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.
Do you seriously believe M$ can afford (either ways) losing a fundamental court case against a single individual for any forms of an EULA's breach?
Or is it, that they'd be willing (and able beyond proportions, btw) to stack what it takes to actually win whatever *OTHER* situations?
Here's the main concern with relative Law - it simply adapts.
While, Joe Schmos (users, consumers, public) can only bite lips, tongue & cheeks, brush their teeth, dump a tall glass of cold dirty water and eventually - shut the f*** up, cuz their leverage is microscopic - if any.
Sure, Judge X can screw (in GREAT ways) the whole interpretation(s) presented and scramble the basic principles of justice to favor one side - that having major consequences - since that's what society pays them for.
Are you (all) seeing a recursive pattern yet?
Money.
Be it -- also -- owned, licensed or copyrighted enough to deplete or grow to the interest of a few rather than many.
Keep the change.
and, please DO spend it wisely while you still have it!
"No man has the inherent right to the labor of another man."
Well said, but your point neglected the fact that you have been repaid on the terms you yourself have set.
If I walk into a store, and wish to purchase something a painting, purchase it, take it home, and hang it up, it does not vanish after being moved to a new spot 3 times. It's not leprechaun gold.
If I go to a man on a street corner and purchase a watch, provided it's not itself stolen property, he does not hunt me down in my home after I removed and replaced it on my arm 3 times, and thus demand it back.
If I loan my car to a friend, it is not repo'd the next day.
If I purchase a cd, they do not kick down my door after the 3rd listening.
If I sell you a rock for $50, do I have the right to demand it back, because hidden inside is a EULA that says you may only view it 3 times?
If I sell you a vehicle, with 3 gallons of gasoline, and a welded shut tank, you might sue me, and rightfully win, mightn't you?
The act of purchase, is a human conception of the transferrence of property from one person to another. That act implies good faith from Both parties. I, as a purchaser, would not clone your work and redistribute it. Hence Distribution. I as a purchaser now hold this property as my own. You received payment of your choosing.
I as a seller of a work understand that I accept Payment for a piece of property, in acknowledgement that I am entering into a good faith Contract to give this piece of property to you.
As a work that is copyrighted, a Copyright, promises you safety from unfair duplication of your work, for which you would get no Compensation. In other words, you would not be able to sell that particular object. Copyright protects your right to sell as you see fit. $50 bucks a game. That's your price. That is what a copyright gets you... the ability to sell your game.. See where this is going?
So. Did I buy your object or not? I guess not.
Btw, non-disclosure, until after a sale is made, of terms which limit the usability, for which you could not have reasonably assumed, is fraud. Pretty pandering of terms like license assume knowledge and understanding of the contract terms. Changing the terms after a sale is made will never hold up in a court of law. Try it some time.
Edit: If you'd like to know where EA has gone wrong, as that was the original question, just contemplate that all of this flicked through my mind in an instant when I found out I was the proud owner of what was in time to become a paperweight.
Btw 2: Walmart is discontinuing support for DRM'd music they have sold. A company does not have to sink, to sink their customer's purchase, when DRM is involved.
Edit 2: I have contemplated my post, as I have contemplated the question in the title of this browser window. I think you need to take a step back and consider the realities for the situation for a moment. You might ask how to viably stop people from copying a radio transmission. You might ask how to stop them from recording your conversation with them. You might ask how to stop people intercepting and reading your email. All of these questions come from a flawed perspective. You made a concious choice to distribute something through a medium for which you have no control. People with less scruples than you will do as they please, regardless of your wishes. If you don't want to accept that you have no ultimate control, then your only alternative is to choose the only other choice a copyright holder has. That is to not sell their work. If you want to protect your work after the fact, from illegal (immoral) copying, you must create mechanisms to secure it. If you can't secure the object itself, then you can't win the battle against copying, because you chose a medium for which there is no inherent security.
Let me, for a moment, provide an example of mediums that have been designed as secure mediums, so that I may 'prove' my point.
DVD: Has encryption, and other features. The only fault was an inherently low amount of designed security. A fortress could defeat an army, but wont stop a nuclear blast. If enough effort is applied, most systems can be circumvented.
HDDVD: Better encryption, but same problem.
Blu-Ray: Same.
