Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.
Published on January 21, 2010 By taltamir In PC Gaming

DRM as a whole is not meant to stop piracy; no form of DRM has ever been effective in stopping piracy, nor has any of it ever been designed in a way that could be effective in stopping piracy. DRM is nothing but a trick to force customers to purchase the same product again and again; which several big DRM advocates (such as the CEO of sony BGM) have publicly declared as their ultimate goal. DRM pushers also came on records as saying that libraries are nothing but massive scale piracy by the government and should thus be shut down. It is no surprise that the library of congress (and many others) have been complaining about their inability to archive works with DRM as libraries are another of the real intended targets of DRM.

Software companies like to pretend that their product is both intellectual property which they license, as well as a physical product which they sell you at the same time. Furthermore, they pretend that somehow the two are combined so that the consumer gets the responsibilities of both and the benefit of neither while they get the benefits of both and the responsibilities of neither.

When you sell a DVD you are transferring a physical product, one that was manufactured, transported, purchased, and has to be disposed of (at taxpayer expense) when trashed. And has to be repurchased if damaged. Just like a car. This is taking the "physical object" approach.

Digital distribution does not do that. Digital distribution treats it as 100% IP that is licensed to you. You have one lifetime license to use a game/song/movie/program/etc. A license that does not need to be repurchased if your CD is scratched, degrades from age, or otherwise damaged. Therefore you are getting the benefits (you can make copies, transfer devices, and get a duplicate of the data at no cost) and drawbacks (you may not resell it) of the IP licensing method. Which is fair and reasonable; you must remember that in the license approach, you should not have an inherent right to resell an item.

If you wanted the model in which you the consumer could resell the DVD than you have to agree to a model where DVDs can not be duplicated under any circumstances, that the DVD has to be in the drive to run the game. And that if the DVD breaks then you are obligated to buy a new one at full price, even if you already purchased the game/software. This is a ridiculous notion since a DVD is worth under 10 cents, but the software on it is worth at least 50$. It isn't a car, it is a method of transferring the software, which is pure information.

Most unauthorized copying (called piracy by DRM advocates) exists to reclaim the benfits of either the license or the physical property method, but many users forget that if you reclaim both at once than you are going from protecting your rights as a customer and into the realm of thievery (which, ironically, is what the content owners do to you when they claim the rights of both and the responsibilities of neither).

I am very happy with license type digital distribution. Now in a system that no longer tries to exploit me and steal from me (which is exactly what software companies do when they pretend that their product is two different things at once) I am quite satisfied with purchasing software again. This is why services such as impulse are so much better than buying a DVD at the store.


Comments (Page 3)
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Jan 23, 2010

 I buy Stardock licenses instead of pirating because I believe in supporting specific groups of people who work steadily on software I use now and want in the future.

Also because a license is a fair method of distribution... Stardock fairly assumes their share of responsibilities for a license, and grant you all the rights that a license entails. Unlike EA which tries to screw you by saddling you with the responsibilities of a phyisical object and a license, and the benefits of neither, while claiming for themselves the benefits of both and responsibilities of neither.

on Jan 23, 2010

Basically, today's intellectual property law is just a bunch of weirdness born in the mercantilist age and mutated by modern interest group politics (hence my bitch-slap at the departed Mr. Bono). Truly devout free marketeers would reject it out of hand because it is based entirely on government intervention in markets.

Free marketerers believe strongly in protecting the intellectual and physical property of members of the free market, and see proper government intervention as a means to that end.  Free marketers also desire government intervention to break up monopolies and trusts, because a monopoly, trust, or cartel is an inhibition to free, competitive trade.  Basically, they belive in leaving it alone, until it stops working.  Only then can government intervene, but only to ensure the market will function properly after it leaves.

on Jan 23, 2010

Free marketerers believe strongly in protecting the intellectual and physical property of members of the free market

Define intellectual property.

