Forum: DAZ|Studio


 Subject: Daz Studio 4.9 Big Changes Incoming!!

ghosty12 opened this issue on Oct 28, 2015 · 501 posts


  Male_M3dia ( posted at 1:48PM Tue, 03 November 2015 · edited on 1:50PM Tue, 03 November 2015

[diogenese19348](https://www.renderosity.com/?uid=679633) posted at 1:38PM Tue, 03 November 2015 - [#4236699](#msg4236699) > [Khory_D](https://www.renderosity.com/?uid=393006) posted at 11:53AM Tue, 03 November 2015 - [#4236609](#msg4236609) > > > _Since what DAZ is really doing is protecting the PA's, I would have to guess that some PA's will opt for DRM and some will not. _ > > > > I don't see that as a viable option. QA has more than enough to do for us as is without having to check some list about final packaging and placement for download of the product. It would also be very confusing for customers. > > Then DAZ is going to lose some PA's since some have expressed the opinion on the Message boards that they do not want their product encrypted. Which is what is the problem with the way DAZ is going about it, some people just will not tolerate encrypted content on general principle. So the question is, will the customers they lose through encryption be offset by incoming new customers from the warez sites? Survey says... never happened in the past for entertainment software. That's why companies moved away from it. It's not that DRM can't work, it's just that it never generates increased sales. Or does anybody have something that shows that isn't true? > > The only times I know of that DRM has increased sales is if the software is used by businesses that can be sued if caught using unlicensed versions. > > You can't increase sales by inconveniencing your customers. It's not about increasing sales, DRM isn't a incentive to buy, it is for those that want to use it that did not pay for it or do not abide by the licensing agreement of the product. So it may not get people to buy it that would not buy it anyway, but it does attempt to protect more of the casual piracy that goes on and sends a message that this type of sharing isn't condoned where not protecting it in light of piracy sends a totally opposite message. In the past, there was less of a need for certain things to be protected because of the ecosystem where sites, customers and the producer kept the whole thing honest or had a recourse to remove content that was illegal. If a file was illegally hosted, all the copyright user had to do was to make a request to take it down and the site abided by that, which in term kept the consumer ease of use high. However the system is broken to the point that the copyright holder has no choice but to add more protection to the product because the sites aren't honoring the take down notices, which then inconveniences the consumer.