Dear Stardock, I'm sorely thoroughly dissapointed in you. You claim you do no DRM, yet you introduce a technology that encrypts the whole game and requires you to associate that container with your account.
A DRM hs the following properties:
Impulse has the following properties:
Now you may object "wait, but we don't do any of the other evil things". But that's not the point. Already you violate your own Gamers Bill of rights point 8 "Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers." by showing intent on possibly restricting a users rights (otherwise there'd be no need for the whole container/encryption farce)
At this point, pretty much the promise (and yes it is a promise) not to phone home and not tie an installation of a game to the hardware etc becomes pretty much meaningless. You showed you're willing to sacrifice the freedom of the Gamer already, and by all likelyhood the code to tie a container to a machine and to phone home everytime it starts is already in place, though not active until you "kill" a gamers installation (because you think he copied to much etc.).
In which case doesn't GOO acknowledge the rights given to public? If I have understood correctly the available features in GOO:
- your copy is linked to you, not to your hardware. It is yours forever.
- you need to prove to be the legitimate owner only one time (at least on each install you make)
- There isn't any prohibition how many times you can install it.
- There isn't any prohibition on backup
- GOO allows you to resell your copy (unless the publisher decides otherwise)
Which consumer rights are missing? The only thing that may be problematic is the fact that in order to prove you own a legitimate copy, some authenticating servers must be available.
BTW, since GOO wraps the executable, this means that DRM isn't built in the source code of a game. So when the source code of the game is made available, there isn't any DRM to worry about.
The decision weather you may or may not copy with Goo (as with any DRM) is no longer in the hands of the law and at your discretion to exercise. You have become reliant on some software that follows arbitary logic that may or may not harmonize with copyright to allow you to copy.
120 Years from now when Stardock and anyone who operated their technology is long gone, Goo will still require you to active your copy of a game. Nobody is going to release the source by any chance and who is going to provide the DRM unencumbered copy of the game so the public domain provision has any effect?
Btw. if this graph is any indication
The copyright duration by the year 2129 will be somewhere around 200 years, which would mean that a game released today wouldn't be in the public domain until 2209, by which time the copyright term would be 220 years.
pyalot,
Infringement Nation: Copyright Reform and the Law/Norm Gap hosted on PirateBay...^^
I *could* have some sympathies for your stance, as I am very sceptical about all this kind of copy protections and DRMS and so on. They are indeed often annoying to the customer. But you were very unfriendly in this thread and actually...
What do you want, what do you actually demand?No DRM/copy protection at all?
I think you forget that basing a company like Ironclad on Stardock on the good will and honor of the customers/gamers alone is the other extreme, and also quite naive. A balance has to be found, hopefully not a foul compromise, but something both sides can live with well.
I am not sure and happy about GOO and the principle behind it. But it is still more user-friendly than being bound to Steam or Impulse or whatever else alone. They are trying, at least.
Exactly
I don't believe in the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils.
I highly doubt anyone's worried about such a time frame. I highly doubt you are worried about such a time frame, and if you are, I'd like to know why, because it's sure as hell not for the "good of the public domain".
This has been asked before, pyalot; you've just chosen not to respond until now:
Answer the question as posed: Given all of your "concerns", what is your idea of a digital (sales and) distribution platform? And if there is no validation at any point in the process, how do you expect the servers to cope with what will inevitably be >50 to >90% pirates? After all, if you can get it for free, and easily, and from the developer/publisher directly, what possible reason could you have to pay for it? You can't expect everyone to be honest.
I really think you're giving human beings too much credit.
If you have a better idea, I'm certain all of us are interested. But you have not put forth a better idea, and in fact due to lack of details, I would contend that you have not put forth an idea at all.
Again: Just exactly what is your idea of a digital sales and distribution platform?
Sounds like your real beef is with the current trends in copyright law, and you're just taking it out on GOO becaue it's more convenient to type in forums than to write a congressman.
Agreed.
120 Years is the length of the current copyright term. After the end of it the content would theoretically go into the public domain. Practically due to the dubious benefits of DRM that isn't going to happen. I didn't invent this irrealistic timeframe, you've got Bono to thank for that. Yes I am worried about the public domain 120 years from now.
Just because I will not be around by the time doesn't mean I should not be worried. Our children and childrens children will inherit the earth and its society we create today. If you incur massive cultural debt today and expect future genrations to pay for our unsustainable mistakes you exhibit an extremely short sighted frame of mind.
Sure I have a problem with copyright. But this compounded by rights holders decision to make it even worse (with DRM). Is writing to a congressman your idea of abdicating yourself of the responsibility to act ethically?
If you believe in equality under the law then its not hard to see that copyright holders can curb your (public) rights by technical measures. Cheer on.
@Pyalot: I know you would like all software companies to use a "Honor" system, but the best policy to disagree with a company is not buy or goto their forums if you don't like the systems./software. If you could give suggestions in the real world, not in the fairy tale "Honor" system you seem to be wanting then THAT is a better realistic discussion.
Otherwise you are just TROLLING in this forum NOT offering ANY, again ANY REALISTIC positive feedback, because a honor system is rarely used in reality anywhere, especially in software or in retail or in most parts of the world. Try going into a store and see if they will let you take a item out of the store, telling them "On my honor I will pay the money after a certain amount of time.". I wouldn't recommend going into a gun shop on the honor system too...