Each of the above is a Secure channel through which to deliver a specific content. Each of the channels is flawed, yes, but they at least have some security about them. Each piece is designed to shield the data inside of it.
A.. program, that resides on a computer, to stop copying (which it isn't designed to do in fact), is not a shield, it's a fly swatter. That self same program purports to protect the copyright of the work, yet the copyright was already in effect when the sale was made!A computer that does not have such a program, but still has the copyrighted work, for which no sale was made, does not have this shield (fly swatter). So where is the protection?
Enlighten me if you will, protector's of copyright, how does this program protect anything, when it exists only after the sale is made, and exists not at all when no sale was made? It's presence is after the fact. Since it's presence depends on a sale being made, how did it facilitate the sale? Through no logic, either sane or not, can I deduce how it's presence might have spurred someone to purchase the original work.
For those who might have seen this on other threads, I am still trying to get my GC2 (dread lords) game activated (after we had the GHALL to get a new computer a couple months after we got the game). Oddly enough, we got the computer so we could play GCII better. We did give up after months of trying, but decided to try again recently when we saw 2.0 comming out.
Anyway, this week I've tried time and time again to send pictures of the box, CD case (with serial #), even a close-up picture of the receit. So far, nothing. they say they "did'nt get it", or "it did'nt go through", even though I've "CC'd" it to myself and others every time, and we got the pictures. It's like a sad, long running joke with us now.
Anyway, for another example, I bought the movie "Over the Hedge", and I can not count the times I've loaned that movie out to others. Some of them bought the movie, others not, but I do know, that if I could ONLY put it on my one DVD player here, many honest people would have never seen it and/or bought it. Like my first time downloading music (and I remember 58s guys), I was also shocked when I got my new computer, and it refused to let me listed to all my music BECAUSE I had the ghall to get a new computer.
I and my friends are the most honest people I know (I still feel guilty today for not paying back a $20 loan to a friend that passed away suddenly). So, we are more shocked than anybody that we are actually considering pirating; just so we can use the games/music we already paid for. We keep thinking about all the pirates that have been playing GCII all these months, while we try to just get it to work. Now I know how LEGAL Imagrants to the USA must feel.
I don't mind putting a CD in the computer to play a game, that's fine and fair with us, or a CD in a music player hear my tunes,, but this background check and cavity search every time I just want to use what I paid for is really starting to make us rethink our "copyright morals" . . .
In which thread is it? And it is strange you can't activate it if you have the serial Id unless:
- it is a used copy already registered
- someone has registered the serial Id without buying the copy
- it was in a manufacturing batch that used already issued serial id
I think you mean Gamers Bill of Rights.
I've seen some weird stuff done in the name of "copy protection."
I'd say the Impulse/Steam system of having an accounts is pretty close to ideal. It gives legit users a lot of benefits, such as being able to re-download a game if it's somehow lost or destroyed and being able to play a game without having to look for the CD or worry about some serial number. It offers a bit of copy protection, but just enough to keep casual pirates away - it's not so draconian as to make the game unplayable to legit users.
The ultimate question I think is to ask "are we really preventing people from copying the game?" The answer is usually "no." Hackers have already proven that somebody who is really serious and dedicated about it will do it.
The best way, then, is to maximize demand for legitimate software and minimize the demand for copies. Instead of trying to outright stop piracy, try to reduce demand for it. Play the economics game a bit.
The best way to reduce the demand for copying is thus to reduce the need for it.
So why do people usually want to make or get a copy?
I think very rarely are people really looking to do it for truly illegal purposes.
Impulse and Steam deal very nicely with these reasons.
I think offering legitimate players the same benefits that copies give them is a great way to minimize the black market demand for copies.
Agreed, and this really annoys me. I love a lot of old games, but there's a lot of them I simply can't play without heading to the grey/black market because the publisher's long gone and the DRM is still intact. It's totally senseless that great games exist that are completely abandoned and will never be able to be played until the copyright has run out.
Hardly. Impulse,Steam and EA remote activation are all broken and they are essentially the same basic model with the same basic issue.
They depend on a remote DRM activation server, when that is gone (as it will be at some point) you have nothing. In the mean time they use this as technical "solution" the the problem of your "first sale doctrine" rights. Legally you are entitled to do what you want with purchased copy of a game/music/movie, but they basically take that away from you, because they don't wan't to compete with their own product in the used market.
