Law of the Game on Joystiq: Rare footage of the DRM in its natural habitat
by Mark Methenitis 
{ Sep 19th 2008 at 7:00PM }
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
Digital Rights Management (or "DRM" for short) is back in the news in a big way with the recent Spore fiasco. DRM, much like a Spore creature, is a quirky animal, with legs of technology, a torso of law, and arms of business, but it doesn't always have a head on its shoulders. But like so many other things that potentially put consumers and producers at odds, the viewpoints on DRM are extremely polarized with almost no middle ground. So this week I wanted to take a look at DRM, why it exists from a legal and economic viewpoint, and most importantly, try to get hold of that slippery middle ground.
Thinking back to the days of the floppy disk, piracy wasn't yet an overwhelming concern. Yes, it was easy to bypass the write protection on a floppy, but without an internet, you had to find someone who had an existing copy in real life. For the majority of the population, this wasn't an option. Then we entered the initial CD-ROM phase, and at the time, the CD-ROM was a pretty secure media. The idea of a low cost home CD burner and blank CDs were years off, and the Internet was still in its infancy, so CDs were pretty safe from piracy well into the 1990s. It was the proliferation of CD burners, high speed internet connections, and peer to peer file sharing (Hi Napster!) that made software license security a big issue for all software companies in the late 1990s, and things haven't slowed down since.
It's those factors which gave rise to DRM, in addition to the simple fact that, unlike analog media, digital copies don't lose quality over time. For example, if you re-record an audio CD to a cassette tape, the quality degrades. But when you copy a digital file, the secondary file has no quality loss from the first. So, not only were game developers looking for an easier way to protect their products, but other media developers were as well. And by "protect," we've hit the legal element: DRM is essentially about an easy way for developers to protect their intellectual properties.
DRM is a simple alternative to traditional protection of intellectual property. If your only concern is to protect your intellectual property, you can go the traditional route and have an attorney write cease and desist letters and file lawsuits (assuming you can even track down the culprits), or you can create some mechanism by which to either discourage piracy, like a DRM system. Not that use of a DRM system precludes the use of the traditional legal avenues, but the idea is that it can substantially reduce the need for them because fewer people will either be able to or be willing to go through the trouble to pirate the product.
Of course, companies who opt for DRM can be walking a very fine line. I'm sure many people remember debacles like Sony Rootkit, where damages caused by the DRM could leave the publisher liable. Overly burdensome DRM can lead to bad press and lost sales. And, of course, there are a number of shortcomings to DRM technologies.
It's worth mentioning here that piracy can affect both copyright and trademark. Copyright is a pretty clear cut issue: those who own the copyright for a given product have the right to license and distribute as they see fit. What's not as obvious is the potential trademark impact in this kind of scenario. It can actually be damaging to a trademark if a pirated version of a software gets out that includes a major virus or bug as a result of the cracking. When those kind of things make the news or are spread on message boards, it can actually hurt the brand.
The history of DRM and piracy has led to a fairly polarized stance on the matter, with one end demanding a completely DRM-free world and the other looking to lock down media in every conceivable way. Either of those options is a win-lose, with consumers on one end and content creators and publishers on the other. More importantly, to be realistic, neither option is really feasible, as a completely secure DRM system has never been created and a DRM-free world would put an enormous burden on the publisher, one that would likely increase cost to the consumer.
So, is there a middle ground solution? If there were a simple one, it would likely already be in place. Besides hoping for DRM that manages licenses effectively without burdening the consumer, it's possible a completely revised business model may emerge. Digital distribution is already hinting at one kind of model, whereby your licenses are linked to your account and/or system, but it's still not yet a flawless system.
