NationStates Jolt Archive

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/pc-gears-of-war-drm-causes-title-to-shut-down-starting-today.ars

Gamers who tried to play Gears of War on the PC Thursday ran into a slight snag: it seems that the digital certificate that allows the game to run expired on January 28, 2009. Basically that means if you keep your PC's clock up to date, you can no longer play the game. The official Epic forum is ablaze with complaints about this issue, as the still-kicking community becomes enraged.

Apparently, to protect themselves against the evil pirates trying to loot their games, the company has built an expiration date into their legally purchased game cds. And this is just being discovered for a 3 year old game, imagining how many more games are going to be failing this year or next because of expiration dates in DRM? It looks like PC game makers trying to "stop" pirates are doing a damn good job of encouraging them by making legally purchasing and using PC games increasingly frustrating. You know who doesn't have an expiration date on their GoW games? Pirates.

"All these forms of DRM are simply creating more technical hassles that I have to deal with as a legal customer. Meanwhile, cracks and keygens and other ways to steal BioShock are all over the file-sharing networks, and are actually less hassle than the legally purchased bits." - Jason Cross, Extreme Tech

I predict that game companies will give up this charade after about ten more years of it. Eventually it'll sink in that fear mongering only makes them lose customers. Eventually.

The irony, of course, is that they could be saving lots of money by not having any "security" protection whatsoever. Enough money that, perhaps, they wouldn't need to worry about pirates.

This is typical, and not surprising, sadly.
One can only hope that they will learn in time.

The good news is that it draws more and more people to the pirate parties out there,
and that they might gain enough power to create a more balanced view on this.

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT????

This DRM is so stupid it boggles the mind.

Question, can't each such of the gamers sue the company, creating a flurry of small lawsuits that drives it into the ground, causes the unemployment of hundreds, makes the owner bankrupt, and makes an example out of them so they learn not to screw with those superior to it? I want to see our boots on their faces!

Question, can't each such of the gamers sue the company, creating a flurry of small lawsuits that drives it into the ground, causes the unemployment of hundreds, makes the owner bankrupt, and makes an example out of them so they learn not to screw with those superior to it? I want to see our boots on their faces!

Pirates will be blamed, the courts will side with the software companies and we'll go back to another circle of wishful thinking and draconian anti-piracy measures.

Pirates will be blamed, the courts will side with the software companies and we'll go back to another circle of wishful thinking and draconian anti-piracy measures.

There's a limit to how much software company cock the courts will suck - this thing the companies are pulling is QUITE serious and I'm pretty sure it's illegal!

Question, can't each such of the gamers sue the company, creating a flurry of small lawsuits that drives it into the ground, causes the unemployment of hundreds, makes the owner bankrupt, and makes an example out of them so they learn not to screw with those superior to it? I want to see our boots on their faces!

Depends on the End User License Agreement, but in general, software companies protect themselves from litigation.

This type of poo usually happens when a marketing or sales division gains the upperhand in the power game at a software company. They will ignore the engineering, coding, technical departments warnings. Typically, marketing and sales departments are employed by dodo birds (being literal) who think they are smart.

As long as they can keep sleeping with investors, they don't have to please the customer.

Depends on the End User License Agreement, but in general, software companies protect themselves from litigation.

Then, they should start a piracy campaign against this company! Let us DESTROY IT!

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/pc-gears-of-war-drm-causes-title-to-shut-down-starting-today.ars



Apparently, to protect themselves against the evil pirates trying to loot their games, the company has built an expiration date into their legally purchased game cds. And this is just being discovered for a 3 year old game, imagining how many more games are going to be failing this year or next because of expiration dates in DRM? It looks like PC game makers trying to "stop" pirates are doing a damn good job of encouraging them by making legally purchasing and using PC games increasingly frustrating. You know who doesn't have an expiration date on their GoW games? Pirates.

"All these forms of DRM are simply creating more technical hassles that I have to deal with as a legal customer. Meanwhile, cracks and keygens and other ways to steal BioShock are all over the file-sharing networks, and are actually less hassle than the legally purchased bits." - Jason Cross, Extreme Tech

The best and most hassle free way of getting games is to pirate them. Congratulations games industry!

Anyone else find it hilarious this anti-piracy measure can be defeated by fiddling with your system clock? That's just brilliant.

I hate to play devil's advocate, because I loathe DRM as much as anyone else here, but if you read the full article it does say Epic is working with Microsoft to resolve the issue.

So this universal 3 year shutdown doesn't seem to have been their intent. I'm just taking a guess here, but I bet what happened is that the game dials home to verify its license key is valid, and a bug in the code caused it to return an expired result after this particular date.

Mind you, I still think DRM blows, and most types force you to play only if you have an Internet connection. While I don't think the publisher meant for this to happen, they are still to blame because this seems to have been a direct result of their use of DRM in the first place.

Man, that's like programming a car to stop starting once you've reached a certain mileage.


Smart, very smart.

(Reminds me of the anti-piracy clips they put on the legally purchased DVD which you can neither skip nor fast-forward. Pisses me off to no end - after all, I bought the frigging DVD! Annoying to no end.)

(Reminds me of the anti-piracy clips they put on the legally purchased DVD which you can neither skip nor fast-forward. Pisses me off to no end - after all, I bought the frigging DVD! Annoying to no end.)
Those are what I use my 100x FF on.

I hate to play devil's advocate, because I loathe DRM as much as anyone else here, but if you read the full article it does say Epic is working with Microsoft to resolve the issue.


I did read the whole article and I have two words for you: So what? This problem never should have existed in the first place. And it doesn't exist for pirated copies of the game. Software piracy: 10, Legally purchasing games: 0.

Then, they should start a piracy campaign against this company! Let us DESTROY IT!

So you don't want companies in general to make computer games anymore, is that it?

Those are what I use my 100x FF on.
(Reminds me of the anti-piracy clips they put on the legally purchased DVD which you can neither skip nor fast-forward.)
It doesn't work...

Question, can't each such of the gamers sue the company, creating a flurry of small lawsuits that drives it into the ground, causes the unemployment of hundreds, makes the owner bankrupt, and makes an example out of them so they learn not to screw with those superior to it? I want to see our boots on their faces!
You want me to get snot and spit and blood all over my shiny, new boots? No way!
Anyway, you don't really need to retaliate against someone shooting themselves in the foot. You just let them go on ruining themselves.

Just don't buy the games with DRM on - how many of you bought Spore.

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT????



Because they didn't do it intentionally. Apparently some programmer, somewhere made a mistake when they were putting in the DRM. It's called a bug, a glitch, a fuck-up, you know?

UbiSoft eventually abandoned the sheer hard drive shredding stupidity that is StarForce.

Who knows, maybe the companies'll wise up and drop DRM before the stupidity bankrupts them.

UbiSoft eventually abandoned the sheer hard drive shredding stupidity that is StarForce.

Who knows, maybe the companies'll wise up and drop DRM before the stupidity bankrupts them.

Can you show me the data that says they'll sell more product without DRM than with it?

That really does make me want to Vomit...

Fortunately, I hated Gears of War anyway(almost no story, and much much slower paced Halo Gameplay, blech), but Honestly, this Anti-Piracy Crusade has got to end before they drive everyone to piracy itself...

Dont they realize how the Crusades went for the Crusaders? It ended with all of them having to Abandon Judea...

Can you show me the data that says they'll sell more product without DRM than with it?

Is there data that shows whether DRM makes any noticeable difference in the first place?

Is there data that shows whether DRM makes any noticeable difference in the first place?

Not that I know of. But it would seem logical that it would be easier to pirate games when there were no DRM hindrances around, so please, prove them wrong.

Not that I know of. But it would seem logical that it would be easier to pirate games when there were no DRM hindrances around, so please, prove them wrong.

But at the same time the pirated versions don't have the DRM. The more obtrusive and annoying, it would seem logical that more likely it would be pirated.

It doesn't work...

I've never seen anything that can't be fast-forwarded past.

Because they didn't do it intentionally. Apparently some programmer, somewhere made a mistake when they were putting in the DRM. It's called a bug, a glitch, a fuck-up, you know?

Based on what evidence?

Not that I know of. But it would seem logical that it would be easier to pirate games when there were no DRM hindrances around, so please, prove them wrong.

That's not a logical proposition at all since the pirates don't crack the DRM.

But at the same time the pirated versions don't have the DRM. The more obtrusive and annoying, it would seem logical that more likely it would be pirated.

So they shouldn't try to protect their games from being pirated because that will make more people pirate them.
But the less DRM they have, the easier it is to pirate, and the more people will pirate.

...tell me again, why are they stupid enough to even make games?

...tell me again, why are they stupid enough to even make games?Why do companies do anything? To make money. :rolleyes:

That's not a logical proposition at all since the pirates don't crack the DRM.

What is SecuROM?

What is SecuROM?

Irrelevant to my assertion?

Why do companies do anything? To make money. :rolleyes:

And how do they make money? By selling products.

But here they're presented with a lose-lose scenario: Protect their product, and people won't buy it. Don't protect it, and people won't buy it.

So why are they stupid enough to make games? How profitable is it really?

Irrelevant to my assertion?

I doubt it.

I doubt it.

If you even had something that could be passed off as a point, maybe you would like to share it with the rest of the class.

So why are they stupid enough to make games? How profitable is it really?
Alot less profitable when they pay to license draconian protection software that drives away customers and reduces customer loyalty?

But here they're presented with a lose-lose scenario: Protect their product, and people won't buy it. Don't protect it, and people won't buy it. So why are they stupid enough to make games? How profitable is it really?More profitable if they don't have to license protection software.

If you even had something that could be passed off as a point, maybe you would like to share it with the rest of the class.
Nah, you chose to end that line of conversation and spam instead. That's your call.

Alot less profitable when they pay to license draconian protection software that drives away customers and reduces customer loyalty?
Can you show me that data?

More profitable if they don't have to license protection software.

Can you show me that data?

That really does make me want to Vomit...

Fortunately, I hated Gears of War anyway(almost no story, and much much slower paced Halo Gameplay, blech), but Honestly, this Anti-Piracy Crusade has got to end before they drive everyone to piracy itself...

Dont they realize how the Crusades went for the Crusaders? It ended with all of them having to Abandon Judea...
So you're saying that the Pope invented DRM as a way to keep the Turks from invading the Balkans? Well, it certainly is an interesting theory.

Nah, you chose to end that line of conversation and spam instead. That's your call.
That's a no. Got it.

Can you show me that data?
Unless you are being purposefully obtuse, I'm sure you recognize that they are paying money to license the protection software. And I am sure I can produce studies that show that profit is relative to customer loyalty. I am also sure you can't prove the contrary, in either direction: that draconian protection software increases a company's profits, or, lack of DRM reduces a company's profits.

That's a no. Got it.
Boy, you don't know the meaning of the word "conversation", do you.. OK. Answer my previous question, and I'll pretend that you're a grown-up, OK? Sounds fair?

What is SecuROM?

Unless you are being purposefully obtuse, I'm sure you recognize that they are paying money to license the protection software.
Yes...

And I am sure I can produce studies that show that profit is relative to customer loyalty.
Well?

I am also sure you can't prove the contrary,
I wouldn't even try to.


in either direction: that draconian protection software increases a company's profits, or, lack of DRM reduces a company's profits.
Well done. You've arrived at my question, that I've repeated several times now:

Are there any data that says they'll sell more product without DRM than with it?

I can edit it to be "make more of a profit" since that's more accurately what I'm asking.

Are there any data that says they'll make more profit without DRM than with it?

So run along now, find those studies, and show me.

So you're saying that the Pope invented DRM as a way to keep the Turks from invading the Balkans? Well, it certainly is an interesting theory.

Exactly, if the Pope had effectively protected his copyrights, those Pirating Turks would never have entered the Holy Land, lol...

(It was more an analogy for being Overzealous, but this works too, lol)

So they shouldn't try to protect their games from being pirated because that will make more people pirate them.
But the less DRM they have, the easier it is to pirate, and the more people will pirate.

No one's saying they shouldn't protect their games. We're saying that the way they're protecting them is actually preventing legitimate copies from playing. Take your strawman somewhere else please.

So they shouldn't try to protect their games from being pirated because that will make more people pirate them.
But the less DRM they have, the easier it is to pirate, and the more people will pirate.

...tell me again, why are they stupid enough to even make games?

Okay, the reasoning is as follows. Unobtrusive DRM schemes are remarkably trivial to crack. As a result, cracked versions of the game will be produced and distributed. However, little to no DRM does not inconvenience legitimate customers, and therefore more potential customers will buy the game.

Very obtrusive DRM also tends to be fairly easy to crack, meaning that cracked versions will still be distributed. However, extremely obtrusive DRM also pisses off legitimate customers no end, and will often drive them to pirate the game instead.

Basically, there are three segments of the market: the wholly legitimate users, who will always buy the game; the never legitimate users, who will always pirate the game; and the people who just want to play with a minimum of hassle. This last group is easily the biggest set. If they can buy and play the game easily and legally, they will do so. If DRM renders the purchased copy practically impossible to use, they will pirate it. As a result, minimal to no DRM helps ensure that the largest possible percentage of this group will buy the game.

There's also the same effect at work here with as with music - many people want to try a game out before buying it. If you make it easy for them to do so, they'll often buy either that game or sequels. If you make it very hard, then you will miss out on many of those potential customers altogether. This is more minimal with games, but probably still happens.

Smart, very smart.

(Reminds me of the anti-piracy clips they put on the legally purchased DVD which you can neither skip nor fast-forward. Pisses me off to no end - after all, I bought the frigging DVD! Annoying to no end.)

I think you just stumbled onto a great gimmick for the car companies. Now they would all have to commit to this. How about the cars we all buy just stop working after 100k miles. Everyone would have to buy a car every 5-6 years? Brilliant economic boost for the car companies.

I think you just stumbled onto a great gimmick for the car companies. Now they would all have to commit to this. How about the cars we all buy just stop working after 100k miles. Everyone would have to buy a car every 5-6 years? Brilliant economic boost for the car companies.

No, because people would work out a way of disabling that 'feature' within about 20 minutes.

However, I support it massively - getting people out of cars is a good thing, and that sounds like a nice way of going about it.

I think you just stumbled onto a great gimmick for the car companies. Now they would all have to commit to this. How about the cars we all buy just stop working after 100k miles. Everyone would have to buy a car every 5-6 years? Brilliant economic boost for the car companies.

Or everyone'll start riding Horse and Buggy, lol...Or pirating Cars, whichever comes first, lmao...

I think you just stumbled onto a great gimmick for the car companies. Now they would all have to commit to this. How about the cars we all buy just stop working after 100k miles. Everyone would have to buy a car every 5-6 years? Brilliant economic boost for the car companies.

