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.
Google is the hardcore warez scene?
Even if I wanted to be in it, stealing games off the internet is beyond my tolerance level. I have a daily download cap, and torrents over satellite are horrific. Yes, there are legitimate uses I've put them to, agonizingly. Getting a six gig game off one would take me at least a week, more likely a month. Of course, this also means I am incapable of reasonably verifying the working condition of any sins beta torrents I've found, so perhaps you found them and they weren't legit.
Sins was released with no controls, stand alone patches. You consider Sins a success, but even if we assume that protection schemes have any bearing, that one used none.
I don't object to your system either, I just consider it pointless.
Actually, it has everything to do with copyright. Copyright attempts to place artificial limitations on the copying of expressive works in an effort to provide an incentive to create the works in the first place. But in the absence of a copyright, anyone has the right to copy anything they want because those rights are not reserved. (If copyright didn't exist, you do not need any affirmative or explicit right to make a copy because no one else would have the right to stop you from making one.) Copyright law exists and defines how copies can be made, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed. Therefore, copyright is the controlling item in any discussion about ownership.
Copyright is clear that ownership of a copyright (which I'll call the copyright holder) is distinct from ownership of a individual copy of a work. So when you buy your favorite game from the store, you truly own the box, the media, and that one individual copy of the game. Many prior court decisions reinforce this principle (for example, Softman vs. Adobe). Your ownership of that copy doesn't give you the copyright to the game, however.
Your ownership of that copy of the game allows you to do anything you want with that game (since it is your property) except those things reserved to the copyright holder.
The most important right that the owner of a copy has is the right to use the work. (use implies read/listen/view/etc for the various media types.) You don't need a special license to read a book that you legally bought, because the book's publisher doesn't get the legal right to control reading. You can read your book at any time and for any reason, even if the first page of the book happens to have the text "READER LICENSE AGREEMENT" printed on it.
Another important right reserved to the owner of a copy include the right to dispose or sell the copy, known as the doctrine of first sale. Once the copyright holder sells you the copy, then that's ALL the copyright holder is ever entitled to getting from that copy (this is known as "exhaustion of rights".) The copyright holder cannot prevent you from selling or disposing your copy, or restrict the terms of sale or who you can sell it to, or expect to get more money in a subsequent sale. So once J.K. Rawling has sold you a copy of a Harry Potter book, you can legally sell or give that copy of the book to someone else. Its your book, after all. Rawling can't stop you from selling your book.
A third important right reserved to the owner of a copy is fair use copies. Although the copyright holder legally has the right to control most copying, you have the limited right to make copies.
The copyright holder gets to reserve certain essential rights, such as public performance, distribution, and reproduction. There's a whole lot of things a copyright holder can control (and for good reasons), but this control is limited. It isn't a "copyright holder gets the right to dictate every use of a work." Some authors might think this is their moral right to exhaustively dictate how their work is used, but copyright law disagrees with this notion. (For example, if authors can exactly control every aspect of their work, then fair use copies wouldn't be in copyright law at all.)
Now, many publishers don't like the rights that owners of copies have under copyright law. They hate fair use, they hate the first sale doctrine, and they really want to control how owners of copies use their copies. So intead of claiming that they sold you a copy, they purport to have sold you some "license" instead. If they sell you a license instead of an actual copy, they can claim that the doctrine of first sale doesn't apply and they can attach a whole bunch of legalese to restrict use. And the way they make you accept the legal fiction of a "license" is to force you to legally assent to the contract or else the setup program won't install.
Morally, ethically, and IMHO legally, this is a sham. Like I have noted in prior posts, (1) a publisher should not be able to recharacterize what is essentially a sale into a "license" merely by putting a piece of paper in the box or setup program, and (2) a publisher who benefits from the protection conferred by copyright law should not be able to remove the parts of copyright law that it doesn't like (or "avoid getting exploited by copyright law").
Copyright law is a balance between the rights of the copyright holder (to inspire the creation of works) and the rights of owners of copies (to use and enjoy the works that were legally bought.) Purported "licensing" distorts this balace by allowing the copyright holder to control more rights than entitled by law, using contract law as a legal loophole around users' statutory rights.
You should view any attempt by a software publisher to control how you USE (not copy) your lawfully purchased product as an infringement of your rights as the purchaser, in much the same way that a pirate's illegal copying is an infringement of the rights of the publisher.
Cheers!
I must have missed that. A way of installing updates to an offline computer and archiving those updates that does not involve activation (at least for single player or a LAN based multiplayer) would be gratly apprechiated. As I have said in previous posts I have no problems with registering my CD key to get access to those updates.
Any idea of a ETA on when this functionality will be avaliable?
None that they've given yet. The challenge they have is working out a system that will please all the other publishers selling through Impulse, since it won't just apply to Stardock's own games (which would've made it quite a bit easier, I imagine).
