I've been getting a lot of email since the announcement of the Gamers Bill of Rights -- quite a bit from game developers who make the argument that it's easy to throw stones at what other people but what solution do we suggest for them?
For example, one of the things I've seen is that Stardock is "anti-DRM" in all cases. This isn't true. WindowBlinds, for example, requires activation. In fact, nearly all our software requires activation. Yet, you rarely if ever see anyone complain about it. Why is that? Because our activation is largely invisible, most people aren't aware of it. The beta of Demigod has activation in it too. Yet, it too is invisible to the user.
So clearly, activation, unto itself, isn't necessarily a problem. Yet clearly with Spore, people had a big problem with it. What's the difference? The difference in my opinion is the arbitrary limitations set ("3 activations" for instance). Or more generally, anything that materially interferes with a legitimate customer's ability to use their game.
So those people who were so unhappy with Spore's activation, I'd be curious to hear what specifically bothered them? What was it about Spore that causes such an uproar versus things done in the past?
Here are things that annoy me about various types of copy protection:
My tolerance may be higher than others, hence why I'd like to try to understand what caused the Spore backlash.
As others know, our games ship with no CD copy protection at all since not all users have Internet access but we require users to download our free updates from us so that we know (to a high degree) that only legitimate customers are getting our free updates. And even with that laid back system, some people still object. So we'd like to get an idea of what invisible threshold you think Spore crossed that made so many people upset.
If only more free market devotees acknowledged this important fact. Both patents and copyrights have their roots in the mercantilist era, when European monarchies had all manner of force-based practices aimed at maximizing national power and royal wealth.
The antecedants of (c) were licenses to own and use a printing press, which was understood early by establishment types to be a potentially potent political weapon for malcontents and rival states. The precurors to patents were royal monopolies, the granting of which could earn a monarch great favor with a leading merchant or manufacturer. Ben Franklin and others helped "democratize" things, but no one should forget that they are nothing other than the use of sovereign force to create an artificial market.
Willy: The authors of "The Wind Done Gone" parody of "Gone with the Wind", a reverse engineered retelling of the exact story of "Gone with the Wind" beg to differ with you on the basis that (IMO) that single court case seems to me to debunk every point you seemed to believe you were making.
'nuf said.
Jonnan
I don't see how that follows. Let's examine the points I made, with commentary from the Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin case.
The Suntrust case deals explicitly with parody, and how fair use applies to it. I fail to see how reworking an iconic book to refute its premises is the same as cracking copy protection on software. Surely you aren't calling a cracked game a parody of the original?
More importantly, a crack would fail to qualify as fair use. From Suntrust:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include? (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include?
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
A crack does not really fall into any of the fair use catergories. It certainly IS a criticism of the game, but not of the scholarly variety protected by fair use; same with being a commentary; certainly not news reporting; not really a teaching aid; nor scholarship or research. Furthermore, while it gains points under factor 1, it suffers under #2, falls flat under #3, and is simply buried by #4.
Running of private servers and EULAs aren't even approached in the case, so I'll skip those.
And the incentive provided is mostly monetary. Yes, public recognition, professional standing, bragging rights, etc. are all protected by copyright, but the main force behind it is allowing the creator to sell his work without competition from people simply reprinting his work.
I believe the 11th Circuit put that to bed as well:
The Copyright Act promotes public access to knowledge because it provides an economic incentive for authors to publish books and disseminate ideas to the public. Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 558, 105 S. Ct. at 2229 ("By establishing a marketable right to the use of one?s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas."). The Supreme Court has recognized that "[t]he monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public." Id. at 546, 105 S. Ct. at 2223 (quoting Sony Corp. of America v. Univ. City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 477, 104 S. Ct. 774, 807 (1984) (Blackmun, J.,dissenting)). Without the limited monopoly, authors would have little economic incentive to create and publish their work. Therefore, by providing this incentive, the copyright law promotes the public access to new ideas and concepts.
The Suntrust decision doesn't contradict this, either. Someone writing a parody of a book, especially one intended to tear apart the points that make the book apealing to its main audience, doesn't harm either the usability of copies of the original book, or the ability of the copyright holder to sell additional copies of the original work.
Again, not contradicted. The parody novel is not a competing product, as the audience of the two works is essentially mutually exclusive.
I'm disappointed. Usually, refuting your posts takes at least some work. Not so with this one.
Usually, refuting a post is supposed to have a point. Your point is that a parody isn't a competing product, thus is irrelevant. We'll just ignore the problem of "The Wind Done Gone" not being an actual parody to start with.
A cd crack is not a competing product, thus is irrelevant.
Copy protection does not prevent a competing product, thus is irrelevant.
Reverse engineering does not create a competing product, thus is irrelevant.