Or, people will just start stealing cars.

Okay, the reasoning is as follows. Unobtrusive DRM schemes are remarkably trivial to crack. As a result, cracked versions of the game will be produced and distributed. However, little to no DRM does not inconvenience legitimate customers, and therefore more potential customers will buy the game.

Very obtrusive DRM also tends to be fairly easy to crack, meaning that cracked versions will still be distributed. However, extremely obtrusive DRM also pisses off legitimate customers no end, and will often drive them to pirate the game instead.

Basically, there are three segments of the market: the wholly legitimate users, who will always buy the game; the never legitimate users, who will always pirate the game; and the people who just want to play with a minimum of hassle. This last group is easily the biggest set. If they can buy and play the game easily and legally, they will do so. If DRM renders the purchased copy practically impossible to use, they will pirate it. As a result, minimal to no DRM helps ensure that the largest possible percentage of this group will buy the game.

There's also the same effect at work here with as with music - many people want to try a game out before buying it. If you make it easy for them to do so, they'll often buy either that game or sequels. If you make it very hard, then you will miss out on many of those potential customers altogether. This is more minimal with games, but probably still happens.
*Points to post above*

And that's how you do it. :fluffle::fluffle:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, and in an intelligent manner. Now, I'm not completely convinced because I haven't seen any numbers to support the theory that the group of people who belong in the last group are bigger than the group of pirates, but you've got me pretty close here. Thanks again.


(I'm kinda sad that I actually have to say thanks, but others have made it clear that there's no tolerance for questions in this thread...)

Boy, you don't know the meaning of the word "conversation", do you.. OK. Answer my previous question, and I'll pretend that you're a grown-up, OK? Sounds fair?

What is SecuROM?

SecuROM had nothing to do with the post you quoted when you put forward that question thus I have no idea what the fuck point you were even trying to convey. If you want me to answer, I will gladly make up some inane nonsense answer. If you don't like that series of events, you can say what you mean.


I wouldn't even try to.

So you thus have no evidence to support your position and are forcing the other side of a debate to effectively prove a negative. No, you lose.


So run along now, find those studies, and show me.
How about instead you prove your own assertion?
But, just for shits and giggles:
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/marketing-techniques/5474441-1.html
http://www.walkerinfo.com/knowledge-center/walker-library/article.asp?id=761

SecuROM had nothing to do with the post you quoted when you put forward that question thus I have no idea what the fuck point you were even trying to convey. If you want me to answer, I will gladly make up some inane nonsense answer. If you don't like that series of events, you can say what you mean.
That's not a logical proposition at all since the pirates don't crack the DRM.
Is SecuROM a form of DRM?


So you thus have no evidence to support your position and are forcing the other side of a debate to effectively prove a negative. No, you lose.
I lose? Lose what? And what is "my position"? I'm asking questions to get a better understanding of the issue, hence why I haven't forwarded any real "position". I've been asking for data, since you insinuate in the OP that DRM will create more pirates.


How about instead you prove your own assertion?
But, just for shits and giggles:
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/marketing-techniques/5474441-1.html
http://www.walkerinfo.com/knowledge-center/walker-library/article.asp?id=761
Because I haven't really forwarded any assertions. Nice to see that you deign to try to support your own ones though.

Is SecuROM a form of DRM?
Ok, I'm just going to quote the series here since I still have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.

Not that I know of. But it would seem logical that it would be easier to pirate games when there were no DRM hindrances around, so please, prove them wrong.

That's not a logical proposition at all since the pirates don't crack the DRM.

Now, what the fuck does "What is SecuROM?" have to do with that statement?

I lose? Lose what? And what is "my position"?
Can you show me the data that says they'll sell more product without DRM than with it?
Your continued position is that a product with DRM sells more.

Nice to see that you deign to try to support your own ones though.
Right, so I give you what you ask for and you not only obviously ignore them but you also talk down to me. Good job.

No one's saying they shouldn't protect their games. We're saying that the way they're protecting them is actually preventing legitimate copies from playing. Take your strawman somewhere else please.
"We have been notified of the issue and are working with Microsoft to get it resolved," an Epic Games community manager said in a post on the company's forums. "This was a surprise to us too. We aren't casting blame or chewing anyone out. We're trying to figure out how and why it happened so we can get it fixed."
http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26763641/gears-of-war-pc-crashes-on-certificate-expiration.html
So in that case... We're talking about a possible one-time glitch that have prevented them from playing, aren't we? Or are there other incidents of DRM actually preventing people from playing games?

Or are there other incidents of DRM actually preventing people from playing games?
We don't have a smiley of some one dying from laughter? Damn.
Is that rhetorical, or should I give you more links to proof that you will ignore?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26763641/gears-of-war-pc-crashes-on-certificate-expiration.html
So in that case... We're talking about a possible one-time glitch that have prevented them from playing, aren't we? Or are there other incidents of DRM actually preventing people from playing games?

One word -

Starforce.

Linky~ (http://www.edge-online.com/features/ten-most-annoying-drm-methods?page=0%2C3)

EDIT: You can also go to page 3 of that and see Steam, which prevented people from playing for hours on end because their servers were unable to handle the load when HL2 was released.

Ok, I'm just going to quote the series here since I still have no idea what fucking point you are trying to make.


Now, what the fuck does "What is SecuROM?" have to do with that statement?
DRM can include copy protection products, right? That makes it harder to pirate a game? That would be the "logical" thinking I'm refering to.

You disagree with that. You say that pirates "don't crack the DRM". So you must either be saying that the DRM does not include copy protection products and that DRM does not constitute an obstacle, however inefficient, against pirates.

So I ask you "What is SecuRom" because, to my knowledge, SecuROM is a type of DRM, and a copy protection product, designed to make it harder to pirate games. That would make it relevant - and in opposition - to what your apparent belief is.


Your continued position is that a product with DRM sells more.
So me posing a question now equals "taking a position"? Wow.

Right, so I give you what you ask for and you not only obviously ignore them but you also talk down to me. Good job.
Thank you. You deserve nothing more.

The first link wasn't very interesting, but the second one did bring something to the table. I wonder how it relates to computer games, as the companies on the list may be more dependent on professional clients than private ones, as well as needing to provide more available customer support. (Full time, perhaps?)

One word -

Starforce.

Linky~ (http://www.edge-online.com/features/ten-most-annoying-drm-methods?page=0%2C3)

EDIT: You can also go to page 3 of that and see Steam, which prevented people from playing for hours on end because their servers were unable to handle the load when HL2 was released.

Thank you, especially for the link.
I had forgotten about Starforce, which is silly since it's even been mentioned before. :wink:

I was unaware of the problem with Steam though.

We don't have a smiley of some one dying from laughter? Damn.
Is that rhetorical, or should I give you more links to proof that you will ignore?

See, there's your problem again. You don't provide anything, and you're not willing to debate, only to pontificate.

I never get why you bother to hang around the forum, but I guess hearing your keyboard click must make a pleasing sound to you. And you wondered why I wanted to withdraw from the conversation with you earlier.

DRM can include copy protection products, right? That makes it harder to pirate a game? That would be the "logical" thinking I'm refering to.

You disagree with that. You say that pirates "don't crack the DRM". So you must either be saying that the DRM does not include copy protection products and that DRM does not constitute an obstacle, however inefficient, against pirates.

Obviously your complete and utter lack of knowledge on the subject you are trying to argue about has led you to put forth a false dilemma.

Crackers crack the copy protection. They may pirate them as well, but that doesn't mean pirates crack games. Pirated games are already cracked beforehand, or have cracks made that are downloaded separately.

Obviously your complete and utter lack of knowledge on the subject you are trying to argue about has led you to put forth a false dilemma.
Thank God you were here to enlighten me! :eek2:


Wait... No, you weren't. Not before now, at least. Guess you were to busy pretending to be above answering my questions.

Crackers crack the copy protection. They may pirate them as well, but that doesn't mean pirates crack games. Pirated games are already cracked beforehand, or have cracks made that are downloaded separately.

I see... But how does this make it illogical to think that it would be easier to pirate games if there are no DRM hindrances around? I mean, then you wouldn't even need the crakers to pirate the games?

Thank you, especially for the link.
I had forgotten about Starforce, which is silly since it's even been mentioned before. :wink:

I was unaware of the problem with Steam though.

It's on page 3 - when HL2 was released, the Steam servers were so bogged down by the load of requested applications, it took some people 6 hours to get through so they could play a game they just bought.

By the way, pirated versions of HL2 rerouted the activation back to your own PC, which then responded that it was legitimate... to itself.

As far as Starforce... I had to call a tech on that one. I am not that computer savvy, and it made my cd-rw quit working. He had to remove the Starforce drivers, and then had to change the address or identity of the drive or something like that to get it to work again. It took him a little over an hour and I lost $70 on the deal.

It's on page 3 - when HL2 was released, the Steam servers were so bogged down by the load of requested applications, it took some people 6 hours to get through so they could play a game they just bought.
Which is bad, but it's not that bad. I'd be more worried about the last sentence in the part about Steam: "should the rights server ever go away your game could go with it."

As far as Starforce... I had to call a tech on that one. I am not that computer savvy, and it made my cd-rw quit working. He had to remove the Starforce drivers, and then had to change the address or identity of the drive or something like that to get it to work again. It took him a little over an hour and I lost $70 on the deal.

And you should be able to get reimbursed for those expenses.

I see... But how does this make it illogical to think that it would be easier to pirate games if there are no DRM hindrances around? I mean, then you wouldn't even need the crakers to pirate the games?

Pirates. Don't. Crack. Games. DRM or no DRM, one is not more hindering to pirates than the other because pirates do not crack the protection on the games. Crackers do. I'm sure without DRM, crackers would have it much easier - by not having to do it. Pirates would see no difference.

However, if your assertion is that non-DRM games would be easier to acquire than DRM games, you might want to be more specific about your position. And also, no, there is no evidence of that. Ease of acquiring a game is directly proportional to how popular it is, not how draconian its DRM is.

Which is bad, but it's not that bad. I'd be more worried about the last sentence in the part about Steam: "should the rights server ever go away your game could go with it."
Technically true. But that is also true with a very large number of games and they arn't as obvious as Steam only games. And at least Valve doesn't have a history of thumbing their nose at their customers.

And you should be able to get reimbursed for those expenses.

Well, I called the company, and apparently the EULA that I agreed too said that the company was only liable up to the cost of the game itself, which I got reimbursed for. If memory serves, it was like $35.

I wasn't going to hire a lawyer and get in a tizzy about $70. Besides, while the software he had was going through the system, he disabled autorun and turned me on to some good free software to make my system better, and... get around some of that stuff.

One word -

Starforce.

Linky~ (http://www.edge-online.com/features/ten-most-annoying-drm-methods?page=0%2C3)

EDIT: You can also go to page 3 of that and see Steam, which prevented people from playing for hours on end because their servers were unable to handle the load when HL2 was released.
from the article:
BioShock, one of the oldest games in this cyclical legacy of SecuROM complaining, recently added a fifth step—removing install limits after the product has done the majority of its sales.
This ^^ seems to me like it would or should be the wave of the future.

Since I'm not a gamer and don't download music, I have not had much experience with DRM problems, but I have thought for a long time that the copyright-holding companies are being idiots about the whole thing. It just is not feasible to keep up the kind of penny-by-penny deathgrip on usage that they dream of, and I think this just goes to show that.

Products like games and music and similar entertainment products just are not that controllable over long periods of time. It is better, in my opinion, for the original sellers to make the bulk of their money on new product unit sales, while the newness is fresh, then start to relax restrictions for private use while maintaining licensing restrictions for public and commercial use -- pretty much the way it has traditionally been with print media (though corporate wonk morons in publishing would like to change that, too; blithering idiots).

This would require the game companies to be always putting out new product, and to accept that each product will have a limited profit-life, but that seems like it would be preferable to the current BS.

Pirates. Don't. Crack. Games. DRM or no DRM, one is not more hindering to pirates than the other because pirates do not crack the protection on the games. Crackers do. I'm sure without DRM, crackers would have it much easier - by not having to do it. Pirates would see no difference.
I understand that it's the crackers that crack games, that's swell. But to repeat myself, the pirates would have to get their hands on a cracked game, no?

Without DRM - including copy protections - they could just get any game and spread it around.

With DRM, you need a cracker first, then you can spread that edition around.

And also, no, there is no evidence of that. Ease of acquiring a game is directly proportional to how popular it is, not how draconian its DRM is.
But we don't really have any evidence either way on the effect of DRM on the profits of the companies, do we...

Well, I called the company, and apparently the EULA that I agreed too said that the company was only liable up to the cost of the game itself, which I got reimbursed for. If memory serves, it was like $35.
Sucky. And possibly something that wouldn't be accepted in a court. (At least, around here I believe it would be shot down, and the company would have to cover your costs of your legal assistance)

At least it worked out for you in the end :wink:

Sucky. And possibly something that wouldn't be accepted in a court. (At least, around here I believe it would be shot down, and the company would have to cover your costs of your legal assistance)

At least it worked out for you in the end :wink:

Yeah, now I buy the game, never open it, and just download it from somewhere. It's safer, in my opinion.

Yeah, now I buy the game, never open it, and just download it from somewhere. It's safer, in my opinion.

Not the worst philosophy I've heard! :tongue:

Not the worst philosophy I've heard! :tongue:

Especially with SecuRom, running the cracked version improves the speed tremendously. It was common in the older SecuRoms (dunno about the latest and greatest - haven't bought a game in a while), that the whole game would suddenly come to a halt while it spun up the CD drive to check and make sure the CD was still inserted.

Yeah, now I buy the game, never open it, and just download it from somewhere. It's safer, in my opinion.

lmfao, the sad part is, thats probably true, you dont run the risk of DRM problems, and you have proof that youve bought the game if someone comes looking, lol

lmfao, the sad part is, thats probably true, you dont run the risk of DRM problems, and you have proof that youve bought the game if someone comes looking, lol

Well, what are they going to do - tell me I stole a game that I already own? They'll be laughed out of court. In fact, the judge would probably give them a contempt of court for a frivolous lawsuit for good measure.

Yeah, now I buy the game, never open it, and just download it from somewhere. It's safer, in my opinion.

Still not sure it's legal. Even if it's not piracy your still violating the EULA.

Still not sure it's legal. Even if it's not piracy your still violating the EULA.

Well, in that case, I'll have to start removing the EULA's from the games I download. Because, having never opened the game, nor can they prove that I agreed to the EULA, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

WHAT
THE
FUCK!?

Are they TRYING to steal EA's "most hated video game company" spot?

Is there data that shows whether DRM makes any noticeable difference in the first place?

Ever sicne I installed Spore, I've been unable to play Knights Of Honor. Uninstalling and reinstalling it didn't help one bit.