In short you are paying full price for a rental.
Just ask Walmart/Yahoo/Microsoft music "owners" how well this model is working for them?
The Gamers bill of rights is a PR stunt and nothing more, and will never be taken seriously by the BIG names in the industry, because they don't give a crap about anything but profit, and they're raking in big profits by violating all those supposed rights, so why the hell would they bother go change their business model?
Yeah, it's a fine idea, but anyone who sees it ever happening in the mainstream is living in a dream world.
And the marvelous irony is I bought Spore, then immediately downloaded the crack. Now I've got 3 installs here, NO Securom, and no activations burned.
Frogboy, I would like to ask you a question directly, should you ever visit this thread again. Would you agree that the current copy protection schemes are not actually designed to prevent copying, but rather designed to keep a person from reselling their game, and thus populating the Used game market, of which drains a game companie's profits down the road? It seems to me that the phrase "You can't fool everyone all the time" comes to mind, but in regard to CEO's of game companies, or those making the decisions. They can't seriously all be sold to the idea that this mechanism stops the initial copying and distribution of their game. It does not take a programmer to figure out that simply removing such protections in the first place effectively unlock the entire work for redistribution, and that process only needs to happen once. If one agrees with the above, would you also agree then that your aims would be different from the aims of a company such as EA in that you would be trying to defeat the point of the copy, while they would be trying to defeat reselling of their product? If you do so agree, I think you would also agree with my above post, that what you ask is a technical impossibility if that protection remains solely bound to the game itself, and causes no interfence to the game. Even your patches could be pirated and distributed, defeating even your activation. Stardock support however can't be pirated, so I heap praise for that. That in turn comes back to the logic, that you can only make safe that which can't actually be stolen. Is that what stardock has concluded?
You have all of your games at the state you last left them. Neither Impulse nor Steam have an absolute requirement tht you be connected to their servers for you to play the games. Last I checked, both of them also have backup/restore capabilities as well. Impulse probably does quite a bit better than Steam considering Stardock's stance against DRM.
Do yourself a favour and remove Norton Antivirus. I had it on my system, and it did indeed block system performance - the stupid program would overwrite system files (most notably a network.dll) with its own *corrupt* versions for security purposes. Great for security checks, but buggered-up when it came to functionality: many games` online features were unavailable because of Norton file corruption. Who knows if other aspects of the OS failed due to this trait.
As soon as I removed Norton my system operated perfectly. I now use McAfee VirusScan and have no problems.
This is a short sighted view. People upgrade computers every few years. You will need another activation and it will no longer work. This is fine, I guess, for people with short term rental mentality. But I still play games that I bought 10 years ago... Just like Yahoo, Walmart, and Microsoft have demonstrated, DRM servers are nothing that can be counted on.
I don't think so. But I don't think that publishers (ourselves included) are going to make any special effort to make it easier to resell digital content either.
I think the main issue is making it more convenient to be a legal customer than to be a pirate. Right now, too many publishers are making it more convenient to be a warez issue.
Personally speaking, as a gamer, here is where I draw the line:
Acceptable to me and I would put on our own games:
Basically, if they have to be on the Internet anyway, then whatever.
Here is what would also be acceptable to me:
Here is what is NOT acceptable to me:
Dunno about Steam, but Impulse has a backup of my registration keys, which I can create backups of. I should be able to activate them without an internet connection. Dunno about Steam.
Here's what I'll do: I'll create a backup of my games, and try to install and activate them on a virtual machine with no internet connection. Be back with the results.
In any case:
. . . and forget "activating" the games, simply installing either of the clients requires an internet connection. Just tested on a virtual machine.
It's not a used copy, I have the receit. I have no idea (and no way of knowing) if someone registered the serial ID without buying a copy. I have no idea about the third thing either.
I just know I have the box/CD/Case with Serial #/and receit, and still can't activate it since the new computer. This is the third time I've sent them the pictures of the above too. I don't what else to do; DNA samples???
Just a collection of thoughts on the matter...