Sorry but I call shenanigans on this.
If someone makes a program that they say can only be used at night time (for instance) the buyer has the right to accept or reject that by buying it or not buying it.
There is a huge difference between a civil issue and a federal/state law issue.
The person who makes a product inherently can say how that product may be used because they have the ultimate leverage - they made it and can choose to withold it from the public or not make future products.
I think most copy protection systems are pointless and stupid. But I think companies have every right to be pointless and stupid if they want because it's their stuff.
When Stardock goes out with the Gamer's Bill of Rights or puts no copy protection on its retail games, it's trying to change the industry through market forces NOT through government law. Our method of persuasion is to demonstrate through market success that most copy protection setups today are irrelevant and damaging to sales. You won't see us lobbying for some law forcing people who make stuff to release their stuff in a certain way.
No man has the inherent right to the labor of another man.
Well first you're buying into the strawman that having Sins on Impulse is some sort of copy protection scheme to which I've repeatedly said it's not. Sins has no activation, no DRM, nothing.
The reasons we have Sins on Impulse have been discussed to death. But copy protection wasn't one of them. It's not a copy protection "system".
Oh, poo. You surely know you're brandishing over-simplified rhetoric here. If two people are hermits living in separate habitats, sure. But if the two people are part of a family or other social system, you get right into both the basic human traits of specializing and dividing labor and near-universal values about taking care of children and elders.
But I can see how you'd feel feisty given the number of folks around here who are willing to spew various forms of critique and/or abuse on the *government* practice that is the essential underpinning of your current business model.
For single player games, I like the Stardock system. You can install and play the game out of the box with no keys, DVD, or online connection. If you want updates for that game, then you need to register it online. Fair enough. Patches require time and effort from the developers; time and effort they don't want pirates taking advantage of. It's resonable that they ask for proof of purchase for updates. The only problem with this system is that most games (even console games now that they are all connected online too) are released early and 'fixed' later. If I can't play out of the box very well, then it becomes unfair that customers need to register to get an essential patch. Also, I could easily see companies (oh hi EA) deliberately releasing games buggy and unfinished just to force people to register for needed patches.
I say if a patch fixes some criticial, game breaking bugs shortly after release, it should be freely availible no matter what.
For multiplayer, I see no issues with the traditional cd-key system. If you want to play online, you must have a valid key. Since the longlivity of many games is based on multiplayer, even chronic pirates will break down and buy the game if they can't get on the 'battle-net equivalent' for that game. Some publishers think that LAN play invites pirates, but at this point Hamanchi is known to cause significant lag in modern games. Plus you have to find people on Hamachi. Playing with the same two or three people gets boring if it's just you and a couple friends. I'll pay the measly $40 to avoid that trouble for games I like, thanks. Plus people legitimately still use the LAN or TCP/IP option to play, so it's a kick in the nuts to your customers to remove these options solely to trouble a few pirates. I'm looking at you Blizzard and THQ.
Things that are never good for anyone:
DRM - These hinder paying customers, and sometimes even make other programs on a system not function. And guess what publishers? I can still go out and steal Spore right now if I wanted to! My friend got screwed over with Valve's insane protection on Half-Life 2. His area only had dial-up access availible, so the online decryption process took him like 3 hours to install, plus his phone line was tied up anytime he wanted to play his SINGLE PLAYER game. Nonsense, and Valve lost a customer forever because of that. The pirates figured out how to crack it a few days later. Good work guys.
DVD checks - Why? As others pointed out, discs degrade over time. My friend's Frozen Throne CD doesn't work anymore, and my old Total Annihilation disc is tempermental. He has to use a pirated ISO to play a game he paid for (I made a backup of TA fortunately for me). Cracks are easy to obtain, and people sometimes use them on legitimate copies of games to avoid the hassle of changing discs and avoid wear. Most companies have given up on this 'protection' fortunately.
>None, because no copy protection actually works to prevent copying and pirating of games.
This right here. I've never heard of any game or application that couldn't be downloaded. If people can steal an OS, what chance do companies think they have of making their software pirate-proof? There is none. Instead of wasting time and money on reducing piracy, give people more incentives to buy it. People aren't completely stupid (well most aren't), and will support good games and good companies so they will make more good games in the future. Treating customers like criminals will just encourage people to steal your software out of spite.
Frogboy - I don't have an issue, persay, with a request like that from the developer that is "you can only install three times" or "you can only play this game at night during a full moon with a dead parakeet in your lap". That's within thier rights to demand as far as product use goes, and within my rights to laugh at and not buy.
However, when you put something like that INSIDE of the INSTALL PROGRAM and not in BIG BOLD LETTERS ON MY BOX I bought at a retail store, we run into an issue. Example: Spore. Spore nowhere on the box states it has an instal limit, or an account limit. It just states I need internet access to register the game.