WHAT
THE
FUCK!?

Are they TRYING to steal EA's "most hated video game company" spot?

That is setting the bar pretty high.....I still havent forgiven them for stealing the NFL2k series from me...

Well, in that case, I'll have to start removing the EULA's from the games I download. Because, having never opened the game, nor can they prove that I agreed to the EULA, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Legally you have no right to use the software unless you do agree to the terms of the EULA. Therefore (I think) if you're using the software your bound by the terms of the EULA whether or not you agreed to them or not.

I understand that it's the crackers that crack games, that's swell. But to repeat myself, the pirates would have to get their hands on a cracked game, no?

Without DRM - including copy protections - they could just get any game and spread it around.

Stardock has no DRM schemes in any of its games, and Sins of a Solar Empire was one of its highest selling games. The only known case of piracy came courtesy of a dick move by DRM company StarForce providing download links to its games trying to make a claim as to why DRM is necessary.

With DRM, you need a cracker first, then you can spread that edition around.

Not only can DRMs be circumvented by pirates, they instead tend to alienate legitimate users. Spore is SecuROM protected and is not only a subject of the typical consumer aggravation involving SecuROM, it was also the most pirated game of 2008.

Spore And The Great DRM Backlash (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091400885.html)

But we don't really have any evidence either way on the effect of DRM on the profits of the companies, do we...

Now here's a few.

On a side note, it took no less than Sporegate to make me add a page to Uncyclopedia. I don't know if the mods place it in the same Neverlink category as Encyclopedia Dramatica, so no link shall be added unless a mod says so.

*Points to post above*

And that's how you do it. :fluffle::fluffle:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me, and in an intelligent manner. Now, I'm not completely convinced because I haven't seen any numbers to support the theory that the group of people who belong in the last group are bigger than the group of pirates, but you've got me pretty close here. Thanks again.


(I'm kinda sad that I actually have to say thanks, but others have made it clear that there's no tolerance for questions in this thread...)

Ooh, fluffle! :fluffle:

It's quite possibly true that the third group is smaller than the group of pirates, but that is somewhat irrelevant. What is important is that a) it is larger than the first group, which is almost certainly true, and b) that any game which can be played can be cracked, so the pirates will always be able to get their hands on it. This means that DRM doesn't stop piracy, but it only convinces more of the undecided middle ground to turn to piracy, as it is a lot less of a hassle.

As long as it is possible to run programs on a computer, piracy will be possible, and DRM will be crackable. Trying to prevent piracy by technical means is therefore impossible. The best method is to make the experience of legitimately purchasing and playing games as easy and flawless as possible, which means minimal to no DRM. This drives less people away from the legal product.

It also has the nice side effect of saving you all this time and money spent developing ineffective DRM schemes.

But we don't really have any evidence either way on the effect of DRM on the profits of the companies, do we...
Which, and what a surprise, has nothing to do with what I said. Popularity of a game is completely irrelevant to whether or not DRM effects profit margin.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26763641/gears-of-war-pc-crashes-on-certificate-expiration.html
So in that case... We're talking about a possible one-time glitch that have prevented them from playing, aren't we? Or are there other incidents of DRM actually preventing people from playing games?

You actually...didn't know? Oh.

Ever sicne I installed Spore, I've been unable to play Knights Of Honor. Uninstalling and reinstalling it didn't help one bit.

Context. Gravlen wanted proof that removing DRM would increase legitimate purchases, and I countered by asking if there was proof that DRM had a significant effect on piracy in the first place.

While it would be interesting to hear about issues that occasionally DRM inflicts on users, that wasn't the purpose of my post.

Gravlen wanted proof that removing DRM would increase legitimate purchases, and I countered by asking if there was proof that DRM had a significant effect on piracy in the first place.

Whole removing DRM may or may not increase purchases, I swear that adding it to Spore sure as hell decreased future purchases -- never again will I buy an EA game.

That's not a logical proposition at all since the pirates don't crack the DRM.

I submit that there is no purpose to putting locks on my doors, because thieves can pick locks.

Whole removing DRM may or may not increase purchases, I swear that adding it to Spore sure as hell decreased future purchases -- never again will I buy an EA game.

Interestingly enough, I keep hearing this and I keep seeing EA cranking out the hits. People are unsurprisingly full of shit with these kinds of assertions.

I submit that there is no purpose to putting locks on my doors, because thieves can pick locks.

But would you support locks that punch you in the face whenever you unlock them?

Interestingly enough, I keep hearing this and I keep seeing EA cranking out the hits. People are unsurprisingly full of shit with these kinds of assertions.

But how many times has EA done something as despicable as sporegate?

But would you support locks that punch you in the face whenever you unlock them?

Punch you in the face? Locks are inherently inconvenient. It's possible to lock yourself out, or for the lock to break, or the key to break, or various other problems.

You ever had to go to the bathroom really bad and got to your house or apartment door and it was locked? Did that make you stop locking your door? Or do you realize that protecting your shit is worth a little inconvenience?

Companies certainly need to work on the anti-piracy policies. So do stores need to work on their anti-theft policies. However, they aren't going to do away with them. It's full-on nonsense to suggest the best way to prevent piracy is to do nothing. If that were true, you would never lock your doors.

Your logic doesn't follow. So if you want to make this claim, you're going to have to show that companies will make more money by not having anti-piracy locks.

But how many times has EA done something as despicable as sporegate?

Heh. Well, I've seen the backlash for EA and other companies pretty frequently, actually. People like you will always be going on hyperbolous tirades. I submit the current thread as evidence. This is a three-year-old game that has a bug. They've admitted the bug. They're fixing the bug. Apparently, to some people that equates to a rapidly descending sky.

Interestingly enough, I keep hearing this and I keep seeing EA cranking out the hits. People are unsurprisingly full of shit with these kinds of assertions.

Idk, just because something is popular, doesnt mean the company that puts it out is popular...

Just because an Artist makes a great Album, and it sells...Doesnt mean the Record company isnt Universally Hated....

Prince I think would typify that, lol...

Idk, just because something is popular, doesnt mean the company that puts it out is popular...

Just because an Artist makes a great Album, and it sells...Doesnt mean the Record company isnt Universally Hated....

Prince I think would typify that, lol...

And? If I'm a company and my games make a fuckload of money. You can rake me across the coals all day. I'll dry my tears with thousand dollar bills.

Legally you have no right to use the software unless you do agree to the terms of the EULA. Therefore (I think) if you're using the software your bound by the terms of the EULA whether or not you agreed to them or not.

Don't I? I bought it, I own it, and I have agreed to no such stipulation. In short, I have agreed to nothing except to exchange $$ for video games.

Don't I? I bought it, I own it, and I have agreed to no such stipulation. In short, I have agreed to nothing except to exchange $$ for video games.

Bullshit. Legally you agreed by using the product. When buying a service, the only obligation the vendor has is to make the terms of service readily available to you, in order for you to be legally considered to have agreed to them. The actual request that you agree to their various legal documents is just extra CYA. You don't own the product. You have a license to use it.

Similarly, when you log on to use a computer at work, you're agree to certain terms whether you've signed a document with those terms or not. This is, in fact, something I frequently have to explain in classes, because people are freaking out about signature security. The fact is if you do something under your login, you are responsible for what you did.

I didn't know is not a particularly good defense in court.

And? If I'm a company and my games make a fuckload of money. You can rake me across the coals all day. I'll dry my tears with thousand dollar bills.

And that would be why people hate EA's guts with a passion in a Nutshell, lol...

I don't know how relevant the following three comments will be to the discussion, but here goes.

1) I've been trying for years to transfer my collection of games which are on CD to either play from the hard drive or (now) USB sticks. Because of copy protection, it turns out there is no easy or good way to do this. As a legitimate gamer who has paid retail or used prices for all of my titles, I'm a little miffed that I don't have freedom to increase my convenience and performance by placing the data for the titles on USB sticks. So if I could find a "cracked" version of a game which I already paid for that would operate how I want it to, I would download in a heartbeat. I see no moral quandary there.

2) Steam. I love the concept of Steam but the execution has been lacking. At this point I might not buy a third party product over Steam which also has a retail CD equivalent. I will continue to buy Valve games over Steam. The problem with third party games is that Valve has to make special versions of the executable to defeat the internal copy protection. This makes the game much harder to mod, in fact most mods do not even have a Steam compatible equivalent, and impossible to use trainers (though I'm not sure if trainers actually work anyway, because in five years downloading trainers, I've only ever had a slim few work correctly.) I consider mods and trainers to be things I have a right to use if I pay money for the base software, so designing a special game version which is incompatible with those addons smacks of false advertising.

3) DRM with multi-machine activation licenses. I actually agree with this; in my current circumstances I don't foresee reactivating a game 5 times for five different hardware configurations, but I know people who have legitimate reasons to do so. But this is the same technology Windows uses for XP activations and serves as a pretty good defense against real pirates.

And that would be why people hate EA's guts with a passion in a Nutshell, lol...

EA's only responsibility is to keep creating games that make money. It's the function of a company. They are making money and they're doing their best to make it so they continue to produce games.

Unfortunately, because of the people who pirate, those of us who don't are going to be inconvenienced, not unlike theives and murderers making us use locks and avoid dark alleys. Personally, I'm willing to be inconvenienced because it's better than companies not being able to keep putting out awesome games.

But I'm silly like that. I'm one of those people who buys music, movies, and games, even though he knows how to get them just as easily by stealing them.

I know it offends all those people out there desperately looking for an excuse to steal, but the fact is it's still stealing.

maybe we should go back to the days of shareware...wolfenstein 3d was the bomb yo

EA's only responsibility is to keep creating games that make money. It's the function of a company.
True, but but that being your only concern, is not a very popular position...


Unfortunately, because of the people who pirate, those of us who don't are going to be inconvenienced, not unlike theives and murderers making us use locks and avoid dark alleys.


I dont recall Locks ever completely screwing up the Mechanism of your door....Or other doors in your house for that matter...I also dont recall those theives and murderers forcing you from the alleys against your will...

Bullshit. Legally you agreed by using the product. When buying a service, the only obligation the vendor has is to make the terms of service readily available to you, in order for you to be legally considered to have agreed to them. The actual request that you agree to their various legal documents is just extra CYA. You don't own the product. You have a license to use it.

Not at all. EULAs are difficult to make stand up in court period, even if the user agrees. If the user does not agree, then it makes it even more shaky.

In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the court held that the EULA was enforceable because the user clicked on the agreement button when installing the software, thereby agreeing to an enforceable contract.

In a similar vein, in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., the court held that, because the user was able to download and install the software without first having to view or agree to the license agreement, that the agreement was unenforceable.

Similarly, when you log on to use a computer at work, you're agree to certain terms whether you've signed a document with those terms or not. This is, in fact, something I frequently have to explain in classes, because people are freaking out about signature security. The fact is if you do something under your login, you are responsible for what you did.

I didn't know is not a particularly good defense in court.

But I do know. The case law is with me.

Not at all. EULAs are difficult to make stand up in court period, even if the user agrees. If the user does not agree, then it makes it even more shaky.

In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the court held that the EULA was enforceable because the user clicked on the agreement button when installing the software, thereby agreeing to an enforceable contract.

In a similar vein, in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., the court held that, because the user was able to download and install the software without first having to view or agree to the license agreement, that the agreement was unenforceable.



But I do know. The case law is with me.

And you're saying to didn't view a license agreement? Like I said, the law states they have to make the agreement available to you. It has to be reasonable that you were aware you were agreeing to it. Both of those cases support that.

Are you honestly claiming you are unaware of the license?

Meanwhile, I take it you are abandoning your initial claim? Because you didn't say you are licensing the software but the terms of that license are open because they didn't submit them to you. You said you are under no obligation because the software is yours.

True, but but that being your only concern, is not a very popular position...



I dont recall Locks ever completely screwing up the Mechanism of your door....Or other doors in your house for that matter...I also dont recall those theives and murderers forcing you from the alleys against your will...

Then you aren't very familiar with locks. The locks on my house are designed so that the only way in is the front door. The back door has a lock that cannot be opened from the outside. Locks break. Keys break. Keys get lost. Lots of things happen. They are inconvenient, even dangerous on occasion. We, however take some precautions because in the overall it helps to protect us.

As to that last bit, I'll assume you have a point and just didn't make it clearly.

Then you aren't very familiar with locks. The locks on my house are designed so that the only way in is the front door. The back door has a lock that cannot be opened from the outside. Locks break. Keys break. Keys get lost. Lots of things happen. They are inconvenient, even dangerous on occasion. We, however take some precautions because in the overall it helps to protect us.

As to that last bit, I'll assume you have a point and just didn't make it clearly.

Sounds like your just a little too overzealous with your locks....Deadbolt, lol...solver of aforementioned problems...


And the point was that Avoiding Dark Alleys isnt really the same as complying with a DRM...

And you're saying to didn't view a license agreement? Like I said, the law states they have to make the agreement available to you. It has to be reasonable that you were aware you were agreeing to it. Both of those cases support that.

However, in both cases it was the fact that the agreement was given that was important. In any case, in our little hypothetical scenario, no, I would never have viewed it, having removed it prior to any installation. Since I never viewed it and never agreed to it, it's unenforceable.

Are you honestly claiming you are unaware of the license?

I'm aware there might be a license, but I'm unaware what it says, and I certainly didn't agree to it.

Meanwhile, I take it you are abandoning your initial claim? Because you didn't say you are licensing the software but the terms of that license are open because they didn't submit them to you. You said you are under no obligation because the software is yours.

I don't even know what this paragraph is about. Which initial claim are you referring to?

However, in both cases it was the fact that the agreement was given that was important. In any case, in our little hypothetical scenario, no, I would never have viewed it, having removed it prior to any installation. Since I never viewed it and never agreed to it, it's unenforceable.

If you removed it, then you're liable and you know it. You can't circumvent the license and claim you were unaware of it.

The agreement was given when you decided to use software with a license you are aware of and had such access to that you had to remove it to avoid it.

I'm aware there might be a license, but I'm unaware what it says, and I certainly didn't agree to it.

Because you removed it. Putting your fingers in your ears is not a valid defense either. And you don't have the caselaw to support that it is.

I don't even know what this paragraph is about. Which initial claim are you referring to?

The claim where you said you own the software. You don't remember your posts? You don't own the software. You license it. You exchanged money for a particular license. An enforceable license. A license you had to intentionally remove in an electronic version of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalala".

Since you have the caselaw on your side. Give me your email address and the software you've not agreed to the license on.

I'll notify the vendor. I mean, they've got no recourse, right?

Stardock has no DRM schemes in any of its games, and Sins of a Solar Empire was one of its highest selling games. The only known case of piracy came courtesy of a dick move by DRM company StarForce providing download links to its games trying to make a claim as to why DRM is necessary.