Physical property is clear and easy to define and important to protect... so called intellectual property is not. It is also anathema to the free market. It might be more fair and even better to society if companies could research things and have them protected from copy cats (it IS valuable to a certain degree), but there is nothing "free market" about it.

And in its current incarnation, it is about copyrighting abstract ideas... or things you haven't created

EX: the human genome is copyrighted and patented... each gene to the group that has discovered it first. Nobody is suing people for having children... but I can see it being a problem for someone who wishes to offer genetic treatments and artificial child creation services

on Jan 23, 2010

Why shouldn't intellectual property be patented/copyrighted?  If you invent something, shouldn't you have the exclusive right to sell it, simply because it belongs to you because you created it?  Now, imagine a company that spends millions of dollars on a product.  Without protection of their intellectual property, their competitors can sell the created product at a lower price, simply because they didn't spend a great deal of money inventing it.  If you were a businessman, would you invent things under a system where your creations could be pillaged and mimicked by your competitors?

on Jan 23, 2010

taltamir
Patent law is a blight upon humanity and one of the biggest hinderances of our development.

Humanity !!!! Since when the US is the humanity...

The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, "in particular

  1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
  2. aesthetic creations;
  3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers
  4. presentations of information."

In fact, the US patent system is simply a big joke... Google have patented their "push/pull" method in their Sketchup 3d software... when in fact, these "push/pull" is nothing more that the "intrude/extrude" used in any other 3D software who have ever be created...

yes, Amazon patented "one click buy"... tomorrow, someone other will have a patent for a "buy with one click" !!!! Same thing but named differently... More bad, it is not unusual in the case of software, that the patented code was stolen from the open source...

In the past, US was the country of freedom, the place where usual citizen was with right, a example for the rest of humanity... but slowly, US citizen become like sheep without any right... basic right removed slowly one after one... crying on forum like this one, showing some hate for game distributor will change nothing... only people who can change something are these you have vote for... ban the politic campain sponsor by business and maybe, politic will listen more to the simple citizen... all is politic and politic is controlled by big business... by the way, it is very difficult to change laws who are already voted...

The real guilty in these DRM, patent, copyright scheme is the usual citizen who have not react when these laws was proposed... you see now the result of your past indifference...

a license is a fair method of distribution...

First, a license is not a method of distribution... mainly, you have two method... hardcopy or online download...

About the license, it is embedded in the Eula... being the owner of a digital version of sins and a hardcopy, Eula is somehow not identical...

By example, with the digital download, i have "The SOFTWARE is not sold, it is licensed."... but my boxed version have "Le présent document constitue un contrat ... relatif à l'utilisation du produit que vous avez acquis." ... blue part meaning "use of the product that you have buy"...

Other example.... digital download : "If you accept the terms and conditions of this"... nothing is wrote in the case you don't accept the terms and conditions... but in the boxed version, it is wrote "Si vous n'acceptez pas ces termes, veuillez retourner ce produit à votre revendeur."... meaning that we can return the product if we don't agree with the Eula...

Nobody read Eula, readme, license file... i do !!! You will be surprised of the diference between digital and boxed version... not the case with Stardock but some wrote in their license that they can change the terms and conditions of their license when they wish without informing you... something fully illegal here since it is a contract and not a license... both side need to agree to any change else a refound become possible...

Be sure that the majority of game distributor follow any local laws... some are really bad distributor at the limit of the legality but only a few are illegal... problem are not the distributor but the laws !!!

By the way, why do you think that some game release are US only... simply because US laws allow to screw up more easily the customer !!! The Eula, terms, license, contract of  some product released in the US will be purely illegal in some other part of the world...

 

on Jan 23, 2010

taltamir
Patent law is a blight upon humanity and one of the biggest hinderances of our development.

Humanity !!!! Since when the US is the humanity...

The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, "in particular

  1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
  2. aesthetic creations;
  3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers
  4. presentations of information."