In the meantime, both consumers and producers can try to make the system we have work to the best of its ability. I know it's tiresome to hear, but consumers shouldn't pirate content. The less piracy there is, the less need for over-the-top DRM solutions there is. And producers can combine a reasonable DRM solution with efforts to curb those who actively distribute large volumes of pirated media. After all, if the biggest sources aren't there, then the rate of piracy will go down. Hopefully there will be a time in the future where producers and consumers can coexist in some sort of middle ground where everyone is satisfied, but it may take some innovation in order to get to that point.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state
Thinking back to the days of the floppy disk, piracy wasn't yet an overwhelming concern. Yes, it was easy to bypass the write protection on a floppy, but without an internet, you had to find someone who had an existing copy in real life. For the majority of the population, this wasn't an option. Then we entered the initial CD-ROM phase, and at the time, the CD-ROM was a pretty secure media. The idea of a low cost home CD burner and blank CDs were years off, and the Internet was still in its infancy, so CDs were pretty safe from piracy well into the 1990s. It was the proliferation of CD burners, high speed internet connections, and peer to peer file sharing (Hi Napster!) that made software license security a big issue for all software companies in the late 1990s, and things haven't slowed down since.
It's those factors which gave rise to DRM, in addition to the simple fact that, unlike analog media, digital copies don't lose quality over time. For example, if you re-record an audio CD to a cassette tape, the quality degrades. But when you copy a digital file, the secondary file has no quality loss from the first. So, not only were game developers looking for an easier way to protect their products, but other media developers were as well. And by "protect," we've hit the legal element: DRM is essentially about an easy way for developers to protect their intellectual properties.
DRM is a simple alternative to traditional protection of intellectual property. If your only concern is to protect your intellectual property, you can go the traditional route and have an attorney write cease and desist letters and file lawsuits (assuming you can even track down the culprits), or you can create some mechanism by which to either discourage piracy, like a DRM system. Not that use of a DRM system precludes the use of the traditional legal avenues, but the idea is that it can substantially reduce the need for them because fewer people will either be able to or be willing to go through the trouble to pirate the product.
Of course, companies who opt for DRM can be walking a very fine line. I'm sure many people remember debacles like Sony Rootkit, where damages caused by the DRM could leave the publisher liable. Overly burdensome DRM can lead to bad press and lost sales. And, of course, there are a number of shortcomings to DRM technologies.
"The less piracy, the less need for over-the-top DRM." |
It's worth mentioning here that piracy can affect both copyright and trademark. Copyright is a pretty clear cut issue: those who own the copyright for a given product have the right to license and distribute as they see fit. What's not as obvious is the potential trademark impact in this kind of scenario. It can actually be damaging to a trademark if a pirated version of a software gets out that includes a major virus or bug as a result of the cracking. When those kind of things make the news or are spread on message boards, it can actually hurt the brand.
The history of DRM and piracy has led to a fairly polarized stance on the matter, with one end demanding a completely DRM-free world and the other looking to lock down media in every conceivable way. Either of those options is a win-lose, with consumers on one end and content creators and publishers on the other. More importantly, to be realistic, neither option is really feasible, as a completely secure DRM system has never been created and a DRM-free world would put an enormous burden on the publisher, one that would likely increase cost to the consumer.
So, is there a middle ground solution? If there were a simple one, it would likely already be in place. Besides hoping for DRM that manages licenses effectively without burdening the consumer, it's possible a completely revised business model may emerge. Digital distribution is already hinting at one kind of model, whereby your licenses are linked to your account and/or system, but it's still not yet a flawless system.
In the meantime, both consumers and producers can try to make the system we have work to the best of its ability. I know it's tiresome to hear, but consumers shouldn't pirate content. The less piracy there is, the less need for over-the-top DRM solutions there is. And producers can combine a reasonable DRM solution with efforts to curb those who actively distribute large volumes of pirated media. After all, if the biggest sources aren't there, then the rate of piracy will go down. Hopefully there will be a time in the future where producers and consumers can coexist in some sort of middle ground where everyone is satisfied, but it may take some innovation in order to get to that point.
Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.
The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
juju187 @ Sep 19th 2008 7:19PM
All this talk about DRM is to keep pirates at bay is garbage. Spore was released on the intraweb before retail with a crack (no DRM). Only games on Pc that prevent pirating for the most part are these MMO's and thats why blizzard is raking in the cash. I'm not a pc gamer beside the mmo here and there but, this Drm stuff isnt wooing anyone but the suits that are losing money on the pc front and before long be taking everyone to court... again...