Not only can DRMs be circumvented by pirates, they instead tend to alienate legitimate users. Spore is SecuROM protected and is not only a subject of the typical consumer aggravation involving SecuROM, it was also the most pirated game of 2008.

Spore And The Great DRM Backlash (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091400885.html)

Now here's a few.
There's some indicators there, but nothing that brings us closer to my original question really.

Which, and what a surprise, has nothing to do with what I said. Popularity of a game is completely irrelevant to whether or not DRM effects profit margin.
*Sigh*

Context is key.
You actually...didn't know? Oh.
Nope. Contrary to popular belief, there are things I don't know as well. :wink:


Context. Gravlen wanted proof that removing DRM would increase legitimate purchases, and I countered by asking if there was proof that DRM had a significant effect on piracy in the first place.
Indeed. And I haven't seen any good data on either side of that argument yet.

I haven't seen any proper research in this field, and it would be interesting to find some.

If you removed it, then you're liable and you know it. You can't circumvent the license and claim you were unaware of it.

Being aware of and agreeing to are two different animals. By your logic, every piece of software ever made has a license agreement that's fully enforceable because every piece of software ever made has a license agreement, and the defendants should know that.

The agreement was given when you decided to use software with a license you are aware of and had such access to that you had to remove it to avoid it.

There's that phrase - that I am aware of. Awareness is not the same as agreement. In any case, they would have to prove that I was aware of the agreement, which I never agreed to, and I believe I have the right to protection from self-incrimination. Last I heard, they can't subpoena your mind.

Because you removed it. Putting your fingers in your ears is not a valid defense either. And you don't have the caselaw to support that it is.

Blah blah blah. Read above about awareness vs agreement and proof of awareness.

The claim where you said you own the software. You don't remember your posts? You don't own the software. You license it.

So are you saying then that I buy the CDs and the packaging, but they let me borrow the data? Fair enough, but even if that's the case, I am still only bound by standard copyright law.

Since you have the caselaw on your side. Give me your email address and the software you've not agreed to the license on.

I'll notify the vendor. I mean, they've got no recourse, right?

That would be funny, to see them try to make a case that I stole software that I bought. Any one of the judges down here that know me would get a kick out of it.

That would be funny, to see them try to make a case that I stole software that I bought. Any one of the judges down here that know me would get a kick out of it.

Good. Give me the information. As you well know, companies have won many cases from people who gave them money for a particular license and then didn't follow it.

As far as caselaw, link to the cases and give the specific parts of the decisions you think support your premise.

Being aware of and agreeing to are two different animals. By your logic, every piece of software ever made has a license agreement that's fully enforceable because every piece of software ever made has a license agreement, and the defendants should know that.

The ProCD decision held that the license was agreed to simply by being in the box and that there is a procompetition reason for enforcing licensess.

There's that phrase - that I am aware of. Awareness is not the same as agreement. In any case, they would have to prove that I was aware of the agreement, which I never agreed to, and I believe I have the right to protection from self-incrimination. Last I heard, they can't subpoena your mind.

You cannot avoid the agreement. It doesn't work that way. You've already demonstrated here, that you're restricted to the terms, because you've admitted to actively avoiding the agreement.


Blah blah blah. Read above about awareness vs agreement and proof of awareness.

The proof of awareness is that you actively avoided the license by your own admission.

So are you saying then that I buy the CDs and the packaging, but they let me borrow the data? Fair enough, but even if that's the case, I am still only bound by standard copyright law.

They let you license the software. They could put in something that automatically deletes or makes it useless, legally. And legally you are not allowed to decompile it in most cases. If it was actually yours you could do whatever you like with it.

Similarly, I can't put a song in my commercial even if I bought it on youTube because that is not the license I own.

Seriously, are you really claiming you're a lawyer and you don't know you purchase a license and what that entails? Come on.

*Sigh*

Context is key.


You know what makes more sense than your counterarguments?

http://www.icanhasforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/star-wars-darth-vader-sense.jpg

You ever had to go to the bathroom really bad and got to your house or apartment door and it was locked? Did that make you stop locking your door? Or do you realize that protecting your shit is worth a little inconvenience?

There are quite a few instances where DRM rendered legitimate games unplayable. That's more than a "little inconvenience".

Companies certainly need to work on the anti-piracy policies. So do stores need to work on their anti-theft policies. However, they aren't going to do away with them. It's full-on nonsense to suggest the best way to prevent piracy is to do nothing. If that were true, you would never lock your doors.

Twice now I've been told that I want to do away with anti-piracy policies. I really wish I wasn't the last to know about this, I just thought I wanted DRM that didn't punish the buyer!

Your logic doesn't follow. So if you want to make this claim, you're going to have to show that companies will make more money by not having anti-piracy locks.

Since that's not what I'm arguing, I most certainly do not have to show that.

http://www.icanhasforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/star-wars-darth-vader-sense.jpg

Why doesnt that picture make sense? Vader is obviously thirsty and is getting water...seems pretty straight forward to me, lol....

Nope. Contrary to popular belief, there are things I don't know as well. :wink:

Shh! If you stumble. They’re gonna eat you alive.

Indeed. And I haven't seen any good data on either side of that argument yet.

I haven't seen any proper research in this field, and it would be interesting to find some.

I found this (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html) an interesting read.

The ProCD decision held that the license was agreed to simply by being in the box and that there is a procompetition reason for enforcing licensess.

However, he had to open the box to see the license, and had opportunity to return the software after viewing and disagreeing. Never opening the box means that it's impossible to view the license.

You cannot avoid the agreement. It doesn't work that way. You've already demonstrated here, that you're restricted to the terms, because you've admitted to actively avoiding the agreement.

So, if someone sends me a contract in the mail, and I deliberately place it on a high bookshelf and don't read it or sign it, I've agreed to it?

The proof of awareness is that you actively avoided the license by your own admission.

Well then I will be sure to limit my admissions in the future.

They let you license the software. They could put in something that automatically deletes or makes it useless, legally. And legally you are not allowed to decompile it in most cases. If it was actually yours you could do whatever you like with it.

Within the bounds and limits of copyright law. This covers unlawful distribution, public displays, etc...

Similarly, I can't put a song in my commercial even if I bought it on youTube because that is not the license I own.

No, it's public display - not allowable by copyright law.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if you mean you're going to buy a song, put in a commercial, and upload it to YouTube, or if you're going to buy a song from YouTube and put it in your commercial. I'm slightly confused.

Seriously, are you really claiming you're a lawyer and you don't know you purchase a license and what that entails? Come on.

Where did I claim that I was a lawyer?

*snip*

My 2 cts. All software commercial or not is licensed, some have buttons where you click agree others don't. As long as the license is distributed with the program you are bound to respect it as long as the terms are legal. If the license was not distributed with the program I think you would have to argue that you were unaware one existed.

Arguing that the license doesn't apply to you won't get you anywhere.

However, the scope and legality of the term of the license are open to interpretation to the court. In some jurisdictions ( Canada ) you have a right to make backups of software as long as you own it. I think that claiming that you were exercising that right (assuming you have it) would be the strongest case. And you could try to argue that any terms in the license forbidding it don't apply to you because they are illegal where you are.

Summary:
All software has licenses.
Those terms may or may not be legal.

You know what makes more sense than your counterarguments?

*Picspam*

Counteragruments? Are you even in this thread?

I get why you feel the need to resport to pointless spam again and again. And why you think I "Take a position" when I ask a question, and "lose" when I make a statement.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but that was obviously a mistake. We're done here. We can try again when you actually do grow up.

Shh! If you stumble. They’re gonna eat you alive. They need to remember to add barbeque sauce, or they'll complain about how I taste like Alligator. :p


I found this (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html) an interesting read.

Thanks, looks interesting at first glance. I'll take a look at that later :)

They need to remember to add barbeque sauce, or they'll complain about how I taste like Alligator. :p



Actually, Alligator is pretty good...kind of like salty chicken, lol...

People like you will always be going on hyperbolous tirades.

"People like you" are usually fightin' words. Even when attached to something value-neutral ("People like you always eat sandwiches") they put the person addressed into a nebulous "outsider" category with the implication that there may well be other, equally "outsider", things they do.

So, while "hyperbolous tirade" is a negative comment on an argument, and so not necessarily actionable, the "people like you" makes it personal, which makes it a flame. Yellow card.

Indeed. And I haven't seen any good data on either side of that argument yet.

I haven't seen any proper research in this field, and it would be interesting to find some.

You're also implying that a lack of DRM actually decreases software sales, and I brought up Stardock as example of how that suggestion is not true.

Man, that's like programming a car to stop starting once you've reached a certain mileage.


Smart, very smart.

(Reminds me of the anti-piracy clips they put on the legally purchased DVD which you can neither skip nor fast-forward. Pisses me off to no end - after all, I bought the frigging DVD! Annoying to no end.)

It doesn't work...And the ironic thing is that what does work is using illegal software to watch the DVD. You can use VLC with the dvd decoding library to skip straight to where ever you want.

Not that I know of. But it would seem logical that it would be easier to pirate games when there were no DRM hindrances around, so please, prove them wrong.

This is the wrong thing to think. Piracy will happen, no two ways about it. It doesn't matter what fancy DRM you put in. People will find a way around it, and it will be distributed, at the same rate that it would be if there wasn't any DRM at all.

All it does is increase your production costs and ruin your reputation among the legit buyers when it goes balls up. Some companies willingly remove DRM after a fixed period, or ship without. They still have piracy problems true, but their legit buyers love them for it.

Can you show me that data?

Can you show the data that proves the more difficult the DRM, the less people pirate it, or the longer they take to crack it?

Even the most draconian version of Starforce DRM got cracked with workarounds in a handful of hours of the official release. Example: X-3.

DRM is nothing more than a failed placebo.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/sidebar/909182374/26763641/gears-of-war-pc-crashes-on-certificate-expiration.html
So in that case... We're talking about a possible one-time glitch that have prevented them from playing, aren't we? Or are there other incidents of DRM actually preventing people from playing games?

SecuROM was famous for not only preventing people from playing games, but deliberately messing with the firmware of their DVD players, eventually causing it to not only degrade in performance, but eventually stop working entirely. SecuROMs response was "It's all the pirates fault! All that evidence against us is planted! If your DVD player doesn't work anymore, you're a pirate!"

Guess what happened? Lawsuit country.

SecuROM was famous for not only preventing people from playing games, but deliberately messing with the firmware of their DVD players, eventually causing it to not only degrade in performance, but eventually stop working entirely. SecuROMs response was "It's all the pirates fault! All that evidence against us is planted! If your DVD player doesn't work anymore, you're a pirate!"

Guess what happened? Lawsuit country.

And before SecuROM, StarForce was just as hideous an offender.

And you know what's hilarious about these DRMs? If you have a virtual drive (My Dell came with one partitioned for backup factory installed) the DRMs will often refuse to let the software run on your PC assuming that you have a pirating rig set up.

Of course in my case I was grateful that my StarForce protected game conflicted with Vista, otherwise I might have ended up with DVD degradation as well. Instead I downloaded the StarForce extraction program and that was that.

Counteragruments? Are you even in this thread?

I get why you feel the need to resport to pointless spam again and again. And why you think I "Take a position" when I ask a question, and "lose" when I make a statement.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but that was obviously a mistake. We're done here. We can try again when you actually do grow up.
You keep making these things that I believe are supposed to be points, but they are so completely unrelated to the statement I made and you quoted that there is nothing I can do but wonder what the fuck you are talking about. Again, if you don't like the series of events that will occur when you do shit like that, ie inane nonsense responses to posts that make no god damn sense, I expect you to explain what the hell you mean.

And you know what's hilarious about these DRMs? If you have a virtual drive (My Dell came with one partitioned for backup factory installed) the DRMs will often refuse to let the software run on your PC assuming that you have a pirating rig set up.
I've had a program complain about Daemon Tools exactly once, I updated it and the problem went away. Virtual Drive software is often one step ahead of virtual drive detection of the draconian protection software, just like everyone else.

I didn't know is not a particularly good defense in court.

EULAs are a legal gray area. Any other kind of contractual agreement that springs all sorts of hidden bindings on someone after they buy it can be easily challenged in court.

TPH, Gravlen, cool it for a while. You're just not getting through to each other. It happens sometimes. Let it be. Other folk may end up making the points you're concerned about in a way that does get through.

EULAs are a legal gray area. Any other kind of contractual agreement that springs all sorts of hidden bindings on someone after they buy it can be easily challenged in court.

Exactly, EULAs are bullshit. You bindingly agree to a document that it is impossible for you to read before buying and opening the object that the EULA is for. Thus even if you don't agree, you can only return it for the same item because it has been opened. I'm not a lawyer but that seems legally dubious.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01/pc-gears-of-war-drm-causes-title-to-shut-down-starting-today.ars



Apparently, to protect themselves against the evil pirates trying to loot their games, the company has built an expiration date into their legally purchased game cds. And this is just being discovered for a 3 year old game, imagining how many more games are going to be failing this year or next because of expiration dates in DRM? It looks like PC game makers trying to "stop" pirates are doing a damn good job of encouraging them by making legally purchasing and using PC games increasingly frustrating. You know who doesn't have an expiration date on their GoW games? Pirates.

"All these forms of DRM are simply creating more technical hassles that I have to deal with as a legal customer. Meanwhile, cracks and keygens and other ways to steal BioShock are all over the file-sharing networks, and are actually less hassle than the legally purchased bits." - Jason Cross, Extreme Tech

This is all coming to a head. Eventually people are going to just refuse to purchase from these game companies entirely, and they will abandon the PC.

Meanwhile, game companies like Stardock, who respect their customers, will move in and take over.

I can't wait. :)

As for your arguments, Gravlen, I'm afraid you're missing something. One of the problems here is that game companies are spending far too much time making games that require so much in the way of resources that only people with really expensive computers can play them, while cutting out the vast middle range of people who have computers that are sluggish and out of date. I built my computer specifically to try and get around this problem since I knew I wouldn't be able to keep it updated, hardware wise, all that often, and even it's starting to run into a bit of an issue here and there. (Though thankfully not much of one.)

This is one of the many reasons games are pirated. In addition to that, you have the DRM, and how much easier it is to simply pirate instead of dealing with it. Then you also have people who simply don't want to spend the money on games.

Stardock--the company I mentioned before--has stated basically that game companies are taking the entirely wrong approach. They're practically listening to the pirates when it comes to designing their games instead of the legitimate customers.

Stardock's approach is simple. They put out a DRM free copy of the game, on both their software downloader utility, and through a normal CD purchase, and let people play their games freely. (Not even requiring the disc in the tray! Who does that anymore?)

They then take an interesting tack, and require that you download patches through their software, and you have to show you purchased the software legally. This is easily accomplished, thankfully.

