play on multiplayer with his family?
9) Is the person who only ever buys cheap, bargain bin games more moral than the person that spends nearly their entire discretionary income on video games (even at full price) and then pirates a few more?
10) What if I rent Homefront or Dragon Age 2 because I heard you can plow through it in a weekend? Do only devs that make games that aren't amenable to a rental (due to length or game design) worthy of remuneration? Am I immoral for doing it?
11) What about the people who wait for a game to go on sale before they buy it, are they immoral? What if it's something like Titan Quest expac and the studio was closed due to poor sales?

I agree with this.

Well I think the arguments have mostly stemmed not from the fact that you should pay for things despite that you dislike them but if you want to play the game, you should pay for it. It is up to the person who wants to change the system to convince others to help do it. If you can't convince them, then they clearly disagree on priorities and one person's view or plan of action shouldn't dominate if they can't convince others that their view/plan is right or worthy.

Protesting is also another way to affect change that is perfectly moral and legal. You can twist IP and claim parody or other such things under fair use to protest a bad system. As long you have put in work to change it and it falls under fair use, you can use copyrighted material as a base to protest IP.

However, even better, we have services like GOG.com and supporting DRM-free services supports an ideal far better than boycotting, protesting, or, especially, piracy. That truly shows publishers and content providers that people care about these issues and that the DRM-free model is sustainable. I'll admit boycotting is much more difficult and can be less effective, though often I find its dismissal to be more out of ennui than anything else, supporting services you do like is the best way to affect change. So there are other, moral and effective actions to take. :)

I agree but you also don't have to negate intellectual property in order to have ownership of culture. You just have to ensure that copyright laws are reasonable. Piracy relies on the current system existing in order to support itself. Thus it cannot really change the system for the better since it relies on others inputing into the broken system to gain access to the products developed by that system. So even if current IP law is broken, piracy not a good or healthy response as it can further degrade the system. I'll admit that not all the results of piracy were bad, but it's not like piracy has brought us really any closer to owning our culture.

Actually it holds up pretty well in all your examples.

So I can knock out most of the rental, sales, and discount over time ones. Yes renting is moral since the person offering the product is putting it out for rent. They've made the decision that that's an okay way to distribute. Product distributors are allowed to determine how to distribute products including sales, discounts over time, and other such measures. If a product isn't worth buying at full price, people won't buy it, and thus the product won't sell. Therefore the company is encouraged to remove or improve the product or go bust if they continually put out products people won't buy at full price. That's very much okay. Again, it's about supporting things financially that you want support and you feel deserve it, not about simply supporting everything in the hopes it will encourage something better next time. That's not what we mean when we say support the things you want to own or encourage the further development of.

There is also a matter of transferring versus duplicating ownership. If you are transferring ownership such that you no longer are capable of playing the game, then yes that is acceptable under the above philosophy (I know some companies disagree). You no longer wish to own it and you give it to someone who does and doesn't mind it coming used or old. One copy has been sold, one copy remains in circulation. It is being supported at the level of ownership.

What we are discussing however is duplicating ownership. Am I allowed to duplicate ownership to other people such that they and I now own a copy from my one buy? Well no. Now we all do it to some extent. I share music with my family all the time as they do with me. Most people and their families are similar and companies don't care: it's small scale and it's amongst a unit that can be considered a single financial unit. What they do care about is someone acting as a secondary illegal point of distribution to the world, selling or giving copies away that the pirate still retains ownership of as well. Again, if I bought 1000 games then sold them and no longer have the capacity to play them, then I've transferred ownership of my copies. 1000 copies were bought and 1000 copies remain in circulation. If people are willing to wait to buy something used, then that's just people not willing to support your product new or full price and having ownership transferred to them. The reason this isn't piracy or immoral is that the number of copies sold from the distributor is equivalent to the number still in circulation.

If however I bought 1 copy of the game then gave away or sold 1000 exact copies to people who, in addition to myself, can all play it simultaneously, then I am acting as though I have the right to duplicate and create new owners of the copy when in fact I do not. That is the relevant point. I am duplicating ownership of the copy to anyone and everyone with access and a mind to take advantage of it. And I have not been given permission to do so. I can do whatever I want to the single copy I own as long as it remains only I (or the person to whom I transferred it) who own it, but I am not allowed to duplicate my ownership to everyone. That duplication is where the difference lies between piracy and pretty much all the examples you gave lie. Only 1 copy was sold, but 1001 copies are now in circulation. Those 1000 copies should've been bought, rented, or however legally obtained if one wanted to take advantage of their existence and use them.