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Sep 19th 2008 9:18PM
Or MAYBE Spores DRM was never meant to stop the pirates... but rather completely hinder the after market sales of the title. Gotta admit, the way Spore is set up, it'll be a bitch to do if I want to sell my copy of Spore to my sister for $30. Let alone being able to lend your friend games on PC is all but dead.
ugg.tryptophan @ Sep 19th 2008 7:19PM
Next target for driveby confirmed (sarcasm)
philmcphail (Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 19th 2008 7:19PM
Intriguing...
Anticrawl @ Sep 19th 2008 11:01PM
It is indeed intriguing that no one has commented on the picture yet.... I guess kids these days don't read books. Was just talking about George Orwell at dinner earlier, weird to see a reference to his work right as I get online.
Haggard (Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 20th 2008 4:21AM
I read 1984 a few months ago (aged 17) - astounding book, one of the best I've ever read, especially when Winston is imprisoned.
One particular idea really scared me - the idea that if Newspeak lost the words necessary to plan a revolution or think about being dissatisfied, then the Party would have no enemies because nobody would be able to articulate their anger in speech or their minds.
Ordeith @ Sep 20th 2008 10:38AM
..and it is happening today. Newspeak is an evolved form of defining everything as hate speech.
essentially making free-speech illegal.
Jamie @ Sep 19th 2008 7:25PM
This article has missed one of the main arguments against DRM: It only usually affects those who have bought the game legitimately, while pirates can easily bypass it.
Purple Haze @ Sep 20th 2008 7:14AM
It also doesn't have the other side of that argument: if a publicly traded company didn't do anything to try and stop piracy they would get sued into the ground by their shareholders.
Haggard (Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 20th 2008 10:36AM
Stardock seem to be doing alright.
But they encourage sales by offering free content updates to those who buy the game. I wish other companies would jump on this bandwagon (no DRM + more bang for your buck? WIN!)
willferal @ Sep 19th 2008 7:25PM
In a perfect world, there would be no piracy and also no DRM. The best we can hope for is to minimize piracy and minimally invasive DRM.
I find Steam to be decent today because they let you have as many installations as you want on as many computers as you want, and even though they check your authentications every time you log on, it's not in your face obstructing your gameplay.
What worries me is that when Valve goes down, what happens to all the consumers' associated software? In the old days, you could just install software offline, no online authentication needed. Now, you have to get checked out by some authentication servers somewhere before your installation can proceed. What happens if/when the companies go under? At that point your game, which you might have paid $50 for, becomes an expensive rental.
Something that also needs to stop is the requirement of having the disc in the drive when you play. It does nothing but annoy honest customers. I have used no-cd cracks on games I bought because I didn't feel like changing the CD/DVD.
On the other hand, there are people who think that they have not only the right to a personal copy of other people's IP, they believe that they have the right to freely redistribute said IP. This does nothing but hurt the producers of IP and dissuade them from producing any quality products in the future.
Spore's DRM was way out of line, and on another note, it seems like game isn't as good the hype said it would be. EA even lied to the consumers on the manual, promising multiple accounts and not delivering. However, to show your disapproval with its DRM you can simply boycott the game or create negative publicity (on message boards or with Amazon reviews and the like), instead of going out of your way and illegally downloading a copy.
People masquerading under the pretense that they deserve a copy of Spore (and any other software with terrible DRM, like Mass Effect for Windows) are really just cheapskates who wanted the software to begin with, looking for any moral ground whatsoever to justify their actions.
Will @ Sep 19th 2008 7:33PM
"What worries me is that when Valve goes down, what happens to all the consumers' associated software?"
I'm obviously no expert on the matter (read: random guy on gaming blog), but I would guess that should a gaming company sink under they would release patches to bypass any and all DRM at that point. I'm not sure how universal said patches would be (it would be a huge hassle to patch every game evar) but, for example, if EA were to drop its servers they could release a "no-DRM Spore Patch." For a service like Steam which bundles games together and launches them from a central application you could even just release a new Steam client which fakes the authentication process.