Am I able to sort all this into a crisp conclusion? Let's see:
Another concept that's quite appealing to me is this: Make the user pay on a weekly basis, free first week for trying it out, full rates for the first four weeks and then decreasing down to zero (e.g. 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, repeat 4 until target price is reached, then zero). This way the old net price we're used to paying would stay the same - but only if the product is good enough to be kept playing. Many users are mad about vendors publishing shiny stuff for 80 bucks that they play through in a single week. You don't pay double for movies with more expensive special effects, do you? But you pay more for extra long movies. You pay for your watching, not for their making, so we should pay for our playing, too. Other vendors can make great games at nice prices that last for months and months, so there would be quite some motivation (or commercial ruin) for vendors creating beautiful vessels of lacking gameplay to improve their concepts.
Oh, you're lucky - I'm out of time, so no more thinking. Stop reading this, go have some fun. )
For what it is worth, fundamentally, I believe DRM is simply wrong on physical products. I believe it is inherently designed to prevent casual piracy and as a collateral benefit it stifles secondhand sales. With that said, I have to agree with Frogboy on digital content.
Now ostensibly this may seem like a conflict but I don’t see it as such. My reason for this position is simple. Getting the game on CD via a store is the traditional distribution system and I expect to deal with the traditional environment for all my purchases. Most importantly the unfettered ability to resale the item. Additionally it should be noted I have never sold a game I purchased; it is simply the principle of the matter. Going the new distribution and media route I am utilizing a different system, one which is still developing and most importantly I do so optionally with very little preconceived norms regarding my purchase.
Fundamentally I expect to get a game to play and given it is most often far cheaper than a store bought title and considering the utility costs I don’t incur making the purchase online, I think it is reasonable to expect a trade off of some sort. This tradeoff can be in the form of a activation system, an active update system with a validation component or some other such none intrusive protection oriented and value enhancement system.
If choosing to make my purchase via this new method inherently creates a diminished resale value as long as I know this prior to the purchase, I do not feel like I have been cheated, deceived or mislead to be perfectly frank.
To illustrate my case in point with some SD titles, I expect to be able to resale the Entrepreneur CD I purchased over a decade ago but I have no resale expectation for my copy of Sins since I purchased it in digital form. Now if I went to the store and got a copy then I expect to be able to resale it without issue.
To extend the situation even further, if the person who purchases the title from me secondhand wants to get any active updates after the CD was purchased, then I think it would be reasonable for them to pay a token registration transfer fee to SD for access to any updates.
As a buyer of hundreds of PC games over long years and one with a keen eye for observation I think I completely understand both sides of the issue of consumer rights vs. corporate profits.
1) Gamers as consumers treat their product like any other consumer treats their product...once they buy it it is theirs to keep forever and ever. You have no say in what they do with what they bought. Why would you? Anyone who says otherwise is a greedy fool and everyone knows that, hence the backlash at greed and fools.
2) Game Developers as businessmen treat their product like any other businessman would treat their product...once you are a customer, they want you as a loyal customer forever and ever. You have no choice in price...you pay what the asking price is or you don't get the product. Why would you get a product for free or be treated as a valued customer for free? Anyone who says otherwise is a cheap thief and everyone knows that, hence the backlash at cheapskates and thieves.
The tactics and strategies of both positions above vary wildly...from opportunity: "Hey, it's easy to get this product for free!" or ""Hey, let's just update the player roster and call it NEW!" to subterfuge and usurping credit and payment: "I'll crack this .exe and burn a thousand copies and sell them in Hong Kong or Ebay" or "Screw it, get this turd out the door, buy favorable reviews and flood the forums with paid for opinions and fake-buzz"
Like everything, the happy medium is the balance of both extremes: recognizing the futility of trying to force the market to accept something it does not want and the market actuall buying that which it demands more of. Piracy as a word is a red-herring...a false enemy. The real enemy is this natural law: That which can be Read can be Written. Those wise persons know that the secret to business success is "Build a better mouse-trap and the world will beat a path to your door".
DRM specifics? Instances and methologies? Utterly insignificant and meaningless to the innovative businessman, who understands that which can be read can be written and his paying customers are the ones that matter and if they aren't buying, you need to re-examine what and how you are selling it!
So, just as I indicated, when the DRM servers are gone, you are SOL.
Just like to say that was a *wonderful* post, Zacharot.