Stardock has made gigantic amounts of cash this way even though their games are pirated quite often just like everyone else. They further take the tack of only listening to legitimate customers when they design their games and improve them. Their CEO regularly posts on their forums, in fact, along with many of the other software developers. And they're making cash by the truckload, and delivering fantastic games to boot.

It's the way all game companies ought to work.

However, he had to open the box to see the license, and had opportunity to return the software after viewing and disagreeing. Never opening the box means that it's impossible to view the license.

It would also mean you're not using the software and thus not accepting the license. However, opening the box with your eyes closed and pulling out all the paperwork and dropping it in the trash doesn't absolve you from agreement to the license when you load and use the software.



So, if someone sends me a contract in the mail, and I deliberately place it on a high bookshelf and don't read it or sign it, I've agreed to it?

If it's a contract to take possession of a house and you know that's what it's for and you take possession of the house? Yes, I'm pretty sure you couldn't claim... "But I should get to totally violate the contract because I refused to read it."


Well then I will be sure to limit my admissions in the future.

Within the bounds and limits of copyright law. This covers unlawful distribution, public displays, etc...

No, it's public display - not allowable by copyright law.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if you mean you're going to buy a song, put in a commercial, and upload it to YouTube, or if you're going to buy a song from YouTube and put it in your commercial. I'm slightly confused.

I meant to say iTunes. My bad. The point being that my license at iTunes, whether I've read it or not, explicitly agreed to it or not, does not give me unrestricted access to the company's or individual's intellectual property.


Where did I claim that I was a lawyer?

I assumed. I'm willing to admit my assumption. However, it's pretty ridiculous you're making the claims you're making without knowing what a license is.

EULAs are a legal gray area. Any other kind of contractual agreement that springs all sorts of hidden bindings on someone after they buy it can be easily challenged in court.

Like all contracts there has to be a reasonable meeting of the minds. However, that is the only requirement. There are many, many examples of EULAs being upheld. They are generally only overturned when the expectation made my the user was a resonable one and the one by the software company was not.

This is all coming to a head. Eventually people are going to just refuse to purchase from these game companies entirely, and they will abandon the PC.

Meanwhile, game companies like Stardock, who respect their customers, will move in and take over.

I can't wait. :)

I love how people who are stealing games are blaming the software companies. The fact is that software companies are simply trying to protect their property. They have a right and an obligation to do so.

The game arena is worth a lot of money and as long as it's worth a lot of money we will continue to have a lot of excellent games to choose from. The only thing making games less worthwhile to make by stealing them more will do is limit our selection. For those of us who are stealing the games, that's pretty frustrating.

Personally, I don't blame stores that I pay more money for gum because the stores have to cover the losses from shoplifters, pay security guards, and cover the cost of security systems. I rightfully blame the software companies.

I don't blame my customers for making me use an antivirus that slows my machine down considerably because of the extremely high-level of protection even though I think it's not entirely worth it. I rightfully blame the hackers who write viruses.

It's a crazy world when we're pissed at companies because they're trying to prevent people from stealing form them and we're cheering on the thieves.

Like all contracts there has to be a reasonable meeting of the minds. However, that is the only requirement. There are many, many examples of EULAs being upheld. They are generally only overturned when the expectation made my the user was a resonable one and the one by the software company was not.

"Oh I'm sorry, you arn't allowed to read the EULA until you agree to it." I'm sure glad nothing else works like that.

Like all contracts there has to be a reasonable meeting of the minds. However, that is the only requirement. There are many, many examples of EULAs being upheld. They are generally only overturned when the expectation made my the user was a resonable one and the one by the software company was not.

EULA agreements specifically state "By installing this software, you agree to so and so". But by the time you can read it, you've already paid for it. Imagine buying a house and finding a legal document in the kitchen that reads "By stepping into this house, you agree to never remodel the place, move in furniture, invite your friends over, sell it to another person or rent it out".

It's the same thing. It's springing legal bindings on you post purchase.

And don't get me started on the sort of dick moves that some companies like to do to hide the fact that they're putting spyware and trojans on your computer and make it all nice and legal by hiding the little clause about "gathering non-personal information" in a website that they make you jump hoops just to get to.

And this whole meeting of minds is also crap. If I think its my right to make backups, run the software as an image rather than a CD, it's my business. But noooo, not according to the Orwellian dictator-lites who occupy the marketing and sales divisions of these companies who will happily send their legal sharks after me until I can't afford any more legal fees and have to declare bankruptcy.

EULA agreements specifically state "By installing this software, you agree to so and so". But by the time you can read it, you've already paid for it. Imagine buying a house and finding a legal document in the kitchen that reads "By stepping into this house, you agree to never remodel the place, move in furniture, invite your friends over, sell it to another person or rent it out".

It's the same thing. It's springing legal bindings on you post purchase.

And don't get me started on the sort of dick moves that some companies like to do to hide the fact that they're putting spyware and trojans on your computer and make it all nice and legal by hiding the little clause about "gathering non-personal information" in a website that they make you jump hoops just to get to.

And this whole meeting of minds is also crap. If I think its my right to make backups, run the software as an image rather than a CD, it's my business. But noooo, not according to the Orwellian dictator-lites who occupy the marketing and sales divisions of these companies who will happily send their legal sharks after me until I can't afford any more legal fees and have to declare bankruptcy.

I agree that they you have not accepted the license until you install the software. I further agree if they have any licensing requirements that could not be reasonably expected, that you should be permitted to return the software and get your money back. I strongly suspect the courts will agree with you.

However, continuing to install the software and use it and then use it illegally is not one of the options.

Actually, the courts would likely side with you if you made backups of your software to protect the license you purchased and you ran from an image. I doubt you're worried the software companies will come after you for that. Do you have even one example of "legal sharks" circling in the water over you making backups of your software. Go on. Give me one.

However, it's well within their rights to put protections on their software because people are stealing it. Contrary to the claims in this thread, your inconvenience does not justify crime.

"Oh I'm sorry, you arn't allowed to read the EULA until you agree to it." I'm sure glad nothing else works like that.

That isn't true, actually, and you're well aware of it. You're not under the terms of the license until you've installed the software. It has to be fully installed. At the time you read the license (which is generally available other ways), you can simply say no and the software will not install.

I agree that they you have not accepted the license until you install the software. I further agree if they have any licensing requirements that could not be reasonably expected, that you should be permitted to return the software and get your money back. I strongly suspect the courts will agree with you.

The problem is that most times, it's not the company that sells you the software. It's a retailer, who's usually two or three steps down the distribution chain from the company. And if the retailer doesn't have a returns policy for stupid EULAs, you're out of luck.


Actually, the courts would likely side with you if you made backups of your software to protect the license you purchased and you ran from an image. I doubt you're worried the software companies will come after you for that. Do you have even one example of "legal sharks" circling in the water over you making backups of your software. Go on. Give me one.

For actually making backups of software? No, they generally go with the piracy argument, and if you're caught with backups, all the better. Copyright enforcement agencies like the MPAA and RIAA have taken the shotgun approach to lawsuits after all, never mind actual guilt.


However, it's well within their rights to put protections on their software because people are stealing it.

It's well within their rights. It's also a stupid move in every sense of the word. They're using physical product thinking trying to sell a non-physical object. All DRM does is add to your cost and gain the resentment of your market base. It doesn't inconvenience the cracker and pirate groups the slightest.

The problem is that most times, it's not the company that sells you the software. It's a retailer, who's usually two or three steps down the distribution chain from the company. And if the retailer doesn't have a returns policy for stupid EULAs, you're out of luck.

Which is something you can actually take up with both the retailer and the software company. Usually the return policy is actually determined by the software company. If you could get them to take your software back, you'd like be reimbursed.


For actually making backups of software? No, they generally go with the piracy argument, and if you're caught with backups, all the better. Copyright enforcement agencies like the MPAA and RIAA have taken the shotgun approach to lawsuits after all, never mind actual guilt.

They won't come after you making backups. If you have a legal software license, you're all set. I back up almost everything I own. I'd happily tell that to any company whatsoever.

Again, I ask for examples. Do you have even ONE example of someone being prosecuted by the MPAA or RIAA for having extra copies of software you have a legal license for? Obviously, having it on multiple machines doesn't count, since this is specifically addressed by how it's licensed. Many softwares by nature go with the computer.

As of now, your assertion that they are persecuting people for making backups appears to be a rather obvious red herring.

It's well within their rights. It's also a stupid move in every sense of the word. They're using physical product thinking trying to sell a non-physical object. All DRM does is add to your cost and gain the resentment of your market base. It doesn't inconvenience the cracker and pirate groups the slightest.

It's not a physical product, though. The physical product is simply the medium, just as much as a book is, or a cd, or a paper, or the like. This doesn't change the ownership of the intellectual property.

It has been asked repeatedly to show any support for the repeated claims that the DRMs are harming their market base or create no inhibition to piracy.

Obviously, the logical default here is that there are some people who either don't know how to pirate or wouldn't be willing to go as far as getitng involved with third-party code that loads software onto their machine they have no protections from. Now, if you're asserting that there is no such thing as a person who doesn't have easy access to pirated software, well, I'm going to have to question that.

Which is something you can actually take up with both the retailer and the software company. Usually the return policy is actually determined by the software company. If you could get them to take your software back, you'd like be reimbursed.

That's a big set of ifs you're making there. Why don't you prove it? Take any you've got with particularly nasty EULA and try to return it to a store that doesn't explicitly allow a catchall 24 hour refund policy or similar.


They won't come after you making backups. If you have a legal software license, you're all set. I back up almost everything I own. I'd happily tell that to any company whatsoever.

Again, I ask for examples. Do you have even ONE example of someone being prosecuted by the MPAA or RIAA for having extra copies of software you have a legal license for? Obviously, having it on multiple machines doesn't count, since this is specifically addressed by how it's licensed. Many softwares by nature go with the computer.

As of now, your assertion that they are persecuting people for making backups appears to be a rather obvious red herring.

No, no, no. The lawsuit won't attempt to say that your backups are backups. If you have backed up software, they'll just say it's piracy instead of backups. The copyright groups aren't picky about who they sue for piracy, as we can see here (http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased_Grandmother/1107532260).

But if you want to see backup related lawsuits, here's one for selling backup software (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4083.cfm).


It's not a physical product, though. The physical product is simply the medium, just as much as a book is, or a cd, or a paper, or the like. This doesn't change the ownership of the intellectual property.

You don't get it. Whether it's on a CD or streamed from some server, information is information. It has no tangible form outside of a medium. You can't sell it with the same mentality as you would a car or a toothbrush. It's completely unrealistic.


It has been asked repeatedly to show any support for the repeated claims that the DRMs are harming their market base or create no inhibition to piracy.


I could point you to a few places to go to, that will likely get me banned, but they are distribution points for illicit software. Highly obtrusive DRM for software gets cracked sometimes even days before the official release date. One of the most notables was Spore, cracked a full 24 hours before release date. Or how about Fallout 3? Cracked within 4 hours of official release. Sometimes the double layer DRMs that sabotage the game as you play if you only crack the first layer catch a few of the less careful crack groups, but that only lasts long enough for people to realize the trap and get to work on it.

The proliferation of private websites, secure IRC channels, torrent programs and large scale file hosting sites have only made the dissemination of cracked software easier than ever before.

So why don't you show me that DRM inhibits piracy instead? Don't tell me "It works, because they say it does!" Show me that it does.


Obviously, the logical default here is that there are some people who either don't know how to pirate or wouldn't be willing to go as far as getitng involved with third-party code that loads software onto their machine they have no protections from.


The logical default operates from a position of extreme naivety, given how copyright groups do the pirates advertising for them. You don't need to know how to pirate. All you need to know is how to browse a website and download a file. That's it. Or you could just drop down to your local software store depending on your country and pick up a pirated copy for $3.

As for the idea of not willing to load third party code, the only response that deserves is scornful laughter.

Plenty of "legitimate" companies already do much worse to your computer with draconian DRM that not only interferes with the usage of legally bought software, they even damage your hardware. Starforce for example, did just exactly that, and rather than fix things, blamed the users for being pirates. And lets not forget Sony's clever little exploitable rootkit.

And this isn't even going into the companies that do install spyware as a matter of course into your computer with neutered legalese to cover their arses.

Am I supposed to be assured that these companies are supposed to have my best interests at heart?


Now, if you're asserting that there is no such thing as a person who doesn't have easy access to pirated software, well, I'm going to have to question that.

Of course I wouldn't assert that. That's just retarded. I would assert however, that there's no such thing as a person (excepting technophobes who have trouble finding the power button, don't laugh, they exist) who use a computer have internet access, and at least how to install a program, who isn't at least aware of piracy or how to use a search engine.

You're also implying that a lack of DRM actually decreases software sales, and I brought up Stardock as example of how that suggestion is not true.
I was? I apologize. It was not my intention to imply that at all.

This is the wrong thing to think. Piracy will happen, no two ways about it. It doesn't matter what fancy DRM you put in. People will find a way around it, and it will be distributed, at the same rate that it would be if there wasn't any DRM at all.

All it does is increase your production costs and ruin your reputation among the legit buyers when it goes balls up. Some companies willingly remove DRM after a fixed period, or ship without. They still have piracy problems true, but their legit buyers love them for it.

I found the article (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html) Geniasis provided to be very enlightning and very persuasive. And that shows very clearly that there is a need for DRM in what the author calls this climate of rampant piracy.
(Sory, but I have to steal arguments from the article in the following ;) )


Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, released on 28 March 2005, utilizes the StarForce protection method. As unpopular as this protection method was, it worked to protect the game from any piracy for over a year before a working crack was released. No doubt at least some of the people who had wanted to illegally download the game couldn't wait an entire year for the crack to show up, and eventually bought the game regardless. Of course this level of protection came at a cost in terms of negative publicity, and some known compatibility issues. However as we'll see shortly, the fear campaign against StarForce was fuelled by deliberate and unproven misinformation.

BioShock was released on 21 August 2007, sporting a new version of SecuROM protection incorporating an online activation method. It wasn't until almost two weeks later that a working crack for the game was released, and in fact the crack came from an unknown third party, because the established cracking groups had been unsuccessful in getting around this version of SecuROM. 2K Games' Martin Slater said in this interview:

We achieved our goals. We were uncracked for 13 whole days. We were happy with it. But we just got slammed. Everybody hated us for it. It was unbelievable... There is a lot of strain on our content-delivery servers and things like that, where everyone has to download a 10MB executable. I don't think we'll do exactly the same thing again, but we'll do something close. You can't afford to be cracked. As soon as you're gone, you're gone, and your sales drop astronomically if you've got a day-one crack.