It'd almost be like the companies were cracking their games on your behalf. Regardless, I don't expect Valve or any of these other major companies to sink under any time soon.
Yourself @ Sep 19th 2008 9:57PM
Will, I'm afraid that's not how it works. Valve has no legal obligation to continue to support their games (particularly if they go bankrupt), and it seems terribly unlikely that a company already closing out/being bought would take the trouble to release patches for their old games (especially if this is happening 10 years down the road). The distributor simply has nothing to gain from that - they aren't generating new business or popularity; just expenditures.
This in general has made me wary of PC gaming in recent years - I'm the kind of person who still gets out my NES and plays it. Surely pirated copies and cracks will float around long after the publishers disappear, but that begs the question of why I paid $50 in the first place.
paralipsis @ Sep 20th 2008 12:44AM
If Valve goes under and Steam collapses, I'm sure it will be relatively easy to download patches to keep your games running. Even if Valve has no obligation or incentive to do so if they go out of business, the community of skilled hackers who have already bypassed Steam authentication in the past will likely pick up the slack. It's not an elegant solution from a legal standpoint, but it's hard to argue against ethically if the unfortunate were to occur.
With actual Valve games distributed by Steam, the sad loss would be the high level of post-sales support and value-adding that Valve add to their online games.
I for one will continue to use Steam as my preferred PC game source, and if that turns me into some kind of de facto pirate on the day Valve goes out of business then so be it. With most of my really old games I usually need some kind of patch, virtual machine or emulator to run them on my current hardware anyway, so that's no biggie.
Jakka(Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 19th 2008 7:25PM
They're not doing it because of pirates, they're doing it because they can blaming it on the pirates.
Proof? Since I've torrented Spore in a protest, I've had no problem playing whatsoever, something you can't say about all those legit users.See a pattern here?
Will @ Sep 19th 2008 7:37PM
Why ARE they doing it then? I agree their DRM is helpless to protect, but I still think that's why they do it.
I think the best way to prohibit pirates would be to let games focus on their multiplayer and online aspects.. and of course build copy protection such as CD-Key checking into those online parts. If Spore were a good game I would buy it just so I can share and receive creatures over the Sporepedia. Diablo 2 was pirated much less because of the strong emphasis on Battle.Net's online play. And obviously it's impossible to pirate a game such as Team Fortress 2 (multiplayer only) or any MMORPG. There's still a lot of value in single player games, but the best way to protect against pirates is encourage the online experience.
RiccochetJ @ Sep 19th 2008 7:40PM
"...Since I've torrented Spore in a protest..."
That's not a protest. You're just giving yourself some weird justification to steal. A proper protest would be to just boycott the game altogether until they loosened their DRM policies.
BigD145 @ Sep 19th 2008 7:47PM
They're doing it because they're "in bed" with the owners of the various DRM strategies. It's a monopolistic strategy on all sides.
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Sep 19th 2008 9:22PM
"Why ARE they doing it then?"
Normally I hate conspiracy theories but think about it. Spore's DRM doesn't stop piracy. But it does severely hinder transfer of ownership. Isn't EA one of those companies that HATES the Used Game markets?
shMerker @ Sep 19th 2008 9:26PM
Big D, obviously it's possible that DRM companies are knowingly selling snake oil to publishers, but how would that benefit the publisher?
Throwing around the word monopoly like that also makes me suspect you don't know what it means. This doesn't damage any smaller player's ability to compete. It arguably increases their market by encouraging consumers to turn to other games if they decide not to buy Spore.
What I'm saying is, publishers wouldn't license DRM for their software if there is no expected increase in sales.
Will @ Sep 19th 2008 9:58PM
@Sheppy: None of the stores around here sell used games for PC anyway. They know they PC games can easily be copied then resold so.. they only deal in brand new PC games. You also can't return a game after purchasing it if the box has been opened.
It makes sense, otherwise people would CD-key harvest.
BigD145 @ Sep 20th 2008 2:07PM
scmerk: It would benefit the publisher if they lobby the same Congressman as the DRM folk do. Or if they shared lobbyists.