A cheat is not a competing product, thus is irrelevant.
A bot is not a competing product, thus is irrelevant.
Further rape of your logic continues.
I create a crack, I distribute it for free. Commercial nature, zero. I learn about current programming practices in doing so, educational purpose, greater than zero.
A virtual object that was never supposed to fall under copyright to start with? I'm sure you have a point somewhere, but it's not in your post.
Very small. A crack is generally only modifying a small portion of the executable, an important, but minuscule portion of the copyrighted work, and one of the least justifiable portions under the intent of copyright that contains no pictoral, lingual or sculptural art of any kind to violate.
Zero. The copyrighted work must be present to apply the crack to. Any separate and completely unrelated copyright infringement by the end user of that crack is irrelevant.
Since I'm on a roll, sesame seed I think, I'll also let you in on a widely publicised secret.
"The Copyright Act promotes public access to knowledge because it provides an economic incentive for authors to publish books and disseminate ideas to the public. Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 558, 105 S. Ct. at 2229 ("By establishing a marketable right to the use of one?s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas."). The Supreme Court has recognized that "[t]he monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public." Id. at 546, 105 S. Ct. at 2223 (quoting Sony Corp. of America v. Univ. City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 477, 104 S. Ct. 774, 807 (1984) (Blackmun, J.,dissenting)). Without the limited monopoly, authors would have little economic incentive to create and publish their work. Therefore, by providing this incentive, the copyright law promotes the public access to new ideas and concepts."
Get it?
For those of you that don't, the key is in the second to last sentence. Limited monopoly. If you still can't figure it out, you're a fucking moron and further hints will only serve to amuse me. Not to say I don't find the entire argument from start to finish to be of great amusement.
Ooookay, since we all *probably* can't figure this all out... making us all a bunch of 'morons'... and, you'd like to be amused or 'abused', i'd suggest this very simple question to which we, 'morons', could enjoy YOUR exact answer without stinky complex details or quote from the thickest law books that you can find.
Care to share your smart (not-so-moronic) solution by quick deduction(s, be it legal & straight or not) with us all?
(PS; Mine is written into reply #49 for all to get or not - i stand by it - possibly, the ONLY viable option - prove me(or us) wrong!)
Amuse me, too.
Your reply was a little off mark. Viable as in commercially acceptable to the people buying their games. The man wants to know where we stop buying his products, a question on our personal views on how far up our ass we'll let a company shove their stick. I've previously answered.
Viable, and yours isn't, as in actually functioning and preventing copying is practically impossible, and theoretically debatable. When you key software to a lock contained in the media, you've already given it away. By making it disk specific, you simply change the parameters. Instead of a keygen that duplicates the formula used to create the keys that you found by searching the code for it, you just distribute a program to find the key.
Also, when being witty, engage brain. Dumb responses are entertaining not. I pulled those stinky complex details directly from the post I was replying to, no thick books required. The details don't appear complex to me either, but perhaps I under-rate my own intelligence to an unimaginable degree. Since you haven't stated either way, did you not figure it out or do you just object to my labeling humanoid protazoa as morons?
I have seen each and every one of those implemented in the past, and each one was bypassed by cracks. They just set it to the program ALWAYS thinks you entered the right key no matter what you did. As for media encoded key, its called securom 6, and RPMS emulation to bypass it.
And heck, you wouldn't even NEED cracks (but I have seen them) to bypass the manual defense, it is as easy as scanning the manual into a PDF file and including it with the release.
So we'd like to get an idea of what invisible threshold you think Spore crossed that made so many people upset.
Actually I find this quite dissapointing. I am someone who has explained on other forums what the problem is with spore DRM is and in those discussions Stardock is often mentioned. So I installed Sins Demo to give it a try (when I have time)and it and it brought me to this page(I also notice it called home). I registered just to comment.
Having "invisible" activation is just as bad as Spores Visible activation. I will be sure to point this out when Stardock comes up in Spore DRM discussions. No more free rides for Stardock. It has the same core problem.
I am an older gamer so maybe I have a longer view, but any system that depends on central server for activation is an absolute no go. It is not a question 3, 5, 10 or 100 activations, it is wether the activation server will be there at all in 5 or 10 years when I pull the game off the shelf and decide to play it. I have old games that old, that I still play (Total annihilation, BaldursGate, BG2, NWN). Maybe you only play the flavor of the moment today, but when you are older you will have nastalgia for older games and you are naive if you think remote server will still be activating.
Game companies fail, priorities change. In just the last year Microsoft, Yahoo and Walmart have all separately announced plans to shutter their music DRM servers and strand users. These are actively used servers from big highly successful companies. Server death is a fact of life. Server dependency makes it a rental. $50 is too high a price for a rental. $5 to $10 dollars sounds about right.