In short, copy protection and DRM often do work to achieve what they specifically set out to do - to prevent casual piracy and protect games against piracy in the initial sales period.

Can you show the data that proves the more difficult the DRM, the less people pirate it, or the longer they take to crack it?
No, I have no data to share, sorry. But then again, there's been few that's provided any data whatsoever in this thread...

Even the most draconian version of Starforce DRM got cracked with workarounds in a handful of hours of the official release. Example: X-3.
Yet, as seen in the quote above, it apparently took one year to crack Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.

DRM is nothing more than a failed placebo.
Again, that's contrary to the finding in the article I now seem to be a fanboy of :wink:

SecuROM was famous for not only preventing people from playing games, but deliberately messing with the firmware of their DVD players, eventually causing it to not only degrade in performance, but eventually stop working entirely. SecuROMs response was "It's all the pirates fault! All that evidence against us is planted! If your DVD player doesn't work anymore, you're a pirate!"

Guess what happened? Lawsuit country.
Interestingly enough, there's very little in the way of actual evidence that StarForce does anything harmful.
Just like StarForce, as the latest Version 7 of SecuROM has started becoming much more effective in preventing day-zero piracy, primarily through new online activation measures, it too has fallen under a mountain of uninformed criticism and deliberate scaremongering. That's not to say it doesn't have legitimate problems. Let's start by looking at the verified problems with SecuROM:

# It may not detect your original game disc in the drive. This can occur on virtually any configuration and reinserting the disc or rebooting usually resolves the problem.
# It won't work if it detects active emulation or virtual drive software such as Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120, because these are typically used to bypass copy protection. Disabling such software usually fixes the issue, but in some cases uninstallation is required.
# It conflicts with some background software aside from emulators, the best-known being a conflict with SysInternal's Process Explorer software. This is easily fixed by simply ensuring Process Explorer isn't running in the background when the game is launched.
# It is known to conflict with certain brands of optical drives. The reasons for this are not mentioned on the SecuROM site, but it's a hardware-level incompatibility. There are workarounds such as noted in this thread, and this issue is discussed further in the Conclusion section.

Although annoying, and certainly not something users should be happy about, these issues are not particularly sinister and in general are easily rectified.
As it stands, I want to repeat the fact that both StarForce and SecuROM, not to mention SafeDisc, Tages and a range of other protection methods all have various legitimate, verified problems and glitches. Purely from a consumer's point of view, they are without a doubt an unnecessary imposition and an annoyance. I certainly don't like any of them myself. However I hope I've explained why they are a necessary evil in the current climate of rampant piracy, and demonstrated that not only do they actually work, especially in preventing day-zero piracy, but more importantly, what you may read or hear about these systems is more often than not complete and utter nonsense.

As for the lawsuit, I doubt anything will come of it.
TPH, Gravlen, cool it for a while. You're just not getting through to each other. It happens sometimes. Let it be. Other folk may end up making the points you're concerned about in a way that does get through.
Thank you for the advise; I'm way ahead of you.

*Offers shrimp cocktail*

As for your arguments, Gravlen, I'm afraid you're missing something. One of the problems here is that game companies are spending far too much time making games that require so much in the way of resources that only people with really expensive computers can play them, while cutting out the vast middle range of people who have computers that are sluggish and out of date. I built my computer specifically to try and get around this problem since I knew I wouldn't be able to keep it updated, hardware wise, all that often, and even it's starting to run into a bit of an issue here and there. (Though thankfully not much of one.)

This is one of the many reasons games are pirated.
So people pirate because they have to get expensive computers to play their pirated games? :confused:

In addition to that, you have the DRM, and how much easier it is to simply pirate instead of dealing with it. Then you also have people who simply don't want to spend the money on games.

Stardock--the company I mentioned before--has stated basically that game companies are taking the entirely wrong approach. They're practically listening to the pirates when it comes to designing their games instead of the legitimate customers.

Stardock's approach is simple. They put out a DRM free copy of the game, on both their software downloader utility, and through a normal CD purchase, and let people play their games freely. (Not even requiring the disc in the tray! Who does that anymore?)

They then take an interesting tack, and require that you download patches through their software, and you have to show you purchased the software legally. This is easily accomplished, thankfully.

Stardock has made gigantic amounts of cash this way even though their games are pirated quite often just like everyone else. They further take the tack of only listening to legitimate customers when they design their games and improve them. Their CEO regularly posts on their forums, in fact, along with many of the other software developers. And they're making cash by the truckload, and delivering fantastic games to boot.

It's the way all game companies ought to work.
The issue has been confused somewhat because a few smaller companies such as CD Projekt and Stardock are carving out a niche selling games which have no DRM. These games appear to have specific markets with lower levels of piracy, so while removing DRM is a practical approach for them, the broader games market is not necessarily subject to the same approach. Furthermore, upon closer examination we can see that the Stardock case is not as clear-cut as people want to imagine. Firstly Stardock uses another method to reduce piracy: constantly releasing updates for their software which must be obtained through their Impulse digital distribution channel. In effect this is a lot like Steam, so of course they don't need the same sort of overt DRM measures that major offline-only games require. However more importantly, Stardock recently released a Consumer Report (PDF) which specifically outlines what it believes are legitimate and illegitimate complaints regarding DRM, and in no way does the document do anything other than endorse precisely what we've been discussing above. Some examples from the document demonstrate this clearly:

There is no solution to the issue of protecting intellectual property (IP) that will satisfy all parties. There are customers who will accept nothing less than publishers acquiescing to a quasi-honor system for purchasing software [i.e. removal of all protection]. That doesn’t work.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are publishers who want customers to have an always-on Internet connection to play a single-player game. They have every right to require this if they want, but it will cost them tremendously in terms of goodwill and sales.

So what are the issues people have with DRM?

[Some examples below of customer complaints against DRM that Stardock considers 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate':]

Legitimate complaint: They don’t want the copy protection to interfere with their enjoyment or use of the software or game.

Illegitimate complaint: DRM is just wrong in principle, you buy something, you own it and should be able to do whatever you want. This is a view held by some but the person who makes the thing has the right to distribute it how they want. If I spend $5 million making a game, someone paying $50 doesn’t “own” it. There has to be some middle ground on serving customers and protecting IP holders. Users who disagree and want to stick with this principle have my respect but we believe a balance needs to be made that is satisfactory to most users and most publishers.
The article (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html) Geniasis provided can be found here, see mostly page 8, 9 and 10.

That's a big set of ifs you're making there. Why don't you prove it? Take any you've got with particularly nasty EULA and try to return it to a store that doesn't explicitly allow a catchall 24 hour refund policy or similar.

Um, why would I want to return a game I like. I haven't encountered particularly nasty EULA. But then, I'm a consumer. EULAs generally allow an legal use a consumer is going to use to consume the product.


No, no, no. The lawsuit won't attempt to say that your backups are backups. If you have backed up software, they'll just say it's piracy instead of backups. The copyright groups aren't picky about who they sue for piracy, as we can see here (http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA_Sues_Deceased_Grandmother/1107532260).

Dude, that is just desperate on your part. I'll tell you what, if anyone here suggests that the RIAA is perfect, resubmit that article as evidence. They were chasing someone who was genuinely stealing their songs.

But if you want to see backup related lawsuits, here's one for selling backup software (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4083.cfm).

Which is not the same as what you said. They are trying to prevent the distribution of a software that is used to steal their product. It's a valid concern. You said they'll sue you for making backups. This doesn't demonstrate that at all.

So, do you have an evidence for your bullshit claim that they'll sue you for making backups? Nope. You've certainly shown you can evidence a completely different claim. How about evidence for the actual claim you made?



You don't get it. Whether it's on a CD or streamed from some server, information is information. It has no tangible form outside of a medium. You can't sell it with the same mentality as you would a car or a toothbrush. It's completely unrealistic.

I do get it. It's intellectual property. It's treated as such. When people use that property without paying for it, it's stealing. It's the people who steal it who make us have to deal with higher costs AND with attempts by software companies to prevent it.

Thieves are to blame for your neighbor having a lock on his door.


I could point you to a few places to go to, that will likely get me banned, but they are distribution points for illicit software. Highly obtrusive DRM for software gets cracked sometimes even days before the official release date. One of the most notables was Spore, cracked a full 24 hours before release date. Or how about Fallout 3? Cracked within 4 hours of official release. Sometimes the double layer DRMs that sabotage the game as you play if you only crack the first layer catch a few of the less careful crack groups, but that only lasts long enough for people to realize the trap and get to work on it.

Why would you have to show me? Apparently, I'm already there. Apparently, having a DRM doesn't inhibit people at all. Except, well, you've already admitted it does, below.


The proliferation of private websites, secure IRC channels, torrent programs and large scale file hosting sites have only made the dissemination of cracked software easier than ever before.

So why don't you show me that DRM inhibits piracy instead? Don't tell me "It works, because they say it does!" Show me that it does.

You've already shown that it does. You've admitted that there are people who wouldn't know how to pirate it. That demonstrates it right there. The burden on you to show now that this is somehow overwhelmed in some other way.


The logical default operates from a position of extreme naivety, given how copyright groups do the pirates advertising for them. You don't need to know how to pirate. All you need to know is how to browse a website and download a file. That's it. Or you could just drop down to your local software store depending on your country and pick up a pirated copy for $3.

Which by the nature of what they do, forces people to go out of their way to pirate the software and by having to go out their way, ensure people won't.


As for the idea of not willing to load third party code, the only response that deserves is scornful laughter.

Plenty of "legitimate" companies already do much worse to your computer with draconian DRM that not only interferes with the usage of legally bought software, they even damage your hardware. Starforce for example, did just exactly that, and rather than fix things, blamed the users for being pirates. And lets not forget Sony's clever little exploitable rootkit.

Which doesn't change the perception that many users have. There are many, many people out there who are afraid to use credit cards on the internet. Now, it's actually just as easy or easier to steal credit card info in person, but they just like that warm fuzzy of knowing who they're dealing with. So you can have your "scornful laughter", I'll be over here being right.


And this isn't even going into the companies that do install spyware as a matter of course into your computer with neutered legalese to cover their arses.

Am I supposed to be assured that these companies are supposed to have my best interests at heart?

Nope. You're supposed to be assured, that there are other people who feel like they are more secure. I happen to not agree with them, but certainly those people exist.

You're supposed to only do business with the ones you like. No one is forcing you to buy their luxury products. Certainly no one is forcing you to steal them. I know that you're willing to go to great lengths to justify stealing someone else's property, but you're not going to convince me that you're Robin Hood. This isn't medicine. You're simply making excuses for theft.


Of course I wouldn't assert that. That's just retarded. I would assert however, that there's no such thing as a person (excepting technophobes who have trouble finding the power button, don't laugh, they exist) who use a computer have internet access, and at least how to install a program, who isn't at least aware of piracy or how to use a search engine.

Actually, sure. Sure, most people who load software themselves are aware of piracy and know how to use a search engine to some degree. This does not mean they are going to search out software, feel comfortable loading hacker software, etc.

There has been evidence provided that DRMs can and do work, but even without it, the logical default is that it works. The only way you were able to deal with it is to pretend like people you admit exist, don't.

Now, are there people who are going to steal software, no matter what? Yep.

Are they likely to be stopped? No.

Are there people who will never steal software, no matter what? Yep

Are there people in the middle? Yep.

It's those people in the middle that software companies are concerned with. Given that they continue to make bucketloads of money, it seems to be working and that's a good thing, because it's the only reason there are any games to steal. You should be thanking your lucky stars that they continue to be willing to put out games you'd want to steal.

It doesn't matter what fancy DRM you put in, it will be distributed, at the same rate that it would be if there wasn't any DRM at all.

(I slightly modified the above to make the claim clearer)

I challenge you to prove that no matter what DRM you use that software with be stolen at the same rate as if there were no DRM at all.

It's been shown that some softwares took months to crack for the purposes of stealing them, so you've got your work cut out for you. Let me know when you have ANY evidence.

I found the article (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html) Geniasis provided to be very enlightning and very persuasive. And that shows very clearly that there is a need for DRM in what the author calls this climate of rampant piracy.
(Sory, but I have to steal arguments from the article in the following ;) )


This is somewhat doubtful. I remember seeing pirated copies of the game being available about a month after release. But even if true, this is an exception and not the rule.


No, I have no data to share, sorry. But then again, there's been few that's provided any data whatsoever in this thread...

Few have provided data for either argument.


Yet, as seen in the quote above, it apparently took one year to crack Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.

And it only took negative 48 hours to crack Spore, i.e. 2 days before release. Fallout 3 was cracked and up for download on the day of release. Same with the Witcher. X-3, which had the horror story version of Starforce, took a little longer to crack, and required some internal fiddling, but also crackable within a month.


Again, that's contrary to the finding in the article I now seem to be a fanboy of :wink:

Exception. Not the rule.

Also, I am doubtful about the validity of the claims of Starforce's lack of actual harm. They've threatened to sue people, ]here ([url=http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31/starforce-threatens-.html) and here (http://news.cnet.com/5208-7349-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=11535&messageID=86618&start=-184) for criticizing their system after all. And if you follow the related links inside, you'll also find that they deny and harm caused by their system, and insist it's entirely "hackers" at fault.

So people pirate because they have to get expensive computers to play their pirated games? :confused:

I'm honestly not too sure, now that I think about it. I was posting that as something I was taking from the words of the Stardock CEO, words I was quoting from memory, which means I may not have it quite right. :confused:

In any case, my main point was that Stardock was taking a good tack.

This is somewhat doubtful. I remember seeing pirated copies of the game being available about a month after release. But even if true, this is an exception and not the rule.

Few have provided data for either argument.

Uh, you do realize that if it takes a month to hack into a game, that the game sells more copies during that month, yeah?


Also, I am doubtful about the validity of the claims of Starforce's lack of actual harm. They've threatened to sue people, ]here ([url=http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31/starforce-threatens-.html) and here (http://news.cnet.com/5208-7349-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=11535&messageID=86618&start=-184) for criticizing their system after all. And if you follow the related links inside, you'll also find that they deny and harm caused by their system, and insist it's entirely "hackers" at fault.

You start the paragraph admitting that you doubt the validity of the articles and then are surprised that they threatened to sue for libel and/or slander. That's what companies do when people print lies like saying it's a "virus" or "malware". It's absolutely cause for action against them. It's not like they stopped them from presenting a reasoned case. The links you provided don't actually present a reasoned case. They basically make a similar claim to "PC Game Companies Hate Legitimate Customers".

If it can be coded, it can be cracked, simple as. Time taken to crack obviously varies with increased "protection".