Titanium_Orchid @ Sep 19th 2008 7:33PM
Oy' Look! Its the DRM in its natural habitat. Look how peaceful it is. Lets see what happens when we poke it in the butt!
Yea, I didn't read the article yet
Mr Khan @ Sep 19th 2008 7:34PM
A middle ground solution would just be to target the majority of the piracy by hitting the major torrent sites. Cease-and-desist letters could hit those major outlets more easily, though it would do nothing to dissuade the kid who sets up an FTP with his buddies, they could hit the mass-distribution outlets readily enough. By holding the hosts responsible, that encourages the hosts to actively dissuade the seeds
Then nobody has to deal with intrusive SecuROM
Orcef @ Sep 19th 2008 8:29PM
Correct me if I'm wrong. What you're talking about is what happened to Napster. I would think that big torrent distribution sites would have already been targeted by all kinds of Metallica-esq lawyers and told to shut down by now, but they're still up. So Legally those kinds of sites still have a right to post and people still have a right to download from them... somehow.
Yourself @ Sep 19th 2008 10:05PM
Torrent sites are really hard to just single out and take down, as they don't legitimately carry the blame as much as standard P2P (Limewire was the big one last I checked, but I don't know anymore). The whole structure of torrent distribution is half so that the blame is spread across an almost impossible to track number of individuals. I won't try to sound too knowledgeable on the topic as I'm really not (my doctorate isn't exactly in law), but I *think* it's the same reason they can't shut down sites like RapidShare and MegaUpload.
Arrowned @ Sep 19th 2008 10:14PM
That would be all well and good except for the fact that so many torrent distributors are set up in other countries to prevent such a tactic from being at all simple.
Farseer (GDI) @ Sep 19th 2008 11:23PM
One thing you can't forget about torrents is that private trackers exist. If you are in a private torrent group that accepts members via invitation only, you can rest a bit easier. Why would the RIAA et al. go to the trouble of infiltrating a private tracker when there are so many public ones to make examples of?
This is a good day to talk about the subject (national talk like a pirate day), so I thought that I'd throw in my two cents. :)
Mr.Ironic @ Sep 20th 2008 5:35AM
OR.....we could blow up SecuROM headquaters.
Just saying.
or not and it wasn't me.
BigD145 @ Sep 19th 2008 7:48PM
I purchased my first copied game on a floppy when I was 12, in the US, almost 2 decades ago at some tech show. DRM wouldn't have worked then and it doesn't work now.
Shteevie @ Sep 20th 2008 11:50AM
It has never been the case that a consumer buys the game. In every case, since the gaming industry first started selling product, you have been paying for a license to play the game. You did this for a quarter at the arcades when you were a kid, you continue to do it with modern games, and some licenses involve continual payments to extend your license to play the game.
The license can be whatever the publisher wants it to be - if it's an undesirable deal, the consumers won't buy. The licenses state that the game is only available as long as the company wants it to be - if EA wanted to, they could shut all the Spore servers down tomorrow, and be completely within their legal rights to do so.
If the license says 'we'd like you to check in with our servers each time you play', the consumers have shown they are willing to deal with that. If they say 'you need a separate license if you want a separate account', or 'you only get [1 or 2 or] 3 installations of the software', the public has already agreed to that, as well. Business, production, and professional software has been sold this way for decades, and it's not a new thing for games to do so, either.
If the license said 'you must wear a bunny suit at all times when playing this game' or 'we reserve the right to buy stuff using the credit card provided by the user', and people bought the product, they would have absolutely no right to be angry when the licensor followed through on those clauses.
The problem here is that the public thinks it's buying something other than what is actually being sold, and they are upset that they didn't read the fine print before purchase.
Timmay! @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:22AM
EULA's have become so bloated it's almost impossible to read the entire thing, let alone understand all the legal jargon, so most people will just blow past it. I tried reading the EULA for Google Chrome and got a headache.
At this point I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that some publishers do this on purpose to get people to agree to things they'd never agree to otherwise. It's the new fine print that you need a microscope to read.
