DRM is scaring me

[fatpat268]

Steam games are broken relatively fast.

And so is every other DRM method.

 

[JoshGuru7]

I'd argue that the really great examples of the bolded above were not made with an eye for profit.
Look how many truly great artists died in poverty, they didn't stop making fantastic art because they didn't get compensated for it.

And in return I would argue that most of your own examples would be artists who either sold their works afterwards or worked on commission. For example, Poe may have died poor but it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. Without intellectual property rights he couldn't have worked for the periodical and would have been forced to pick another profession.

 

[pmv]

You sure you don't believe in intellectual property at all? Or do you simply object to copyright, which is but one form of IP and the basis upon which most publishers impose DRM on end users?

If you disagree with the concept of IP entirely, I would be happy to show you the myriad economic analyses that clearly disprove your conclusion. Heck, even the founding fathers recognized the value of intellectual property. They literally wrote the basis for a patent and copyright system into the constitution.

Personally, I disagree with the _terminology_ of "Intellectual Property". Because its _not_ property in the classic sense and its deliberately misleading to use that word. I don't disagree with the idea of limited patents and copyright. But its entirely a utilitarian, practical justification, not a 'natural rights' one.

Also, whatever was in the constitution it is, I believe, a historical fact that the US ignored foreign copyrights for the first century and a bit of its existence.

 

[Golgatha]

Do you have any data/evidence to support your conclusion that DRM adds to the cost of development? What about data comparing the cost of DRM to the cost of piracy?

Well, you can affix a cost per unit to the licensing of the DRM for the product. It is however impossible to affix a cost to units not sold due to the DRM being present unless consumers voice their opinion to the publisher stating so, and the cost of piracy is also impossible to tell because a pirated copy doesn't necessarily equal a lost sale. Also, if you inconvenience your paying customers, you risk potential future sales, which is a gamble Ubisoft is obviously willing to take.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Personally, I disagree with the _terminology_ of "Intellectual Property". Because its _not_ property in the classic sense and its deliberately misleading to use that word. I don't disagree with the idea of limited patents and copyright. But its entirely a utilitarian, practical justification, not a 'natural rights' one.

Also, whatever was in the constitution it is, I believe, a historical fact that the US ignored foreign copyrights for the first century and a bit of its existence.

The only characteristic "intellectual" property does not share with "classic" property is the lack of a physical form, and only then in some instances.

Not to derail the thread too much, it is well accepted that "classic" property includes both tangible and intangible rights - the so called "bundle of sticks." E.g., the possessor of a rock has certain tangible rights, such as the right to physically possess the rock, move it, etc., as well as certain "intangible" rights, such as the right to use the rock. Intellectual property has a similar bundle of rights associated with it.

But I agree that intellectual property likely would not qualify as a "natural right." At least not to John Locke.

 

[Golgatha]

You sure you don't believe in intellectual property at all? Or do you simply object to copyright, which is but one form of IP and the basis upon which most publishers impose DRM on end users?

If you disagree with the concept of IP entirely, I would be happy to show you the myriad economic analyses that clearly disprove your conclusion. Heck, even the founding fathers recognized the value of intellectual property. They literally wrote the basis for a patent and copyright system into the constitution.

I totally agree, our founding fathers believed in copyright and protecting IP. They also setup the system to make sure IP became public domain within their citizen's lifetimes. Now that we have 75 years to virtually infinity copyrights on Mickey Mouse content, I would question whether or not a social contact has been broken and whether or not I as a citizen should respect current copyrights at all.

From a personal moral and ethical standpoint, I'm willing to give IP holders around 20 years to economically benefit from their works (life saving or enhancing drug manufacturers enjoy 14 years of protection, so I'd say I'm being generous to Mickey and company with this statement). After that point in time, I will not shed a tear if their IP is pirated to hell and back. At some point, an IP holder needs to do some work to earn more money, and the citizens need to have IP become public domain eventually if they are expected to honor copyrights for a time by compensating the IP holders. Extended copyrights just invite lethargy within a company and stifles innovation IMO.

 

[Rezident]

I have a problem with DRM. It assumes I'm a criminal before I've done anything, impairs the functionality of the software, and completely fails in its attempt to prevent software piracy.

