4 ms·

Why? Loaning digital bits literally makes no sense. That's nt a thing. It's not something the laws of physics allow. Loaning digital goods is a gibberish statem

Why? Loaning digital bits literally makes no sense. That's nt a thing. It's not something the laws of physics allow. Loaning digital goods is a gibberish statement. I obviously understand the appeal. Who doesn't like free shit? If you want to "borrow" a game from a friend just pirate it. That at least saves the platform holder some bandwidth costs.

aw3c2 13y ago
With DRM, you can "lend".
- Deestan 13y ago
  So basically, this is how DRM is useful in partially alleviating the problems introduced by DRM.
  - mathattack 13y ago
    Am I going to have to write a flowchart for this similar to Inflection?
jiggy2011 13y ago
You can lend a license to use those bits in a specific way.
- criley2 13y ago
  That's a new thing, a specific new thing defined by a license and is only synonymous to the concept of loaning a physical good, and only synonymous because the definition in the license intends to make it that way. The fact is, lending requires scarcity. I would never in my life lend goods to a friend if I could provide an identical duplicate for basically zero cost. Why would I? I'm not bound by scarcity by choice. Steam invents scarcity by limiting the number of "friends" to 10, and by enforcing a policy that will boot off friends ~five minutes after the owner logs in. Real life doesn't need such machinations for the system of lending to work, which is why lending physical goods can never be the same thing as lending digital goods IMO.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    It's not that new, or at least not significantly newer than the idea of intellectual property overall. Even before DRM ,most software had licenses defining how it could be used, how many computers it could be installed on and whether the license was transferable. Steam is simply doing the same thing but using technical measures to enforce the agreements.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Is your argument really that all software should always be given away for free?
robotresearcher 13y ago
You are being deliberately obtuse. Everyone understands how you might lend a game to a friend. Tokens have been around a long time [1]. Being able to lend your games to friends makes them more valuable as your token gets more play time per dollar. This is a good thing, and reduces the appeal of piracy a little bit. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_(railway_signalling) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_(railway_signalling)
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  I'm really not being obtuse. When "loaning" digital bits the only thing that could possibly be loaned is a user license. Bits are copied, not loaned. If I "loan" you a digital game then your computer will make a copy of bits as sent by some arbitrary server possibly across the globe. You may even make a copy of different bits as your copy of the content may be for a different localization, quality setting, platform, or file format. My computer may or may not still have a copy of those bits. It is not reasonable to expect licenses to digital bits to be infinitely transferable without limit. If licenses could be transfered without limit then there is no reason for more licenses to exist than the maximum number of concurrent users. Acquire a license when you launch a game and release the license when you shut it down. A 3rd party middle man could trivially run this exchange. Popular games sell millions of copies on Steam but only a small handful can crack even 100,000 concurrent users. Assuming that you agree there should be a limit then it's just a matter of deciding where that line in the sand is drawn.
  - robotresearcher 13y ago
    You are not wrong, it's just that your point is pointless. We know bits can be copied at close to zero cost. But the value of the bits can't be realized without the token (if DRM pertains) or can't legally be realized (if a single-user license pertains). The bits without the token have almost zero value. You are loaning the ability to realize the value of the bits. You said "Loaning digital goods is a gibberish statement." This is simply not true.
    - forrestthewoods 13y ago

aw3c2 13y ago

With DRM, you can "lend".

Deestan 13y ago
So basically, this is how DRM is useful in partially alleviating the problems introduced by DRM.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Am I going to have to write a flowchart for this similar to Inflection?

jiggy2011 13y ago

You can lend a license to use those bits in a specific way.

criley2 13y ago
That's a new thing, a specific new thing defined by a license and is only synonymous to the concept of loaning a physical good, and only synonymous because the definition in the license intends to make it that way. The fact is, lending requires scarcity. I would never in my life lend goods to a friend if I could provide an identical duplicate for basically zero cost. Why would I? I'm not bound by scarcity by choice. Steam invents scarcity by limiting the number of "friends" to 10, and by enforcing a policy that will boot off friends ~five minutes after the owner logs in. Real life doesn't need such machinations for the system of lending to work, which is why lending physical goods can never be the same thing as lending digital goods IMO.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  It's not that new, or at least not significantly newer than the idea of intellectual property overall. Even before DRM ,most software had licenses defining how it could be used, how many computers it could be installed on and whether the license was transferable. Steam is simply doing the same thing but using technical measures to enforce the agreements.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Is your argument really that all software should always be given away for free?

robotresearcher 13y ago

You are being deliberately obtuse. Everyone understands how you might lend a game to a friend. Tokens have been around a long time [1]. Being able to lend your games to friends makes them more valuable as your token gets more play time per dollar. This is a good thing, and reduces the appeal of piracy a little bit. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_(railway_signalling) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_(railway_signalling)

forrestthewoods 13y ago
I'm really not being obtuse. When "loaning" digital bits the only thing that could possibly be loaned is a user license. Bits are copied, not loaned. If I "loan" you a digital game then your computer will make a copy of bits as sent by some arbitrary server possibly across the globe. You may even make a copy of different bits as your copy of the content may be for a different localization, quality setting, platform, or file format. My computer may or may not still have a copy of those bits. It is not reasonable to expect licenses to digital bits to be infinitely transferable without limit. If licenses could be transfered without limit then there is no reason for more licenses to exist than the maximum number of concurrent users. Acquire a license when you launch a game and release the license when you shut it down. A 3rd party middle man could trivially run this exchange. Popular games sell millions of copies on Steam but only a small handful can crack even 100,000 concurrent users. Assuming that you agree there should be a limit then it's just a matter of deciding where that line in the sand is drawn.
- robotresearcher 13y ago
  You are not wrong, it's just that your point is pointless. We know bits can be copied at close to zero cost. But the value of the bits can't be realized without the token (if DRM pertains) or can't legally be realized (if a single-user license pertains). The bits without the token have almost zero value. You are loaning the ability to realize the value of the bits. You said "Loaning digital goods is a gibberish statement." This is simply not true.
  - forrestthewoods 13y ago