So I've opened the box, read the EULA during instal and dissagreed with it. What is my recourse, sir? I've got an open game box. I cannot take that back, I cannot ddemand my money back. Perhaps I do not, in fact, own a dead parakeet.
Now we've gotten to the real problem, sir - publishers who put things hidden in a way that if you can find and disagree with it, too bad - you've already bought the product and can't take it back. They don't care if you use it or not - they have your money and that won't change. The stores won't accept an exchange for another title or a refund - you're hosed. In this case, sir, I will EASILY break DRM in order to play a game that is as advertised on the box, and not as it states in some EULA. I did not buy the game based on a EULA, I bought it with the information contained on the box when making my purchase. Sure, I could be informed from a site, but maybe it was an impulse buy? Should I as a consumer have to suffer because the game company did not print vital information on the packging? Because I do not think I should. I think, as a matter of fact, that hididng such information in such a way that you cannot access it until you have purchased the product, information that dictates how and when and whatnot you can use the product, is not only wrong - it needs to be made illegal. This information needs to be on the box, spelled out in proper english, and not in legaleese or hidden so that they can both make the sale and impose arbitrary restrictions.
And honestly, sir - until they do, I will continue to use software to convince the program I have a dead parakeet on my lap.
Yeah. The not knowing exactly what you're getting is a bit of an issue. It's not one that's necessarily exclusive to software, though.
I think it would be a good idea to require to list any protection method on the box, but I don't think spelling out the entire EULA (unless all the publishers adopt a standardized one) on the box is going to happen
I mean, there's got to be some responsibility on us to become knowledgeable about what we're getting. Getting absolutely shafted because it's not spelled out on the box that Spore has SecuROM and you wanted to install it on a bunch of PCs is one thing, but if the box says "Protected by the latest version of SecuROM", I think that should be enough and the rest is on us the buyers to know what that does, otherwise the whole back cover might as well be devoted to explaining the inner workings of SecuROM.
As an interesting aside, does anyone have their Sins box nearby? I'm at work and can't check and haven't looked at it for a long time, but I'm pretty sure it says no copy protection on it somewhere.
A few basic would be nice. For example, install limit, internet required for single-player, etc.
No, but I *do* have an inherent right to expect that when I have your product, and you have my money, then the sale is a fait accompli and I'm not going to presented with an addendum to the contract after the fact - which is fundamentally what an EULA is.
And, IMO, the consumer protections writ into contract law support me on this.
I note for the record that many of those same consumer protections don't apply to business software - there is a distinction between Consumer and Merchant written into the contract law, and a consumer is very much protected from this whereas a merchant is explicitly expect to know the AOP of the industry in which he or she operates - so if I'm buying your business software, I very likely *am* bound by an EULA as written.
Jonnan
Well said. It is bad enough that coporations, because they have the money to lobby and lawyer it through, have continually moved copyright more and more in the direction of corporate dominance over individual citizens, now they attempt to go beyond the law and get around the law.
Actually no. It is not within their rights. Their rights are outlined within copyright law, they are not within their rights to to demand whatever they feel like and don't let them fool you into thinking that they do.
You have no such right to control how a product is used after it is sold. You have the right to sell it or not sell, but you don't have the right to sell it and say after you buy it I expect you to do this... That is the whole point of the First Sale Doctrine. It was recently tested when someone was selling Promo CD's, you know the ones with the big "NOT FOR RESALE" written directly on the front of them. Much like your claim that you can do away with rights just by writing it down and demanding it, but it doesn't work that way. First Sale Doctrine rights were upheld in this case and this guy continues to Sell "NOT FOR RESALE" promo CDs. UMG can elect not to release Promo CDs, but they can't control them after they do.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/liberation-day-promo-cds-victory-umg-v-augusto
I look forward to your lawsuit against iTunes, EA, Comcast, Microsoft, and everyone else who do indeed prevent people from doing what you describe.
Gotta say, I think the reason why the lawsuit was thrown out is because simply afixing a label to a CD is not an agreement between two parties. First off, nobody asked for the Promo CDs to be sent to them, secondly, there was never a contract signed, causing the court to conclude that they were gifts.
A EULA, regardless of how ridiculous it is to have an after-sale contract, or the fact that nobody reads em, is a contract - you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract in order to use/install the software. Wether the contract being only available to sign/read after the purchase is the legal grey area, but I will say this is a bad precendent case because the circumstances are quite different.
One might be able to get away with it if they could argue in some way that they had installed without the EULA coming up, or using the fact that the contract did not occur before, but after the sale - in between money being transferred and usage.
It is however, a wholy different beast we fight as gamers. A sticker on a CD/Book/etc is different than a contract you must accept to continue.