This is the whole problem.

I have to laugh when I enter a serial code and the game tells me "your serial code appears to be valid" i.e. but we're still going to treat you like a thief. Hilarious realising that pirates probably don't have to put up with any of that crap.

 

[JoshGuru7]

I have to laugh when I enter a serial code and the game tells me "your serial code appears to be valid" i.e. but we're still going to treat you like a thief.

You're a little too sensitive on this issue if you think that's being treated like a thief. Of course, we could free up a lot of room in our jails if we simply had the judge tell thieves "your serial code appears to be valid" rather than sending them to prison.

 

[tk149]

Ah, how timely! Yesterday I attempted to reinstall Red Alert 2. Inside the legal, legitimate, retail jewel case, I found a note that I had written to myself.

"Install RA2.exe crack"

I remember that the reason I need the crack is because of the original DRM not being compatible with WinXP for some reason. Not the game, just the DRM is incompatible.

Well done, EA. Bravo.

 

[Borealis7]

do you honestly believe that if there was 0% piracy rate then game prices would drop??
not as long as companies need money, and you need air.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I totally agree, our founding fathers believed in copyright and protecting IP. They also setup the system to make sure IP became public domain within their citizen's lifetimes. Now that we have 75 years to virtually infinity copyrights on Mickey Mouse content, I would question whether or not a social contact has been broken and whether or not I as a citizen should respect current copyrights at all.

From a personal moral and ethical standpoint, I'm willing to give IP holders around 20 years to economically benefit from their works (life saving or enhancing drug manufacturers enjoy 14 years of protection, so I'd say I'm being generous to Mickey and company with this statement).

I agree that exclusive IP rights need to be limited and that the copyright term is way, WAY too long. Talk to your congressman about that. They extend copyright terms every 10 years or so.

Not sure where you got the 14 year term for life saving or enhancing drug manufacturers. Is that a European term? In the U.S., patents are the primary mode of protecting drugs and medical devices. All patents issuing from applications filed after June 8, 1995 have a term that is 20 years from the date of filing. For patents issuing from apps filed before that, the term is either 17 years from the date of issuance or 20 years from the date of filing.

 

[Golgatha]

I agree that exclusive IP rights need to be limited and that the copyright term is way, WAY too long. Talk to your congressman about that. They extend copyright terms every 10 years or so.

Not sure where you got the 14 year term for life saving or enhancing drug manufacturers. Is that a European term? In the U.S., patents are the primary mode of protecting drugs and medical devices. All patents issuing from applications filed after June 8, 1995 have a term that is 20 years from the date of filing. For patents issuing from apps filed before that, the term is either 17 years from the date of issuance or 20 years from the date of filing.

You're exactly right. I used to work in contract pharmaceutical R&D and testing. I think I got that figure from a symposium I attended, which mentioned the average time a patented pharmaceutical enjoys patent protection is on average around 14 years because the patent is normally applied for before the drug is commercially available. Still, even at 20 years, when Mickey Mouse still enjoys more protection than a potentially life saving pharmaceutical; something is obviously very wrong and broken with the system.

 

[Regs]

Steam games are broken relatively fast. Digital Distribution only equates to not having to prepare/ship out a boxed product - which is a win/win for the publisher.

I'd like to see a system in place where you can directly support the developer rather than the greedy publisher...

Distribution by the publisher is only one of their many jobs. They actually have more to do with the development and direction of the video game than you think. Since most of these games costs upwards of millions of dollars to develop and market, the capital that finances these games come from the publisher. This means the publisher owns a majority of the rights to the game. To think of it more simply, the publishers own the actual game, while they hire a development team to make it. Think of it as you hiring a contractor to build the house you will live in and own. And like the real estate market, you want to pick the best suited contractor for that particular area you want to build in.

The publishers job is to find out what the customers wants are, where they are most likely to buy it, what types of promotion and advertisements will reach them, what will differentiate the product from others, and so fourth. All of these things costs millions of dollars in development and research.

The developers are actually no more than tools for the publishers ideas, research, and concept. Until a developer becomes so wealthy they can finance their own operation (EA), they are really just hired hands to the publisher.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_publisher

 

[BD2003]

I'm not a big fan of DRM. The way I see it, there are two forms of piracy, casual and mass.