I will buy one for myself because I like getting more of my rights as a consumer back and like the community I am agreeing with, "It is a step in the RIGHT direction". I'd much rather have and support this (and similar Digital Distrutors, Gamersgate, Gog.com, Steam, etc) THAN the vaporware that is SecureROM or Starforce.
Modernizing the terminology at the *International* level might be a good idea for specific TYPES of copyrights, i would agree.
But, the virtual space has yet to be addressed successfully in any shape or form because there is no coherent approach by Law(s) which would satisfy *everyone* worldwide.
When the US stops trying to make a code pre-registered & as exclusive to the thinkers of it all BEFORE it's even compiled, lemme know. Cuz, i'm sure there's a number of outsiders who'd start proving the method is illegal.
There's the real Law and there's their infamously manipulated Rule of Law -- as in, protectionist idealism.
More like 100% and the death of Software, itself.
Then, somebody is gonna have to replace it with a system that protects their investments while making it feasible to even just think about creating compiled code, yet to be distributed to balance a profitable equation for both sides (as in Commercial transaction) -- i must add.
Otherwise known as "the law"
Just because the content industry has found a technical loophole (DRM) to nullify the provisions of fair use und the public domain, put there in the copyright for the societies good doesn't make this correct behavior.
A software you pay for is not Public Domain.
Manufacturers of that software pay real people to design, produce and distribute it.
THAT's the correct behavior.
Where's the Picard facepalm picture when you need it...
Quand tu veux Zyxpsilon. Tes commentaires étaient parfait. Paylot est un peu attardé c'est tout LOL
After its copyright term expires it goes into the public domain.
It'll be cracked long before the copyright expires. I'm not worried.
Sure, I should act ethically. And if the ethical problem is a problem with a law - then the solution should be in the law. I'm a firm believer that fixing something at the root cause is far more effective than trying to mess around with the side effects.
Please list the rights you believe I should have, along with explanations.
After that, list the rights you believe copyright holders should have, along with explanations.
I've read the law. I am not a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice, but I know of only two ways for a work to enter public domain:
I know of no other way for a work to become public domain.
Strictly speaking, the law grants exclusive rights to the copyright holders - it does not grant rights to the public.
"Public domain" is, strictly speaking, a loss of those exclusive rights.
The rights are as follows (Circular 92, §106):
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Maybe you agree with that, maybe you don't. Maybe you think the rights should be changed.
But those are the rights set forth in copyright law.
Love them, hate them, say whatever you want about them. But please don't misrepresent them.
Look, I know it's hard to grasp, but I'll make it really simple
If you curb the rights granted to the public (2) in favor of the authors of works (1) then you have a loopsided situation that is not the intention of copyright.
Yes I feel like that when trying to explain the simplest things to you:
Do you dispute the intentional presence of the expiry of the copyright term?
Do you dispute the right of fair use?
Do you think that the entering of works into the public domain is just a silly accident only waiting to be corrected?
The copyright intentionally in full recognition of the effect it has is limited for good reason, such as not to extract too hefty a price from society. If you destroy this limitation for your own greed and sheer short sightedness and because its currently legal then you do not act ethically.
The benefit the law intends the public to enjoy should not be subject to chance.
Congratulations, you can google. Now if only you could actually understand the stuff you've surely read on wiki about fair use and public domain.
For one thing, the whole "beneficial nature of works for society thing" is generally referring to artsy things, not software (and most certainly, not games).
Second, the "public" never had any granted right to any work for copyright to take away. As much as you may wish it to be so, there was never a law that granted you rights which was then taken away by copyright. You never had any. Fair Use allows you to gain limited rights over copyrighted work until it becomes public domain (since you undoubtedly read it on wiki, pay special attention to the whole "fair use" thing being deliberately vague so the courts can do it case-by-case and that "fair use" has a legal meaning that's not open to your interpretation of what's fair).
I have no problems grasping the fact that you seem to be inventing imaginary rights the public supposedly has.
Those "rights" are not codified in any law I know of.
They are "rights" you want people to have.
Whether or not you have the power to grant rights is disputable .
Sure, it's the intention of copyright. It's in the original 1790 act:
It was a much shorter copyright (14 years), and the wording is different ("the sole right" instead of "the exclusive rights"), but the concept is the same.
Nope.
Yep.
It's worded as a limitation of the copyright, not as a new right.
So the answer is to ask for the laws to be changed. Which is pretty much what I said in the first place.
I sorry that I have to break this to you, but the copyright law is created and extended by the content mafiaa. They're the ones with lobbies and they're the ones who get in on the secret trade agreements like ACTA from which the public is barred. They're the ones who have two of their henchmen now at the top of the DOJ as the left and right legal hands of your elected president.
If you want to have an ethical relationship between the public and the authors, the change has to start here and now, with you and me and stardock and Brad. Change is not something you magick in by writing letters to your congressman and praying/waiting for better laws.
Also don't you think it's kinda contradictionary if you argue pages long with me about copyright only to finally agree to all points I raise that are internally consistent with my argumentation...
Copyright (as of 1790) was intended for sheet music. It is neither "intended" for books, music recordings, blog posts, twitter updates, statistical data, university papers and art. etc. That does not stop it from being applied to all those, including games.
And now you're arguing "oh but the publicly beneficial parts of copyright where't intended for what we do". Well sunny, you don't get to cherry pick the law.
Also I find it really demeaning to put games in one category... and arts and societally beneficial things in another. For one thing, it's not you who gets to decide that, it's the public. For another, you insulted a whole lot of game developers/designers in one sweep stroke by implying they create societally unimportant trash.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