You should read it, Frogboy (if you haven't already)
As far as I'm concerned, I am buying the right to use the product however I damn well please, provided it is not in a manner which violates copyright. Furthermore, I have this right in perpetuity or until I transfer that right to another individual. The seller should not be allowed to inconvenience me in any way whatsoever when exercising this right. They *certainly* should not be allowed to prevent me from exercising that right by means of arbitrary restrictions which have nothing to do with the product in question (so time-limited licenses, fair enough since that is the business model on which the product is based. Activation limited - not fair.) Introducing extra terms and conditions that inconvenience me, the legitimate buyer, to protect the seller from *other* individuals is not reasonable. It should not be made my problem.
Stepping down from the ethical to the practical, a *small* measure of inconvenience is acceptable. But I must say I'm finding it hard to come up with a scheme that works. The closest I can see would be activation based, say 3 or 4 activations at one time but, crucially, with a *convenient* system for deactivating old hardware and activating new; something that can be done in minutes online or by automated phone system. Or alternatively, a generous activation limit with regular resets. The big problem with any activation based approach, though, has been pointed out - what happens if the company goes bust and/or stops honouring activations?
Stardock's system seems OK. I don't remember any great hassle when I had to update my software keys after a major upgrade.
A software publisher should not have the right to fundamentally alter the nature of a transaction that is essentially a sale, simply by drafting a document in the box and suddenly calling it a "license". As far as I'm concerned, I am buying the right to use the product however I damn well please, provided it is not in a manner which violates copyright. Furthermore, I have this right in perpetuity or until I transfer that right to another individual. The seller should not be allowed to inconvenience me in any way whatsoever when exercising this right. They *certainly* should not be allowed to prevent me from exercising that right by means of arbitrary restrictions which have nothing to do with the product in question (so time-limited licenses, fair enough since that is the business model on which the product is based. Activation limited - not fair.) Introducing extra terms and conditions that inconvenience me, the legitimate buyer, to protect the seller from *other* individuals is not reasonable. It should not be made my problem.
A software publisher should not have the right to fundamentally alter the nature of a transaction that is essentially a sale, simply by drafting a document in the box and suddenly calling it a "license".
Well said in both cases.
What burns me most is tying my purchased product`s lifespan to a company, its fortunes, and its fancies. EA deactivates games every year or so, as newer versions come out. They want you to migrate to the new version and become part of their quarterly financials. This is utter bullshit.
I always cringe when I hear that ANYBODY has been picked up by EA... do they rely upon EA server networks for multiplayer? At what future point in time will EA dictate that *I* have had enough fun playing *MY* product? That is something for me and me alone to decide. I paid money for it - I worked for it.
Anyway, needless to say multiplayer should be possible and 100% functional apart from 'official' servers. Ditto for patching.
Patching should at some future point in time be possible via a publicly available, publicly hosted download. I humbly submit that any patch support 'encouragement' ought to have a finite lifespan. Beyond that point, be sure to release support files so that *my* product is no longer inexorably wed to your company`s fate. That is fair, I believe: you get to wield a slight registration/legitimization stick, while the consumer`s investment/purchase is guaranteed to be precisely that - a full and proper purchase.
I just posted this in the Bill of Rights thread but I think it merits posting here as well:
For those interested in a recent article published by the Escapist dealing with gamers rights please check out the following article "We the Gamers."
The sad thing about copy protection is that if people really want to copy/pirate/distribute something illegally, they will do it regardless of protection or no protection.
As far as torrents sites goes, well..at least the english version of various torrent sites like The Pirate Bay, IsoHunt, MiniNova, and others are relatively nice when it comes agreeing to publisher's request to delist torrents links.
On the other hand, if the torrents sites are from non english sources, i wish the publishers all the luck in the world. If it is a popular software, i am sure a search through Btchina or some korean torrent sites will have those software torrents links listed conveniently. Also, there are Emules/edonkeys servers that just simply don't care. sad sad.
I agree with what you said in the first paragraph, but I really wouldn't classify TPB as beeing "relatively nice when it comes to agreeing to publisher's requests". Have you seen their page listing legal threats (http://www.thepiratebay.org/legal/)? I don't think they've ever removed anything from that site unless it was something like child porn.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