It looks like I will keep playing old classics and getting my games from gog.com, they seem to really be 100% DRM free.
As far as what I think resonable copy protection is. Here is my list:
1: None. Frankly it does nothing beneficial. Name 1 game that is not broken.
2: None + great manual in box...
3: CD Key in manual. I like this a lot as well. It's my key, I guard it.
4: Code wheels. Cool if well integrated into game and fun.
Disk based is only an annoyance(and possible source of problems) for paying customers, you are training them to look for cracks if you do this and remote activations I already covered. These seem to be the in vogue options and they both suck, but remote activations suck much more.
Basically everything will be bypassed in no time. So at least put something painless on their for the actual paying customer that doesn't bypass protections.
From what I have read in this thread Stardock also requires remote server activations. If this is the case, Stardock is dead to me, just like EA.
Our retail games have no activation in them at all. But our products that exist purely in the digital space do (like WindowBlinds or the beta of Demigod). The final version of Demigod (the store version) won't.
Right on for the latter.
There is no "perfect" solution *as of now*... but, if the usual human ingenuity would span further than what we currently experience as protection schema(s), in due time someone may devise that all elusive solid and uncrackable system that will satisfy both the user & corporate needs for one specific activation 'passwording scramblers routine'.
Now, i won't claim whatever is eventually designed will never be challenged up by pirates (as time has proved over & over again)... but, i think that highly complex encoding at 128bits+ should be enough to cover the intricate regular life-span of a game title UNTIL users milk out the whole value for their money.
Thus, why it matters to corporate buffs like SD to find a 'better' way to protect our products -- and, indirectly, keep it away from piracy hands long enough.
And why, i believe the unique encoding of single copies ****might**** work.
Yep, but still... a virtual equivalent principle of self-referencing validation (not activation, btw) BUILT_IN an executable is not a pdf scan. There was the 80_90's toolset(s) & there is the actual (or futuristic) probabilities for anti-piracy tricks.
Be it viable or necessary.
After all, we OWN our cool but costly precious games... some real bank vaults are really UNBREAKABLE.
Two different situations, but com'on -- which is worth the most?
To you, the player.
Cuz, that copy is SOLD once. Final, cash in_out. Transaction complete. Done. Over.
And... self_protected, directly.
Bank vaults aren't unbreakable. It's a matter of time and planning. They don't let you study their blue prints in advance and you can't spend several hours breaking into them because people tend to notice that sort of thing. Software is a bank vault that you have the blueprints for sitting right in front of you. To make a lock and key that can't be decrypted, you design software that can't run without outside help.
MysticRhythms: while it is not the ideal, it is also not as bad as you make it seem.
1. Stardock has been around for quite a while and the server still works.
2. If stardock does go bankrupt and decides not to release activation less versions, the pirating scene will step in (Actually they arleady have, you can download pirated copies). Realistically, I don't expect them to release DRM less versions on the eve of closing, even if stardock promises and intends to do so, whomever buys them after the bankrupting would demand they don't. And they might be legally bound not do to so even before closing their doors due to it dimishing their salvegable value to their creditors. (err, is it a puclically traded company?)
3. You never run out of activations in stardock, so you are not renting it like spore. You never loose the game from loosing physical media. So again, you are not renting it in that sense (here is the game, CD needs to be in to play, you can't copy it, and it will be degraded in 2-3 years... kinda like my warcraft 3 disk)
4. Retail / disk versions have no DRM at all, you can install them without activation and copy the disk (it is not copy protected) and there is no "original disk" requirement so it can be a backup
so what is DRMed then and dials home?
1. the online download version (if you decide you don't want to bother looking for your disk, or never got one due to purchasing the download version, or if you lost the disk).
2. Patches - containing bug fixes AND new content suggested by users.
Heres what annoys me about various copy protections:
* Any type of 'activation'. I don't have to activate my £10000 car, I'm damn well not going to avtivate a £30 game. I've already proven I'm not a pirate by paying you money!
* Anything that only provides online only patches. I.e. DRM by the back door. I've already registered my serial number to get onto the website, nothing else should be needed.
* Any platform that does not allow my to upgrade my retail CD installation to the latest version completely in an offline environment.
Have you tried GOG.COM? Unlike Stardock products the games here (although old) have absolutly NO DRM and NO 'activation' rubbish and NO stupid download/product managers.
Its an entirly webbased experience. You download the game like any normal web based download and can then instll it on any computer you like, even completely offline computers as like I said no activaion is required.
As you can tell I am a far of GOG.COM because unlike Stardock their is no DRM by the back door. (i.e. no internet only patches through Impulse)
I mentioned GOG in my first post. I have signed up and will be getting Fallout 1&2 when I actually have time to play them.