In fact, the US patent system is simply a big joke... Google have patented their "push/pull" method in their Sketchup 3d software... when in fact, these "push/pull" is nothing more that the "intrude/extrude" used in any other 3D software who have ever be created...

yes, Amazon patented "one click buy"... tomorrow, someone other will have a patent for a "buy with one click" !!!! Same thing but named differently... More bad, it is not unusual in the case of software, that the patented code was stolen from the open source...

In the past, US was the country of freedom, the place where usual citizen was with right, a example for the rest of humanity... but slowly, US citizen become like sheep without any right... basic right removed slowly one after one... crying on forum like this one, showing some hate for game distributor will change nothing... only people who can change something are these you have vote for... ban the politic campain sponsor by business and maybe, politic will listen more to the simple citizen... all is politic and politic is controlled by big business... by the way, it is very difficult to change laws who are already voted...

The real guilty in these DRM, patent, copyright scheme is the usual citizen who have not react when these laws was proposed... you see now the result of your past indifference...

a license is a fair method of distribution...

First, a license is not a method of distribution... mainly, you have two method... hardcopy or online download...

About the license, it is embedded in the Eula... being the owner of a digital version of sins and a hardcopy, Eula is somehow not identical...

By example, with the digital download, i have "The SOFTWARE is not sold, it is licensed."... but my boxed version have "Le présent document constitue un contrat ... relatif à l'utilisation du produit que vous avez acquis." ... blue part meaning "use of the product that you have buy"...

Other example.... digital download : "If you accept the terms and conditions of this"... nothing is wrote in the case you don't accept the terms and conditions... but in the boxed version, it is wrote "Si vous n'acceptez pas ces termes, veuillez retourner ce produit à votre revendeur."... meaning that we can return the product if we don't agree with the Eula...

Nobody read Eula, readme, license file... i do !!! You will be surprised of the diference between digital and boxed version... not the case with Stardock but some wrote in their license that they can change the terms and conditions of their license when they wish without informing you... something fully illegal here since it is a contract and not a license... both side need to agree to any change else a refound become possible...

Be sure that the majority of game distributor follow any local laws... some are really bad distributor at the limit of the legality but only a few are illegal... problem are not the distributor but the laws !!!

By the way, why do you think that some game release are US only... simply because US laws allow to screw up more easily the customer !!! The Eula, terms, license, contract of  some product released in the US will be purely illegal in some other part of the world...

 

on Jan 23, 2010

SpardaSon21
Why shouldn't intellectual property be patented/copyrighted?  If you invent something, shouldn't you have the exclusive right to sell it, simply because it belongs to you because you created it?  Now, imagine a company that spends millions of dollars on a product.  Without protection of their intellectual property, their competitors can sell the created product at a lower price, simply because they didn't spend a great deal of money inventing it.  If you were a businessman, would you invent things under a system where your creations could be pillaged and mimicked by your competitors?

No you shouldn't, not when it's something like code. Yes, there are some software "inventions" worth patenting but some of this code is no different than a creative sentence within the English language. It's bad enough, in the USA, you have fat cat's trying trademark sentences as if they were the first one to say "You're Fired". It's similar in trying to patent a movie or a book, even though a lot of books and movies borrow from existing work which, personally, I don't have an issue with. But for some reason, software companies seem to think that because its digital, no rules apply to them. Just because you make something that is easier to steal than items in the past, doesn't give you the right to supercede consumer rights while trying to protect your work. I am challenging your idea that these companies are inventing anything at all.  Making a game, even a good one, is not inventing something. In the process there might be a new method used that could be worth patenting but as someone already pointed out, our patent laws are pretty messed up. So messed up I am waiting for the day where some company wants to claim the rights to the thoughts in my head because they "invented" a part of the brain.