This is how I view anti-piracy software:
There was a line, some gamers crossed it. So game companies put up a small wooden fence, gamers climbed over it. They built a taller wooden fence, gamers helped eachother over it. Game companies built a really tall wooden fence, gamers came with axes. They added a chain link fence behind the wooden one, some gamers brought cutters. Game companies addd another chain link fence, gamers still cut through it. Game companies built a brick wall, gamers smashed it down. Game companies built thick brick walls, gamers used explosives.

That basically continues, while there is a challenge to be had, some people will continue to crack anti-piracy software, even just for fun and they cant be stopped, only slowed down.

You know what's great about the article from Geniasis, it lays bare every claim made in this thread.

It demonstrates that stronger DRMs do not increase piracy. It demonstrates that it hurts sales. It demonstrates that if it is more difficult to pirate software, gaming companies make more money. It demonstrates that higher costs do not increase piracy. It demonstrates that piracy doesn't help get the word out for a game.

In essence it demonstrates that piracy is a selfish activity, that even those that support piracy of other products try to prevent in their own. Even pirates acknowledge that taking the work of others without contributing is wrong. Even pirates acknowledge that the systems they rely need people to contribute to continue.

Pirates put costs on legitimate consumers, make games more difficult to use, increase the cost of systems we run games on, and basically cause all of the things they're bitching about. They selfishly and illegally benefit from the good-faith efforts of others to take something to which they have no right.

If it can be coded, it can be cracked, simple as. Time taken to crack obviously varies with increased "protection".

This is how I view anti-piracy software:
There was a line, some gamers crossed it. So game companies put up a small wooden fence, gamers climbed over it. They built a taller wooden fence, gamers helped eachother over it. Game companies built a really tall wooden fence, gamers came with axes. They added a chain link fence behind the wooden one, some gamers brought cutters. Game companies addd another chain link fence, gamers still cut through it. Game companies built a brick wall, gamers smashed it down. Game companies built thick brick walls, gamers used explosives.

That basically continues, while there is a challenge to be had, some people will continue to crack anti-piracy software, even just for fun and they cant be stopped, only slowed down.

Which is also true of virus creators, bank robbers, hitmen, conmen, etc. You can't stop crime. You can hinder crime and it's obviously useful to try. (I'm not suggesting you're making an argument against this, just that some here are.)

I strongly suspect that people here who are saying that protections are useless lock the doors on their homes. As has been argued, even with locks, thefts still happen.

Snip.

If I concede every point in that post, will you concede to the fact that it's STILL unfair to render legitimate customers unable to play a game after date X, and that such a decision was NOT made by any of those oh-so-very-evil pirates, but by the COMPANY?

Unless you're arguing that the actions of the pirates justify the wrong actions of the companies, how will you argue to the fairness of such measures?

If I concede every point in that post, will you concede to the fact that it's STILL unfair to render legitimate customers unable to play a game after date X, and that such a decision was NOT made by any of those oh-so-very-evil pirates, but by the COMPANY?

Unless you're arguing that the actions of the pirates justify the wrong actions of the companies, how will you argue to the fairness of such measures?

It was a bug. They are fixing it. They aren't attempting to prevent people from continuing to play the game. They are, in fact, spending money to correct the issue so that people can continue to play the game.

This is somewhat doubtful. I remember seeing pirated copies of the game being available about a month after release. But even if true, this is an exception and not the rule.
So am I understanding you right, you're saying that DRM (including copy protection) is generally pointless and will not have an effect on the profits the company make? If so, can you expand on that, because I don't see that.


Few have provided data for either argument.
Indeed.


And it only took negative 48 hours to crack Spore, i.e. 2 days before release. Fallout 3 was cracked and up for download on the day of release. Same with the Witcher. X-3, which had the horror story version of Starforce, took a little longer to crack, and required some internal fiddling, but also crackable within a month.
So you think the day zero pirazy problem that the article describes is bogus?


Exception. Not the rule.
Based on?

Also, I am doubtful about the validity of the claims of Starforce's lack of actual harm. They've threatened to sue people, ]here ([url=http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/31/starforce-threatens-.html) and here (http://news.cnet.com/5208-7349-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=11535&messageID=86618&start=-184) for criticizing their system after all. And if you follow the related links inside, you'll also find that they deny and harm caused by their system, and insist it's entirely "hackers" at fault.
The threat of a lawsuit doesn't really have a bearing on whether or not Starforce actually causes harm. I refer you to the article again (since it's all I've got to cling to) and ask if you've got any verified evidence that the author hasn't seen.

Question, can't each such of the gamers sue the company, creating a flurry of small lawsuits that drives it into the ground, causes the unemployment of hundreds, makes the owner bankrupt, and makes an example out of them so they learn not to screw with those superior to it? I want to see our boots on their faces!

You realize the game was published by Microsoft? Technically making them the owner. It will take much much more to run them into the ground.

I refer you to the article again (since it's all I've got to cling to) and ask if you've got any verified evidence that the author hasn't seen.

Frankly, since the article is the only reasoned source on the subject, I'd like to see him actually address the article at all. He basically waved it away and then continue on making unsupported claims about how piracy doesn't matter and how companies should ignore that people are stealing their product.

Also, get on IM, Grav.

The threat of a lawsuit doesn't really have a bearing on whether or not Starforce actually causes harm. I refer you to the article again (since it's all I've got to cling to) and ask if you've got any verified evidence that the author hasn't seen.

I read the article and I have to say that it was extremely slanted. While I agree with many of the suggestions of the end, I have to doubt the neutrality of a person who claims the following:

Here's the best part though: although there's never been any real indication that StarForce or SecuROM are rootkits or malware of any kind, the same can't be said for the most popular tools used to bypass copy protection: Alcohol and Daemon Tools. When Mark Russinovich, noted techie and author of various SysInternals tools such as Process Explorer and AutoRuns, took a close look at these popular emulation utilities, he concluded that:

"There’s no proof that Alcohol and Daemon Tools use rootkits to evade DRM, but the evidence is compelling. If they do their usage is clearly unethical and even potentially runs afoul of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In any case, there’s no reason for these products, or any product as I’ve stated previously, to employ rootkit techniques."

So if the same standard of evidence and logic that StarForce and SecuROM have received is applied to Alcohol and Daemon Tools, we see that these tools are indeed rootkits, and hence supposedly lay a system open to malware attacks. Furthermore, if users are genuinely concerned about introducing malware into their system which can compromise security and stability, then you'd think they'd avoid downloading pirated material. It's well known that one of the most common ways in which people pick up malware is through file sharing, because torrents in particular are saturated with fake files deliberately designed to infect a system with trojans, viruses, spyware and yes, even genuine rootkits. Not surprisingly however, no campaign to boycott torrents, or Alcohol, or Daemon Tools will ever gain any momentum, despite the potentially greater threat they represent to the security of users than SecuROM or StarForce ever will.

Essentially, he said that the literally hundreds of complaints for failed CDRW and DVDRW failures (that instantly worked when you moved the drive to another computer, or installed a RW drive from another manufacturer) were "unsubstantiated rumors", but that one man's conjecture that Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120% "might" contain rootkits and there's "no proof" is taken as gospel.

I'm sorry - I have trouble believing that as neutral reporting. I don't deny many of his conclusions, that piracy hurts the industry overall. I just also think that intrusive DRM hurts the industry overall.

In any case, my main point was that Stardock was taking a good tack.

Do you think the bigger companies and the mainstream games can do it that way?

Again, from the article:
I've saved an excellent example for last. As an indication that not only is the scale of piracy generally high across all types of games, but more importantly, that it seems to have little to do with DRM, big greedy game companies, or the high price of games, let's take a look at a game called World of Goo, recently released by a small independent developer called 2D Boy consisting of a team of 3 people. It's available as a digital download, selling for less than $20 on Steam, it has no intrusive DRM, and it's received nothing but praise, reflected in a Metacritic Score of 90%/95%. This should be precisely the recipe for preventing piracy according to some, but unfortunately the truth is less convenient: the developer of the game has stated that World of Goo has an approximate piracy rate of 90%. Regardless of the precise level of piracy, the key point to consider is that World of Goo addresses every single item on the checklist of excuses which people usually present for pirating games - yet it is still being pirated quite heavily.

I read the article and I have to say that it was extremely slanted. While I agree with many of the suggestions of the end, I have to doubt the neutrality of a person who claims the following:



Essentially, he said that the literally hundreds of complaints for failed CDRW and DVDRW failures (that instantly worked when you moved the drive to another computer, or installed a RW drive from another manufacturer) were "unsubstantiated rumors", but that one man's conjecture that Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120% "might" contain rootkits and there's "no proof" is taken as gospel.

I'm sorry - I have trouble believing that as neutral reporting. I don't deny many of his conclusions, that piracy hurts the industry overall. I just also think that intrusive DRM hurts the industry overall.

He actually doesn't claim to be neutral.

However, calling the neutrality into question doesn't question his information. Now, do you have a rebuttal for his arguments? For his evidence? For his information? What you just did is called ad hominem and it doesn't actually help your claims.

You aren't neutral. Does that automatically mean you're a liar? (The answer is "of course not" lest someone misconstrue that.) He goes to lengths to support his arguments and to point where his arguments require deductive reasoning or even stretches. It would be nice if you were doing the same.

He actually doesn't claim to be neutral.

Actually he does. Second page, fifth paragraph. He claims not to be biased and that he will give a balanced view.

However, calling the neutrality into question doesn't question his information. Now, do you have a rebuttal for his arguments? For his evidence? For his information? What you just did is called ad hominem and it doesn't actually help your claims.

I find his figures staggering. I do not argue that piracy hurts the industry. I also do not argue that thieves hurt the real estate industry. However, I do not put 50 locks on my door. One will suffice. Two (one being a deadbolt) will do in a bad neighborhood.

I always wondered what it would be like to put 6 locks on my door, but then only lock three of them, randomly. So, no matter which ones the thieves pick, they'll always be locking three.

You aren't neutral. Does that automatically mean you're a liar? (The answer is "of course not" lest someone misconstrue that.) He goes to lengths to support his arguments and to point where his arguments require deductive reasoning or even stretches. It would be nice if you were doing the same.

Fair enough. I'm not. See, all I want a game that I can buy and not have a bunch of resource-hogging and potentially harmful software installed with the game. I guess I could just stop playing games, but that doesn't really suit my needs.

So, what would you suggest that I do?

Uh, you do realize that if it takes a month to hack into a game, that the game sells more copies during that month, yeah?
How so, necessarily?

Most folks I know would dimply wait a month, rather than shell out £40.

Do you think the bigger companies and the mainstream games can do it that way?

Again, from the article:

Hmm...

Is World of Goo the exception to the rule?

These games appear to have specific markets with lower levels of piracy, so while removing DRM is a practical approach for them, the broader games market is not necessarily subject to the same approach. Furthermore, upon closer examination we can see that the Stardock case is not as clear-cut as people want to imagine. Firstly Stardock uses another method to reduce piracy: constantly releasing updates for their software which must be obtained through their Impulse digital distribution channel. In effect this is a lot like Steam, so of course they don't need the same sort of overt DRM measures that major offline-only games require.
Which is wrong. Impulse isn't like Steam. And the claim that they make niche games aimed at specific markets is based upon what? That they don't make FPS games? Last I checked, major companies also make strategy games.

Actually he does. Second page, fifth paragraph. He claims not to be biased and that he will give a balanced view.

The fifth page is about PC v Console and I can't find bias or balanced anywhere on the page, want to quote it?

However, I can quote his actual admission to bias... "As a long-time PC gamer, I have to confess that I've become extremely frustrated with reading the numerous discussions and articles on piracy." He then goes on to talk about how they tend to look like this one.

He tells you where is he is coming from to open the article and to give you context from which to evaluate. You instead avoiding actually addressing the argument to instead attack the man.



I find his figures staggering. I do not argue that piracy hurts the industry. I also do not argue that thieves hurt the real estate industry. However, I do not put 50 locks on my door. One will suffice. Two (one being a deadbolt) will do in a bad neighborhood.

I always wondered what it would be like to put 6 locks on my door, but then only lock three of them, randomly. So, no matter which ones the thieves pick, they'll always be locking three.

Assuming they have no clue which way the locks turn, that would be pretty effective. One wonders how many locks you would have after four or five break-ins and whether you'd be willing to try your 6-lock scheme. One further wonders what you'd do after 1.7 million break-ins.



Fair enough. I'm not. See, all I want a game that I can buy and not have a bunch of resource-hogging and potentially harmful software installed with the game. I guess I could just stop playing games, but that doesn't really suit my needs.

So, what would you suggest that I do?

Steal. Clearly, you have no choice. I mean, why not make it worse for everyone else by exasperating the problem. And, hey, when you buy stolen stereos you're not encouraging all of us legitimate owners to have to faceplates and carry them with us. When you buy stolen bikes, they were already stolen. They would have stolen anyway. It's not your fault I have to carry around my wheel and weave a cable through my seat to prevent theft. It's not your fault I have to waste about five minutes every time I park my bike. You're just buying a bike that happens to be reasonably priced, right?

What I suggest you do is to decide whether or not the legal product is one you're willing to pay for. If not, then that's too bad.

"I suppose I could just not watch blu-ray movies, but that doesn't really suit my needs. HD tvs cost too much for me to afford. What would you suggest I do?"

Essentially, he said that the literally hundreds of complaints for failed CDRW and DVDRW failures (that instantly worked when you moved the drive to another computer, or installed a RW drive from another manufacturer) were "unsubstantiated rumors", but that one man's conjecture that Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120% "might" contain rootkits and there's "no proof" is taken as gospel.
I don't see it as being taken as gospel. And also, the one man has at least tried to document his claims as the link (http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2006/02/06/using-rootkits-to-defeat-digital-rights-management.aspx) shows.

Not that I understand what it's showing, mind you :p

I'm sorry - I have trouble believing that as neutral reporting. I don't deny many of his conclusions, that piracy hurts the industry overall. I just also think that intrusive DRM hurts the industry overall.

I don't get the feeling that his report is biased, that's why I liked it so much. But who knows...

But I can agree that the important thing is to find a balance. And as the article shows, nobody likes DRM. Not even the game manufacturers.

Steal. Clearly, you have no choice. I mean, why not make it worse for everyone else by exasperating the problem. And, hey, when you buy stolen stereos you're not encouraging all of us legitimate owners to have to faceplates and carry them with us. When you buy stolen bikes, they were already stolen. They would have stolen anyway. It's not your fault I have to carry around my wheel and weave a cable through my seat to prevent theft. It's not your fault I have to waste about five minutes every time I park my bike. You're just buying a bike that happens to be reasonably priced, right?

So, let me get this straight - if I buy a game, and then copy it or use a crack that kills the copy protection on it so that it runs more efficiently, I am stealing other peoples' copies of the game and depriving them of it? What?

What I suggest you do is to decide whether or not the legal product is one you're willing to pay for. If not, then that's too bad.