Mass pirating is torrents, etc. Basically downloading a game off the net. One working copy out there that gets spread like wildfire. Despite even the most insane DRM schemes (ubisoft), the pirates have a 100% win record. I know of no game that wasnt cracked in short order. DRM is completely and utterly ineffective in solving this problem. By that measure, it shouldnt exist, as it only serves to annoy paying customers.

But there's casual piracy. Like trying to burn a copy of a disc, or handing it to a friend and having him install it also. All that's needed to stop this piracy is a disc check, perhaps also a cd-key. If you can figure out a way to get around the disc check, you can figure out a way to download the entire game online.

So by all accounts, they should just go back to simple CD checks, rather than waste resources and alienate customers fighting a war they can't win. Why don't they? I havent the slightest clue. Perhaps there's guys working at these companies in the DRM dept, and no one can bear to lay them off. Maybe theyre really nice guys, or theyre exceptionally good at justifying their existence despite their complete failure at their job.

This is why no one is bothered by console DRM - you dont really notice it, and you're never prevented from playing the game due to nonsense such as your connection dropping, or too many installs. If you have the game, it will work. A thousand years from now, if you've got an xbox 360, a game, and a TV, it will STILL work. You even cant say that about PC games from just 5 years ago, and its only going to get worse.

 

[videogames101]

Whats crazy is the idea that circumventing DRM might soon be considered illegal, which is funny, because if it can be circumvented then the new law is essentially saying, "hey, pirating is still illegal"

 

[Karsten]

Since UBI is the publisher and in my opinion doing more harm to the developers than acctually helping them, why not ask or look at the opinions of the so often quotested damaged artist? Here is one such fellow that is very succesful in what he does:

http://positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/index.php?s=drm

Talking to Pirates
That should be a MUST read for any publisher

One reason why Valve is so succesful is the attitude of how they aproch issues. To quote Gabe Newell:

One thing that you hear [Valve] talk a lot about is entertainment as a service," said Newell. "It's an attitude that says 'what have I done for my customers today?

The problem with UBI's stance is that they give a SH** about the customer.

The downed servers - customer unable to play
The buggy servers - again customer unable to play
The random reconects - screw the customer

Even bigger, what happens in 2, 3 or 5 years. Call me crazy but I still play old games that I enjoy. I have a few on my shelf that give me the finger now and I can't even install them anymore (Medal of Honor Airborne... thanks EA). When UBI is not around anymore... or moves on and doesn't want to pay the server fee anymore. Am I really trust them to provide me with a patch? Oh yeah... I forgot... they care about the customer... NOT!

Read the UBI forums especially Settlers 7. For the longest time people complain about not being able to play (3-4 weeks+) the only answer was to check your firewall... reinstall windows. Until all the sudden... oh we found a bug... just wait until we figure it out.
I am sorry, but if you want my money you have to prove that you can do better than that!

Ubi's DRM makes no sense, is worthless (already cracked) and punishes the honest user. With that kind of protection... who needs the product?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

You're exactly right. I used to work in contract pharmaceutical R&D and testing. I think I got that figure from a symposium I attended, which mentioned the average time a patented pharmaceutical enjoys patent protection is on average around 14 years because the patent is normally applied for before the drug is commercially available. Still, even at 20 years, when Mickey Mouse still enjoys more protection than a potentially life saving pharmaceutical; something is obviously very wrong and broken with the system.

Ah, I see. As an FYI, much of the patent term that is "lost" due to extended prosecution can be regained though an application for patent term adjustment. Pharma companies can also get positive patent term adjustment for loss in "effective" patent term dur to the drug being tied up in the FDA approval process.

I generally agree with your argument that copyright term is too long. As to the extension of pharma/patent terms, I think 20 years is about right. A patent provides a much broader and stronger bundle of rights than a copyright does, and thus should be governed by a much shorter term (at least IMO).

 

[simonizor]

Steam games are broken relatively fast. Digital Distribution only equates to not having to prepare/ship out a boxed product - which is a win/win for the publisher.

I'd like to see a system in place where you can directly support the developer rather than the greedy publisher...

Steam has a lot of indie games that don't have any publisher.
http://store.steampowered.com/genre/Indie/