> I thought I could clarify, since you seemed to have actual trouble even conceiving any other point of view than the contrasting Open Source one.

Ahh, I see. Thank you. But it's not that I have trouble conceiving the the point of view put forth by the FSF and others. I can see their concerns, their desires, the benifits of a right of modification and the many ways people (including myself) have been harmed by not being able to enjoy such a right, suffering vendor lock-in etc.

What I have trouble with is understanding the jump to the more absolutest position, to say that there is no exception to the rule, to say that all proprietary software is immoral. Certainly, some hold this position - I would say RMS probably does - but I see it as a harmful stance and a rare stance. Those who appear to hold it usually have a fundamental difference of opinion - one that neither of us will make any headway trying to convince the other of in debate - or are speaking hyperbolicly, in which case I would point out the harm of that.

> I suggest that you simply read the linked page, it explains it more explicitly and at more length.

I have, a couple of times at least.

> (You can’t argue that selling yourself into slavery is OK since enlisting oneself is allowed. If that was not the argument you were trying to make, I don’t understand it.)

I'm arguing we allow a form of slavery, in the form of enlistment. This doesn't make it moral. I think in some circumstances it can be moral - but this is an unbacked and unsubstantiated opinion, presented only to help provide my point of view.

>> I can sympathize a little with the "I thought I was buying it but all I got was renting a license" argument.

> It also dilutes the very concept of “owning”. When the Playstation was remotely downgraded by Sony

They were rightfully slapped with lawsuits for advertising a feature and then pulling it. This is wrong regardless of ownership. You could be renting or leasing your console and it'd still not be right. Ownership doesn't grant you the right to do anything you want with it - but that works both ways too.

> Who are you referring to when you say “pirates”?

I was specifically referring to people using the software without paying the license holder for it, in a copyright infringing manner. This does not include people using a no-cd crack on a copy of the game they own, this does not include people buying copies second hand. It didn't include the creators of cracks either, although my opinion would still apply to them. (EDIT: Subject clarity.)

> Are they the ones who crack the game? Those people are incorrigible and will only be aggravated by more copy protection and DRM

They will also be delayed, which is generally the goal of companies applying these techniques (sometimes successfully.)

> Are you instead referring to those which use a cracked copy of the game? Those people are impossible to make more helpless than your regular users.

They cannot be made more helpless, but they can be deterred (sometimes successfully.) I do recognize this reality.

> Your regular users, however, will be made to feel helpless if only DRM and online-only play (and no modding tools or source code) is provided.

I am not made to feel helpless when lightweight DRM doesn't get in my way. I am not made to feel helpless when I can't play Planetside offline, because the game makes no sense to play offline. Make no mistake though - I don't buy games with heavyweight DRM, and I don't buy games with stupid online-only requirements (I'll not buy the latest Sim City, for example.)

> I’d be more sympathetic if 99% of the server components of modern games weren’t only for their DRM-like properties

This is hyperbolic to the point of being untrue. I suspect you know that. Were it true, I would still ask you not to judge the "1%" by the actions of the other "99%" - if for no other reason than your own self interest in giving that "1%" (however small) a reason to not become 0% (however small that reason also is.)

>> But: surely it's only fair to compare the positive impact of my game against the positive impact of the activity that would have replaced it,

> Yes.

>> not against every possible activity?

> That was not my intention.

Cool. Then as part of the "1%" building games with optional server components, I'm doing better than the other "99%" - I like my chances.