The most convincing counter-example to all my arguments is not on your list. It is in fact the one I gave where most people have no qualms duplicating ownership amongst immediate family members. Thus we are all to some, all-too-human extent sinners. However, as much as I like you guys, I don't consider the entire internet to be my family. Call me parochial, but there you have it. :)

The examples are intended to show how the yardstick "creators need to be paid for their effort (or presumably you are being immoral)" isn't morally black and white, but rather morally gray at times. Most of the items on the list are merely to show the fallacy of using that as an absolute.

Some people are unrepentent pirates and they probably don't need to pirate, but there are situations where I can't say I think the person pirating was per force wrong and cases where I think it probably just doesn't matter one way or the other. I'm happy to buy stuff from GOG, I don't get in the penis waving threads but I own just shy of 200 I think. I have stacks of old PC games, stacks of console games (as they don't require activation), etc.

I don't expect anyone to have to disclaim why they don't want to boycott, they don't have to if they don't want, but if the very people who actually would be the best aids in said efforts and actually claim to fundamentally believe what's going on is wrong/needs to be changed and then aren't willing to boycott, well, that's okay, but you can't boycott without people. So, likewise I don't condemn people who've given up on boycotting (which amounts simply to abstaining as they can't change shit by it) and pirate a few games. Especially when they're often the first ones to throw cash down for any game they like without DRM (or whatever their bugaboo is).

Note, most companies try and disallow rentals one way or another, they simply have no choice, lending a purchased item is legal, even if it's for a fee. I'm not sure if you were indicating that devs/pubs thought rentals were okay, mostly they hate them and it fails the yardstick test I mentioned as many, many people will play a single copy of the game.

Yeah, I pay all the time for multiple copies of things for me and my kiddo, it sucks when things double in price that way, and I often wait until half off or better sales due to it.

Also note, I've never defended commercial piracy of an exact duplication (derivative works excluded, copyright terms are way too long).

The trouble is for digital things, piracy isn't of anything but exact duplications, sometimes even superior ones if the DRM has been removed! :) But in seriousness, even if the initial pirate uploader is just giving away copies and not making a profit, they are still taking away commerce from the legal point of distribution by creating new, exact duplicate copies and duplicating (not transferring) ownership. So I see a commercial pirate and a pirate who freely-distributes as simply a gradation from each other rather than a separate classification. Earning a profit from the activity is certainly far worse, but the same underlying reasoning applies. (From my earlier posts in that other thread recall that I do treat downloaders and subsequent uploaders as truly a different classification from the initial uploaders and commercial pirates.)

There are many things whose morality depends on circumstances and I am a moral relativist myself. There are degrees to everything. Conceding that there are shades of grey, however doesn't allow black to become white by squinting really hard. :) Moral constructs may indeed just be that, constructs, and subject to circumstance and changing times, but they aren't simply random happenstance. They exist to allow our society to function smoothly. When debating over these moral constructs and their worth to society, while conceding that there is also variance, it is best to argue averages in order to not get lost in corner cases. You can loose the larger picture in the corner cases. In this case, "What if is a game for lawyers and judges" to repurpose a quote from one of my favorite plays The Lion in Winter.

You are also right that there are some companies who seem to think that it should be 1 person who has ever used a copy = 1 copy sold. I clearly disagree with that notion. Some or most dev/publishers may hate rentals, but they do allow them and you aren't retaining ownership over a rented copy. And you are supporting them through temporary ownership. I think the relevant yard stick for support is how many copies have been sold = how many copies are in ownership circulation. 1000 copies were sold total and, at any one time, 1000 people own copies. Over time, more people may have once owned copies, but any single point, there are a 1000 copies available to own. That to me is what is fair for everyone and maintains the integrity of the moral yardstick of supporting goods through legal ownership.

I also re-bought the GOG games I gave to my family and I even donate to open-source projects, etc... but counter to this, I have committed my fair share of all-too-human errors and hypocrisies. It is far from my intention to imply that by taking this philosophical stance that you are some immoral person or that I am somehow morally superior. That would truly be a lark, so please don't take that as the meaning from any part of my arguments. I do of course believe in the superior veracity and consistency of my philosophical stance or naturally I wouldn't be arguing for it! :P Anyway time to go. Good debate as always. :)

I agree.

Also, it does send a clear signal to the publishers. It sends a signal that DRM is needed, and that it should probably be even more restrictive than it is. So it sends the opposite signal that a boycott would, and it hurts the honest customers who have to deal with the DRM.