BananaBoat @ Sep 19th 2008 10:10PM
It should be said that not all DRM schemes are equal. I have no problem with having to enter in a serial number to unlock the game every time I want to install. What I do have a problem with is that serial number being linked to a database, where it keeps a count of how many computers I've got the game installed on, what hardware those computers are using, in an effort to prevent me from re-installing the game any time I want to, and on any computer I want to. With this type of DRM, your "purchase" becomes little more than a limited license. I know EA (and others) would love to sell limited, 50 dollar rentals, but there is no way in hell I will ever buy any product that attempts it. Imagine if a DVD only played in the first 3 DVD players you tried it in! Noone would go for this in the first place, but if they did, the movie rental industry would be completely dead. If any movie studio even attempted this scheme, they'd get so swamped with customer complaints and boycotts that they'd have to quickly reverse their policies. I'm hopeful that EA will be forced to go back on their failed policies in a similar manner.
This article is a nice refresher for those that might have forgot what DRM, and those that didn't know what it is, but it completely leaves out the much more sinister side of current DRM schemes. The article mentions Sony's Rootkit as if the same type of DRM weren't currently being used by EA in the form of Securom. Much like Sony's rootkit, Securom installs itself both in a completely hidden location, and in such a way that an end user can't remove it even if they wanted to (actually, you can, but it is a very long, tedious process. You can't just hit "Delete"). Not only can you not uninstall it without great effort, but it doesn't automatically uninstall after you uninstall the game that it came with. Probably the most sinister thing it does, is render some DVD burners and image mounting programs useless. I highly doubt that the license you click "accept" on says anything about giving them the right to kill hardware and software that you've payed for.
At some point they are going to learn that DRM has never worked, and that it isn't going to work in the future. They'll spend millions of dollars to get to that point, but it'll come soon enough. Until then, I'm not buying a single game (console or PC) from EA, or anyone else using securom, even though the console games aren't afflicted with DRM.
BananaBoat @ Sep 19th 2008 10:13PM
"what DRM is"
Damnit so close
robogeek @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:49PM
"even though the console games aren't afflicted with DRM" from BananaBoat
They are sort of Lets say my WII Fit Disk gets run over by a chair. Do I still own the software? I do still have a balance board But I Cannot use the WII Fit software that I paid for. If I have a pc game installed on my computer, Assuming it doesn't have to have the disk inserted to play, and i do the same thing, run over the disk, I still can play the game.
Now if I try to make a copy of the Disk to prevent that eventuality the DRM built into the WII disk drive will prevent me from using it if I Physically damage the disk.
SoCoolCurt (PSN: KillaKornbread) @ Sep 19th 2008 11:50PM
good article.
i hate DRM but i do understand the need for it. in most cases its just to protect the publisher's hard work, which i can completely understand. it's only when it comes to the companies trying to be greedy and tell me what to do with my product AFTER ive already bought it that bugs me. i mean i feel like im almost forced to get my music from torrent sites just for the simple fact that if i bought it legitimately, im almost guaranteed to have to jump through a million hoops to get it to play on all the devices i would want to play it on (Desktop PC, Laptop, Zune, PS3, PSP, WinMo Phone, Burned CD, etc.). for example, if i bought some lemons from Wal-Mart, they are not going to follow me home and make sure i only make so much money off of selling lemonade to the neighborhood, and media companies shouldn't either. the lemon farmers dont work any less hard than media producers do.
DRM has almost completely pushed me away from any kind of digital download service. one that comes to mind is the new PSN Video Store. i can buy a movie from that for like $15, but then i can only watch it using my PS3 or PSP. what if i want to show my extended family or friends how good a movie it is, i have to lug my PS3 around because we cant all gather around my PSP. and god forbid i delete it to make space, or have a HDD failure, cause that's only allowed to happen to me 3 times (maybe 5, im not sure). or i could go to the video store and buy the same movie for $15-$20 on DVD and be able to not only take it anywhere i want, but rip it to a movable file and watch it on just about any of my devices plus have a back up if the DVD is harmed or lost.
now i have cut down on my "media stealing" honestly. i now mostly listen to free mixtapes instead of downloading albums and am strongly considering the Zune Pass (which is a great deal) but until DRM is lightened up and unified, they will still have a problem on their hands.
zuburi @ Sep 19th 2008 11:55PM
Zune Pass is incredible, and they recently added a bunch of stuff to it. Check it out for a month, you'll fall in love with it. You could only get 15 songs for that price elsewhere.