There are some fairly unique and memorable quotes throughout history, but these people didn't actually invent the language they were speaking now did they? Can you imagine how limited things, in terms of techonolgy and services, would be today if we had the hard ass grabs for patents and copyrights of today when things were just starting out. 

Let's protect the code, as in not allowing someone to actually copy it directly, package it as their own or just start reproducing someone else's work. We have laws to go after people like that. Use them. Software should be under copyright law and the companies should be limited by the first sale doctrine.. The software industry seems to be at the forefront of destroying its own used copy market by any means necessary, including and not limited to ensuring that any copy of their work will be unretrievable in a 100 years because of the archaic links they are forcing their copies to have to their, the companies, actual existence. 

on Jan 23, 2010

on Jan 23, 2010

*Puts on tinfoil hat*

I tend to agree with the OP actually.  I think the ultimate goal with DRM is to have everything in digital format so:

-They can completely cut out the middle men (retailers)

-They can completely eliminate the secondary market (renting and selling used)

-They can start imposing more serious limitations on things.

 

I fully expect in 10 years or so you will start seeing time limitations.  You will in essence no longer be buying games/movies/music, but merely renting them for a year or two.  People will complain at first, but ultimately start rationalizing it.

on Jan 24, 2010

Where I live unless there is some special exception made just for games, the EULA contained in a box is void - I make the contract to purchase the game at point of sale, and anything made subsequent to that in respect of "past consideration" (my purchase) is null and void and so shouldn't be enforceable. The problem is I just can't see people bothering to take a game company to court in an expensive action over a game that doesn't cost that much. It still makes my blood boil whenever I see the 'it's in our/their EULA' as an excuse though. Unfortunately with politicians seemingly stuck in the mindset that all gamers are teenage kids there's little chance of them dealing with the issue and either allowing you to return games where you don't agree with EULAs or coming down on companies who illegally try to enforce their EULAs. Seems bizarre really - the gaming industry is steadily catching up with the film industry and likely to eclipse it in the future, yet it still gets treated as some tiny little hobby that only affects a tiny handful of people. You'd have thought they'd be eager to seek the 'gamer vote'.

 

As to DRM, it really annoys me, especially when I am missold DRM - take Dragon Age. I was under the impression given by bioware themself) that there wasn't any horrible DRM (after the debacle of mass effect I made sure to look to see what DA:O would have) - there was only meant to be a cd check, no nasty online activation every few weeks or activation limits. However in reality you have to be online EVERY TIME you want to play the single player only game (if you use any DLC), as well as have a cd check.

IMO what should really happen is game companies are forced to display on the box what form of DRM they have - whether it's CD-activation, 1-off online authentication, limited activations, periodic activation, constantly online to play, etc.; - it'd also be one of the best ways of getting companies to rethink their diabolical DRM policies, since if people knew exactly what sort of policies they had, they'd be able to make an informed choice about whether they really wanted to 'buy' (rent more like with some DRM) the game.

 

As for digitial distribution, I'm very concerned about the risk that a game company might go under and I loss access to all the games. It's a problem not just with buying games online though, but also with any game requiring online activation, since it is reliant on those servers still existing. I can pick up any game I bought 10 years ago and still play it single player whenever I wanted. Sadly the same just won't be possible with some of the games I've bought now if I want to play them in 10 years. The result? I'm likely to be pushed towards piracy in such cases to play the game. This in turn makes me familiar with how to pirate games, and much more likely to do it with legitimate titles.