Answer 1: This seems woefully naive, 2 years ago you could have said Microsoft isn't going anywhere and the music DRM servers will run forever.To date, Microsoft, Yahoo and Walmart have all announced their intention to shutter their music DRM servers, stranding customers. These are some of the richest companies on the planet and they can't be bothered to keep the DRM servers running. It is Naive to just assume the servers will be there in 5 or 10 years, that the domain/address will never change, that a change to IPV6 won't have rendered all old DRM server games broken etc..... Remote server activation is a broken model for the consumer, no matter how friendly or hidden it is today.
Answer 2: Anything that I have to depend on "The Scene" for, is something not done right. I have already read this as an answer to dealing with the Spore DRM, just buy the game and rely on "The Scene" to provide you with your fair use. Line 1 of the "Gamers Bill of Rights" should be: "I won't have to depend on the pirate scene to provide my fair use today or in the future."
Answer 4: Then I might consider Stardock retail packages then. But I will have to keep an eye out for hidden activations that might creep in.
But Impluse is out, just like Steam is out, just like All of EA is out.
Back to the original post query. Unique Product keys are the best copy protection. Yes they can be broken as can everything else. They do the least harm to the consumer.
The threshold crossed by Spore is multiple part. For some (including me) it is the very idea of remote activation, which I have outlined here. For others it was the three activation limit. For others it was the perception of securerom as another invasive controlling piece of DRM nastiness (prevents disk emulators from running even though Spore doesn't require the disk. WTH??) many possible joined the bandwagon without clear understanding of the issues, and I welcome them, because numbers are needed to really make this uprising have any effect. Mix all of that together with the rancor EA is earning from its adversarial relationship with consumers and they are in the eye of the perfect storm of what is wrong with the consumer-producer relationship.
I will do my best persuading any other gamer I know to not purcahse EA games and join the fight against them. Their are other games, we don't need EA, EA needs us and they need to wake to that reality.
Make a copy-protected schema soooooo tough that it remains unbreakable for a reasonably high period of time (say, maybe two to three years, maximum?), and you got yourself a game title which gains some value over months/years of single user exclusivity.
Word of mouth helping, new customers *MUST* come into the honesty realm to enjoy their _uncracked_ copy of the same.
Viable doesn't have to be a form of trust, but rather added value TO the product. Vault analogy was simply a way to prove a point that good planning of design CAN be worth the extra emphasis on much better (or efficient anti-piracy measures that may make a title sell more than its natural recouping costs = profits re-invested in other projects!) security principles.
You're hilarious, really.
Try two or three weeks, maximum. I can't imagine the response created by a copy protection system claiming such difficulty. If it even made it a week without being cracked, I'd be surprised. Every cracker on earth would be in a race to be the first one to break the unbreakable.
Even the longest lasting version of starforce only made it a couple months, and the reason wasn't because it was particularly hard to crack. Lockdown sold like shit, even Rainbow 6 fans didn't like it, few people bother cracking a game when there isn't demand for a crack. You have to disable every day functionality in the end users system before you even begin to make a long term effect on piracy.
Now who is being naive... I have been buying stardock stuff, but I have NEVER bought DRMed music or video and warned other not to, it was completely obvious to me that they ARE going under, and when they do there is NOT going to be recourse (redownloading thosands of songs is much more impractical then download 5 game cracks)
Anyways, I said myself that the activation system is not ideal, just not as bad you make it sound.
Completely obvious who is going under? Microsoft? How can you see music DRM servers going down as completely obvious, yet assume game DRM servers will continue. Please explain the rational for that assumption.
You are repeating #2 (pirates) as a DRM solution and I already answered that as a flawed answer.
The biggest thing that drove me away from Spore was the internet connection requirement.I don't have too much of a problem with activating products, but I prefer to have multiple channels available to do so. It lets me have some confidence that I'll be able to activate my products regardless of my connection status. I really like being able to activate Stardock products via email - even if my computer isn't connected to the net I can still do it through an intermediary.The other problem with Spore DRM is that it kills the second hand market. This effectively doubles the cost of the game for me. I realise that this is something many publishers want though - but it does make me hesitant when considering a purchase.Thank you for making Stardock a company I can recommend to others.
I never said I expected microsoft, yahoo, or apple will go under. I expected them to shut down their music DRM servers when people wouldn't bite unto low quality renting of songs. And look at those now.
Stardock on the other hand, has been making money, and prooving that their business model is both viable and acceptable to the customer. Stardock has also shown a great commitment to their customers, something none of the above mentioned companies ever had.
Patches only avaliable via Impusle, company a big fan of activation. Sorry but limiting avaliablity of patches to only people who have a reliable Internet connection and 'activating' products makes Stardock a company I can quite happly NOT recommend to anyone.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