SoCoolCurt (PSN: KillaKornbread) @ Sep 20th 2008 1:16AM
yea i noticed all the new features with the 3.0 update. $15 a month isnt bad for all i would get. again, im just worried about the DRM. will i be able to play it on my PSP or anything else? i dont always use my Zune for my music, i like to pass media around from my PC's to my PS3, or PSP, or Phone, etc. and if i cant do that, then they will get no money from me.
zuburi @ Sep 20th 2008 2:40AM
I couldn't tell you :( All I've done with it was Zune or PC.
Can probably talk more on PSN if you want to add me. PSN/Live tag is the same as my username here.
captain underpants and the bringdown gang @ Sep 19th 2008 11:58PM
I love and hate piracy, I hate piracy because it prevents the little guy from making an awesome game on the computer without having it being given away free. (Escape velocity from ambrosia sw is a prime example)
This dissuades the company from trying something like that.
I love piracy because I feel that all art should be public domain, and all games are art in one way or the other with the exception of those poorly crafted license based games... (BARBIE I'M LOOKING AT YOU) which are more like torture devices instead of entertainment. And piracy helps deliver that message.
I also hate piracy because piracy leads to MICRO TRANSACTIONS. the bane of the common man. I HATE THEM WITH A UN-EQUALED PASSION AND FURY.
Bones3D @ Sep 20th 2008 8:20AM
"More importantly, to be realistic, neither option is really feasible, as a completely secure DRM system has never been created and a DRM-free world would put an enormous burden on the publisher, one that would likely increase cost to the consumer."
How does a lack of a DRM scheme "burden the publisher"?
Did I miss something about how "supply and demand" works in economics class? Obviously, if you are facing rampant piracy issues, you have demand for the product, but aren't supplying it at terms the consumers are content with. So, why not address the consumer's concerns directly *before* they resort to pirating your product?
Are you charging too much for it? Was it over-hyped in the advertising phase? Is the product itself simply poor enough quality that most people can't justify paying the asking price?
The problem here, is that DRM has more or less lost it's purpose. It's no longer about preventing theft, but about forcing the user to pay prices generally higher than they would normally consider paying for a particular product under the impression that it will somehow protect them from harassment later on in some sort of door-to-door "inquisition" of their purchase's legitimacy. (Sound familiar, anyone?)
The reality though, is that the only ones who aren't being harassed or paying a "protection fee" are the pirates themselves.
In the meanwhile the piracy community is just as strong as it was in the 80's and 90's. What they're doing now is no different from the same, tired old tactics of the "hey look at me" cracker, who breaks a publishers proprietary copy protection scheme of the week and then mails the publisher a cracked copy of their own game.
All I'm saying here, is that if you are going to start a bloodthirsty gang war with someone, then expect casualties. Just keep the rest of us out of it.
Kevin @ Sep 20th 2008 10:15AM
" Obviously, if you are facing rampant piracy issues, you have demand for the product, but aren't supplying it at terms the consumers are content with. So, why not address the consumer's concerns directly *before* they resort to pirating your product?"
Except that many pirates just want the software for free. I am hesitant to ascribe grandiose motivations for piracy when the most common is greed. "Why pay for something I can get for free?" Needless to say, this is one condition that the publisher can't meet.
Bones3D @ Sep 21st 2008 11:05AM
"Except that many pirates just want the software for free. I am hesitant to ascribe grandiose motivations for piracy when the most common is greed. "Why pay for something I can get for free?" Needless to say, this is one condition that the publisher can't meet."
Well, in most cases, nothing you do will encourage these people to buy your product or anyone elses. It's kind of hard to claim a loss of sales at the hands of someone who won't buy it in the first place.