The questions WE need to be asking is, does clicking an accept button in order to install/use software I have already paid for count as a legal agreement - since it's made after point-of-sale in an irrevocable transaction? Quite simply, wrong or right, things will be done according to the law. The law, at current in precendent cases that I like to cite, has sometimes found both ways.
Autodesk's software was found, for example, to not be a liscence, but a sale - They tried to limit his ability to sell the software on EBay due to the liscence. Nonsense, said the court -- Autodesk may have called the transfer a license, but it didn't look much like one. For example, the license didn't require consumers to return the software when they were done with it, nor to make ongoing payments for continued use. Thus, the "license" might put some restrictions on use, but those restrictions did not void the first sale doctrine.
The legality of a EULA has a lot to do with where your case would be tried, in all reality. Maryland and Virgina have passed an act which makes the EULAs within the programs legal - but this same act does guarantee your right to return the software should the EULA be found objectionable. Iowa, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Vermont have passed a law that specifically designates software as a good - thus giving it the full protections afforded to other goods you buy, irregardless of a EULA - and also stating any liscence that is to be used under the terms of the states that makes the EULAs legal is... illegal in that state. Complicated but fun stuff.
I hate all the DRM. I can live with say an activation for an online game. Or maybe lock out the online multiplayer unless I register the product or something. Maybe make an account so you can play online and register the key (think quake wars). Since its really an online game I am fine with that.
What I like is being able to take the game install it and play. I don't mind using the key and register it so I can get updates to the game.
Putting limits on installs, securom, and starforce like things are just terrible. You have to jump throught to many hopes to play the games, its just not worth it. I bought Bioshock and was upset over the DRM I found on it. Limited activations, need the disk, oh yeah and I need an internet connection for my single player game.
The difference in most of those cases is that the contract is signed at the point of sale. Software EULAs get sprung on a user after they've made a purchase. Most jurisdictions don't allow one party to unilaterally apply conditions after a sale. Technical measures to force these may in fact be illegal.
Just out of curiosity, has Microsoft ever successfully enforced their EULA against a home user?
Serial keys, including the nice little no-multi same key thing is as far as I'll tolerate normally. This is because Securom and whatnot mess with my DVD-RAM drive (DVD-ROM drives are better for most things).
This guy??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v._Zamos
The problem is like I mention above. The system is stacked against the private citizen when facing down large corps with lawfirms on retainer and staff lawyers. Though this guy did pretty well.
Let me just say, because they are eventually broken many companies underestimate the old standby of serial keys. Firstly, anything can be broken. However - I'm unaware of many cases where they're broken enough to fool an online check system like an online game setup/impulse. And the end-user doesn't find them very irritating at all. Seems like a winner to me, but because ZOMG PIRACY (which is really a cover for "RENT THEM OUR SOFTWARE") they "don't work anymore, need Starforce/Securerom/Callhome".
I **cannot** stress this enough - the most viable copy protection is MAKING GOOD GAMES.
As that case was settled out of court, it's hard to say whether they 'successfully' enforced or not - it looks like Microsoft backed down, but for PR reasons, rather tha legal ones.
I don't think I'd consider this a successful enforcement of their license.
As successful as they could ever hope for in PR terms though - Microsoft sues people who try to breach the license and the case gets settled out of court. That alone will scare people enough that they'll abide by the license.
Agreed.
Agreed again.
Exactly.
I think for MP, all you should need is your online game account. No disc should ne needed. If you're going to play online, it should be the job of the servers to determine if you're game key is legit or not.
I can understand DVD/CD/disc checks for SP games...for a limited time period -- so these dev's get their $40-50 for each brand new copy bought the first few months of release. But, when the game's getting old and the sales have likely died down, the dev's/publishers should patch the disc-check out of the game entirely. When it's priced bargain bin material (at say $20 or less), I'm sure everybody and their cousin will likely buy a copy of the game, if they haven't bought one already.
Amen.
I agree with this. I find cd checks annoying, but not too annoying initially - as I'm usually busy playing the game
The checks get more annoying over time though as I want to start using the computer for other things as well.
An activation required patch would be one way of doing this. It'd make me feel happier about the game, and still provide an incentive to own a legitimate copy.
Do note that I used copy not a single time in the post you quoted.
In case you're lost in the sea of posts. You said the honor system was unacceptable. I said you already have the honor system. You then retorted with the controls your company uses to prevent it being the honor system. I then replied that I could find and steal damn near anything I wanted to. What came back from another user was that the beta version of Galciv2's latest patch isn't available to the masses yet and that it's difficult to find them. I then did a google search, found multiple links to sins beta 1.1 torrents, and was lumped into the hardcore warez site for my troubles.
Your premise, that the honor system is unacceptable. My premise, that the honor system is already the case. Your assumptions are unwarranted and beneath you as an intelligent member of the industry..
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