Still at least digital distribution has some plus points - I don't have to worry about a cd check, and seeing as the likelihood my cd gets lost or damaged is also noticeable over a 10 year period (although thinking about it I think there's only 1 game that I bought fairly recently that's gotten damaged somehow and won't install, while all my ancient ones are still working), and it saves on space (although I can just take the CD/DVD and stick it in a wallet and chuck the case if that ever becomes a big problem). What I just don't get though is how unless I'm buying the game in some super-sale online, it costs MORE to buy online than it does to buy it in a shop. That just doesn't make any sense to me, and as long as I have to pay more for a game that I'm only getting access to for a certain time (i.e. until the servers go down), I'll only buy online if I can get it for significantly less than a hard copy.

on Jan 24, 2010

SpardaSon21
... Free marketerers believe strongly in protecting the intellectual and physical property of members of the free market, and see proper government intervention as a means to that end.  Free marketers also desire government intervention to break up monopolies and trusts, because a monopoly, trust, or cartel is an inhibition to free, competitive trade.  Basically, they belive in leaving it alone, until it stops working.  Only then can government intervene, but only to ensure the market will function properly after it leaves.

I admit that there's no such thing as a unified free market ideology; calling them a single group is as bad as assuming that all Christians, Hindus, or Muslims are the same or that everyone from Brooklyn likes pizza and likes it prepared the same way.

I was mainly taking a quick swipe at the large number of people who love to talk about government as if it were always and everywhere a problem when in fact it is the backbone of any 'free' market because it provides a way to apply legitimate force to both correct misbehavior and create new economic opportunities. Intellectual property is purely in the latter category. Unlike physical property that can be defended by private arms regardless of legal ownership, intellectual property simply has no existence without government power behind it.

on Jan 24, 2010

As to DRM, it really annoys me, especially when I am missold DRM - take Dragon Age. I was under the impression given by bioware themself) that there wasn't any horrible DRM (after the debacle of mass effect I made sure to look to see what DA:O would have) - there was only meant to be a cd check, no nasty online activation every few weeks or activation limits. However in reality you have to be online EVERY TIME you want to play the single player only game (if you use any DLC), as well as have a cd check.

That was not the case for me...i bought, installed, played and uninstalled offline.

I fully expect in 10 years or so you will start seeing time limitations. You will in essence no longer be buying games/movies/music, but merely renting them for a year or two. People will complain at first, but ultimately start rationalizing it.

Wow...I honestly wish I could disagree with this...but I can't...I'll get some foil and come sit with you man

on Jan 25, 2010

Thoumsin




quoting post
Digital distribution does not do that. Digital distribution treats it as 100% IP that is licensed to you. You have one lifetime license to use a game/song/movie/program/etc.


What do you mean by "lifetime" ?

Is it the lifetime of the customer of the lifetime of the game distributor ?

Exactly  - it's about control.  The whole thing with cloud computing drives me nuts too.  It cannot be denied that the more that exists "out there" in your computing environment, the less control you have.  Other than an MMO which by default has to be in the cloud, I will never relinquish control of my computing to servers I have no control over - games, documents, or otherwise.  That includes activations.  The only game I've bought with activation limits (revocable, but still) is Mass Effect, and that is only so I'll have a save game to use in Mass Effect 2 (which has only a disk check).

 

 

on Jan 25, 2010

aeortar
As to DRM, it really annoys me, especially when I am missold DRM - take Dragon Age. I was under the impression given by bioware themself) that there wasn't any horrible DRM (after the debacle of mass effect I made sure to look to see what DA:O would have) - there was only meant to be a cd check, no nasty online activation every few weeks or activation limits. However in reality you have to be online EVERY TIME you want to play the single player only game (if you use any DLC), as well as have a cd check.

As an aside, I don't believe this to be true for DA:O, at least the retail version.  I've played with my DLC offline numerous times.  Only time I have had to be online was activating it the first time.  I've since backed up the files once activated, reinstalled on another OS, copied them over, and can play with everything showing activated and in my inventory/quests.  I've blocked online connectivity in my firewall of DA:O just to be sure if the servers ever go down I'll be able to play what I paid for, and it doesn't effect my DLC one bit.

Having said that, I get time outs getting connected to the server when I do log in alot lately - bit of irony IMO.

 

 

on Jan 25, 2010

Splitshadow
Reduced 95%Original 460 x 460

Love it!

7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last