Again, this has zero burden on the publisher on average, since it's costing them nothing for the pirates to actually obtain the software. The burden comes from trying to enforce the unenforceable.
ZeroCorpse @ Sep 20th 2008 11:34AM
Mark, apparently you weren't around in the mid 80s, when Commodore=64 piracy was rampant. In my school, I don't think I know ANYBODY who ever paid for their games on the C=64. We all had pirated stuff passed to us from someone else, who in turn got it outside the school. A lot of the stuff was pirated by people in other states, or even other countries, and yet it landed in my teenage hands in the midwest without much problem.
I don't pirate games now. Back then, I wouldn't have if I had known it was a big deal, but what we saw from our perspective were a bunch of programs that enabled piracy, like DiskBuster. I just thought this was the norm (and really, with the C=64, it pretty much was.)
I'd say we did a fine job of distributing games without the Internet. In fact, I think it was easier then, because you were passing around physical copies. You'd hand your buddy a box of floppies, and he'd come back the next day with a box full of games on those floppies.
Honestly, I'm surprised EA ever got off the ground, considering how pirated their games were in the 1980s. I swear they sold one copy of each game, and then the pirate who bought it distributed to everyone else!
Personally, I think consoles are the way of the future because they make it much harder to pirate games, and yet remain convenient for the gamer. The DRM is there, but it's not as draconian as on the PC. Instead, it's dependent on the hardware, and the original disc must be present for the game to function.
Sure, you CAN pirate console games, but it's a lot of work and in the end it's easier to just buy the game used, or trade it online, and get a legitimate version that will work in online matches.
I don't begrudge EA (and others) for protecting their software; However, I DO think it's downright ROTTEN that they are so strict and unforgiving to legitimate owners. DVD drive causing DRM problems? Tough crap, kid- Go buy another DVD drive. Want to play with family members? Tough crap, kid- Go buy another copy of the game. You used up your activation? Tough crap, kid- You'll have to buy another license to play it again.
That's not cool. That's anti-customer. That crap needs to stop or PC gaming will be deader than a doornail in ten years' time.
Haggard (Free Mr.ESC!) @ Sep 20th 2008 12:12PM
Well reasoned.
You could argue (but I won't because it's most likely untrue) that EA are attempting to kill PC gaming so that they can make their higher profit margins on the consoles.
FSK405K @ Sep 21st 2008 7:36AM
No answer to the consumer/producer question of DRM? Nonsense. The answer is Stardock.
Bones3D @ Sep 21st 2008 11:13AM
"The problem here is that the public thinks it's buying something other than what is actually being sold, and they are upset that they didn't read the fine print before purchase."
If it's not being sold to the consumer, then it has no business on the shelf of a retail store" Also, don't forget the "fine print" as you call it isn't made available to the consumer until after they already hand over the cash. You can't be bound to a contract that you can't read, and buying the contract isn't enough to be considered an agreement to it's terms.
arrakisman @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:47AM
On the back of all boxes the Website with the full EULA is given. I have looked for the "loophole" to call software companies to complain about there policies, but for the most part they have themselves covered.
Bones3D @ Sep 22nd 2008 12:22PM
"On the back of all boxes the Website with the full EULA is given. I have looked for the "loophole" to call software companies to complain about there policies, but for the most part they have themselves covered."
I take it you've never read the book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
A URL to the terms of use printed on the back of a product's retail box is like hanging up a poster about an important event in some inaccessible basement of a government building and referring to it as sufficient "public notice". It does no good to anyone when the relevant information is nearly impossible to access at the time it's actually needed.
Xendrick @ Sep 21st 2008 2:55PM
"consumers shouldn't pirate content"
Well I was going to start of by saying that consumers can't be pirates, as they have bought a product (consumed). And pirates cannot be consumers, as they have not bought anything.
But now with this DRM the re-sale of that product is impossible so if a consumer wishes to sell the product they must download a copy to use for their own purposes, and will thus be able to sell the original when they are finished with the game.
That's all this DRM is about, stopping the re-sale of the product.
X.