Oh I'm willing to pay for it. That's not the issue. Do not forget to whom you are talking. I'm just not willing to let it install all kinds of extra crap that have nothing to do with the game. Hence why, originally, I said it would be better to buy the real copy and then procure a pirated version that is cleaner, faster, and more efficient.

"I suppose I could just not watch blu-ray movies, but that doesn't really suit my needs. HD tvs cost too much for me to afford. What would you suggest I do?"

Again, stealing someone else's TV deprives them of that TV.

Also, please admit that you were wrong about him never claiming to be unbiased.

Hmm...

Is World of Goo the exception to the rule?
Article says:
As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the cracked version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.

How so, necessarily?

Most folks I know would dimply wait a month, rather than shell out £40.

When the game producers are happy that a game is uncracked for 13 days, there might be something to it.

People seem to buy more of the games just as they are released, when the hype is at it's highest point. Earlier in this thread a poster mentioned how gamers had to wait six hours for activation at one point, and that such a wait was outrageous. Clearly, people want to be able to get the games as soon as they are available, and play them straight away.

So you think the day zero pirazy problem that the article describes is bogus?
I imagine a good many of the "day zero privacy is killing our product!" complaints are coming from games that had already been out on the consoles for weeks or months before computer release. Those are also used to point and decry piracy because their sales fall below expected.

As we saw in the Scale of Piracy section, many popular games which have no intrusive DRM, such as Assassin's Creed, Crysis, Call of Duty 4 and World of Goo, also have some of the highest piracy rates in 2008. Indeed as I write this, the new Prince of Persia game was released yesterday for PC (December 10, 2008) with absolutely no DRM protection, and a quick look at torrents shows that the cracked version is available, and on two popular torrent links alone there are over 23,000 people downloading the game within the first 24 hours. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM.
This only serves to prove my point. Never mind the fact that it also proves my earlier point: piracy is related to how popular a game is, not how much DRM it has.

Uh, you do realize that if it takes a month to hack into a game, that the game sells more copies during that month, yeah?

And you've not debunked the fact that in many cases, games get cracked and put up for release on the the date of release and sometimes even before either. Maybe someone gets a copy of the master disc when it goes gold, maybe someone in the company feeds the software to the groups, it doesn't really matter how they do it. They do.

Do you even bother to check whether there is evidence to back your claims of the time difference between release dates and cracked versions?

Here's one site that should be fairly safe to mention. Piratebay. Take any popular upcoming title. Track the release date. I guarantee that a cracked version will either come out on Piratebay before the release date or within three days.


You start the paragraph admitting that you doubt the validity of the articles and then are surprised that they threatened to sue for libel and/or slander. That's what companies do when people print lies like saying it's a "virus" or "malware". It's absolutely cause for action against them. It's not like they stopped them from presenting a reasoned case. The links you provided don't actually present a reasoned case. They basically make a similar claim to "PC Game Companies Hate Legitimate Customers".

Or maybe, just maybe, the company decides that it's easier to blame the user and silence criticisms with lawsuits than admit they have problems. But if you want more proof, here's some with a more comprehensive list.

http://www.glop.org/starforce/

Yes. It's a boycott site, but so what? Are they automatically non-legit because they have as much credibility as the support article?

Um, why would I want to return a game I like. I haven't encountered particularly nasty EULA. But then, I'm a consumer. EULAs generally allow an legal use a consumer is going to use to consume the product.

You're telling me that if an unacceptable EULA gets packed with software and the retailer doesn't have a returns policy about that, I can still get a refund. That's why I'm asking you to prove it.


Dude, that is just desperate on your part. I'll tell you what, if anyone here suggests that the RIAA is perfect, resubmit that article as evidence. They were chasing someone who was genuinely stealing their songs.


Are you seriously telling me that a zombie grandmother was genuinely stealing RIAA music???


Which is not the same as what you said. They are trying to prevent the distribution of a software that is used to steal their product. It's a valid concern. You said they'll sue you for making backups. This doesn't demonstrate that at all.

What is the difference between a backup and pirated software? But fine, I'll drop this point.


I do get it. It's intellectual property. It's treated as such. When people use that property without paying for it, it's stealing. It's the people who steal it who make us have to deal with higher costs AND with attempts by software companies to prevent it.

This is the key difference. You cannot treat intellectual property the same way as physical property and expect it to work. Even the article you like doesn't say that putting DRM guarantees more sales. In fact, it talks about loss of reputation caused both by DRM and poorly done cracks. Yes, it acknowledges the free rider problem. Yes, it acknowledges the scale of piracy, and no, it does not agree with strict dollar loss for every pirated software.

So the site you refer to doesn't support your claims entirely either.


Why would you have to show me? Apparently, I'm already there. Apparently, having a DRM doesn't inhibit people at all. Except, well, you've already admitted it does, below.

You mean technophobes who can't find the power button? I know of a few personally. They'd never also be able to find a software store either. Heck, one had to get his Dell computer through me because he couldn't work out how to use their ordering system.

There's no real risk of any software sales beyond preinstalled OS'es from that particular quarter, legit or not.


You've already shown that it does. You've admitted that there are people who wouldn't know how to pirate it. That demonstrates it right there.

Ahahaha. No. The same people who don't know how to pirate it are generally the same people who never use their computer for anything other than browsing the net and basic media (visual audio) use. They don't pirate because they don't get any extra software beyond preinstalled OS'es because they can't even figure out how to install anything at all, period.


Which by the nature of what they do, forces people to go out of their way to pirate the software and by having to go out their way, ensure people won't.


Buh? What? The act of getting pirated software is a lot less hassle than getting legitimate software, unless you're saying that downloading has suddenly become a herculean task compared to going to a software store and buying a game.

The other bit probably sailed over your head because you don't have the experience, but over here, it's easier to get pirated software than originals. Why? Because they sell them for a pittance in software stores, just like a legit one. Legit stores restrict themselves to upscale malls, and only if they're franchised.


Which doesn't change the perception that many users have. There are many, many people out there who are afraid to use credit cards on the internet. Now, it's actually just as easy or easier to steal credit card info in person, but they just like that warm fuzzy of knowing who they're dealing with. So you can have your "scornful laughter", I'll be over here being right.

Being right about what? That there's a sucker born every minute? You can be right about that if you want, but I'm not sure if it's anything to be proud of.


Nope. You're supposed to be assured, that there are other people who feel like they are more secure. I happen to not agree with them, but certainly those people exist.

You're supposed to only do business with the ones you like. No one is forcing you to buy their luxury products. Certainly no one is forcing you to steal them. I know that you're willing to go to great lengths to justify stealing someone else's property, but you're not going to convince me that you're Robin Hood. This isn't medicine. You're simply making excuses for theft.


Oh bollocks. I'm not justifying it anymore than I'm justifying baby eating. What I'm trying to point out is why DRM as is currently being attempted is a failed attempt at fighting piracy. Why is it those on the anti-piracy side instantly assume any argument showing why DRM doesn't do what they say it does means that the person is some pseudo robin hood wannabe? You want to polarize the argument into some kind of "with us or against us" creed, go right ahead, but I won't play that game.


Actually, sure. Sure, most people who load software themselves are aware of piracy and know how to use a search engine to some degree. This does not mean they are going to search out software, feel comfortable loading hacker software, etc.

A fair point. But how do you explain the people on this board who have bought legitimate software, got tired of the DRM hoops, and ending up pirating it anyway?


There has been evidence provided that DRMs can and do work,


In that they delay people in cracking them? Maybe. Now show me that DRM translates to increased sales and reduced piracy. It's what DRM advocates argue isn't it?


but even without it, the logical default is that it works.


That's silly. It's like the magic rock that keeps away tigers argument.


The only way you were able to deal with it is to pretend like people you admit exist, don't.

The kind of people I'm talking about also don't buy any software beyond pre-installed stuff, so they don't matter much either way on the issues of DRM.


Now, are there people who are going to steal software, no matter what? Yep.

Are they likely to be stopped? No.

Are there people who will never steal software, no matter what? Yep

Are there people in the middle? Yep.

It's those people in the middle that software companies are concerned with. Given that they continue to make bucketloads of money, it seems to be working and that's a good thing, because it's the only reason there are any games to steal.

Of course at the same time, companies who have no DRM whatsoever, like Stardock, also make bucketloads of money. So why aren't they going out of business like you seem to be implying that anyone who doesn't use it should?


You should be thanking your lucky stars that they continue to be willing to put out games you'd want to steal.

"DRM is a bad move, here's why"

"You want to pirate! You're a thief!"

That's your argument. You sure you want to use that kind of method?

I imagine a good many of the "day zero privacy is killing our product!" complaints are coming from games that had already been out on the consoles for weeks or months before computer release. Those are also used to point and decry piracy because their sales fall below expected.


This only serves to prove my point.

Yeah, that's probably why they decry piracy. I mean, it's totally illogical to think that software companies decry piracy because it's the theft of their product. Nah.

I know that when people steal my intellectual property, I'm don't have any issue with it when I worked as many hours as I expected that year.

Yeah, that's probably why they decry piracy. I mean, it's totally illogical to think that software companies decry piracy because it's the theft of their product. Nah.

I know that when people steal my intellectual property, I'm don't have any issue with it when I worked as many hours as I expected that year.

Developers have no stats for piracy, so they cry the piracy wolf whenever their sales fall below expectation.

You do know that console games are pirated as well? It's much harder to do, but one can pirate and play pirated games on consoles, through various methods.

You do know that console games are pirated as well? It's much harder to do, but one can pirate and play pirated games on consoles, through various methods.

True, however, most legitimate users have no reason to do that - as the game seems to be able to play on the console without breaking the console. This is a major difference between intrusive DRM like Starforce, and proprietary technology such as a PS3.

True, however, most legitimate users have no reason to do that...
The fact that games cost £40 a pop?

So am I understanding you right, you're saying that DRM (including copy protection) is generally pointless and will not have an effect on the profits the company make? If so, can you expand on that, because I don't see that.

Stardock makes significant profit, despite having no DRM. They certainly don't seem to be having any financial problems. Do their products get pirated? Obviously. Are they going out of business or have no sales? Absolutely not.

And this is what they have to say about it as of 2008.

http://www.stardock.com/media/stardockcustomerreport-2008.pdf


So you think the day zero pirazy problem that the article describes is bogus?


That before street date pirated release it might affect sales? It might affect sales, certainly. Will DRM put a stop to that? Bollocks. Just run a release date track on any pirate site for any software that will carry heavy DRM, and watch as it gets cracked before or within days of street release. However they're doing it, the crack groups are staying a step ahead.


Based on?


How many other games get cracked within days of release, sometimes on the day of release itself, and sometimes even before. Even your article acknowledges that such things happen.


The threat of a lawsuit doesn't really have a bearing on whether or not Starforce actually causes harm. I refer you to the article again (since it's all I've got to cling to) and ask if you've got any verified evidence that the author hasn't seen.

A boycott site, which lists the problems and provides some video evidence.

http://www.glop.org/starforce/

Interestingly, at the bottom of the page, there appears to be even an acknowledgment by Starforce that their DRM causes headaches, although they're careful to avoid specifying what sort of headache.

You do know that console games are pirated as well? It's much harder to do, but one can pirate and play pirated games on consoles, through various methods.

Yeah, all games will be pirated. The article goes into that too. You should read that if you haven't already, as well as familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher and powergamer Ayn Rand.

The fact that games cost £40 a pop?

Other than financial concerns. :p

In any case, that *would* be legitimate copyright infringement, as opposed to piracy for the sake of system efficiency.

And you've not debunked the fact that in many cases, games get cracked and put up for release on the the date of release and sometimes even before either. Maybe someone gets a copy of the master disc when it goes gold, maybe someone in the company feeds the software to the groups, it doesn't really matter how they do it. They do.

Do you even bother to check whether there is evidence to back your claims of the time difference between release dates and cracked versions?

Here's one site that should be fairly safe to mention. Piratebay. Take any popular upcoming title. Track the release date. I guarantee that a cracked version will either come out on Piratebay before the release date or within three days.

Amusingly, you've already conceeded this point. Even if some software is the exception (which requires me to simply accept your repeatedly debunked assertions), you've already admitted that not all software is cracked on the first day. That you can show that some is cracked quickly is irrelevant to whether or not software companies should continue to attempt to prevent theft.


Or maybe, just maybe, the company decides that it's easier to blame the user and silence criticisms with lawsuits than admit they have problems. But if you want more proof, here's some with a more comprehensive list.

http://www.glop.org/starforce/

Yes. It's a boycott site, but so what? Are they automatically non-legit because they have as much credibility as the support article?

I like how you have to build up a strawman reply. It was you who, in fact, said they lack credibility. I don't happen to buy the hype, but that's mainly because there is no actually evidence for the hype. Anecdotes made by a community where 1 in 10 people stole the software aren't particularly reliable.


[QUOTE=Non Aligned States;14464334]You're telling me that if an unacceptable EULA gets packed with software and the retailer doesn't have a returns policy about that, I can still get a refund. That's why I'm asking you to prove it.

No, I'm telling you'd have a case. You may not make that case, but you'd likely win in small claims if you attempted to get your money back and could show that the EULA was not something you could reasonable expect and that you hadn't, in fact, used the product.


Are you seriously telling me that a zombie grandmother was genuinely stealing RIAA music???

Uh, no. Having trouble reading? I blatantly said it was a mistake. Who here is claiming the RIAA doesn't make mistakes? They were however tracking legitimate piracy. They simply reached the wrong source.


What is the difference between a backup and pirated software? But fine, I'll drop this point.

A backup is a copy meant to protect your license. Pirated software is a copy meant to circumvent the license. Seriously, how can you participate in this thread if you don't know the difference?


This is the key difference. You cannot treat intellectual property the same way as physical property and expect it to work. Even the article you like doesn't say that putting DRM guarantees more sales. In fact, it talks about loss of reputation caused both by DRM and poorly done cracks. Yes, it acknowledges the free rider problem. Yes, it acknowledges the scale of piracy, and no, it does not agree with strict dollar loss for every pirated software.

So the site you refer to doesn't support your claims entirely either.

Only if you don't actually understand the argument.

The argument is straightforward and both intuitively and logically sound: for every pirated copy of a product, there is some potential loss of income to the producer of that product. This is not the same as saying that every pirated copy is a lost sale. What it actually means is that firstly some proportion of the people who are pirating a game would have bought it in the absence of piracy. Equally as important however is the fact that even those who would never have paid the full purchase price for one reason or another may still have paid some lower amount to purchase and play the game which they pirated. This is because by the very act of obtaining and playing a game, they've clearly demonstrated that they place some value on that game. After all, if something is truly 'worthless', consumers won't bother to obtain or use it in the first place, regardless of whether it's free or not. Even if a game only gives the pirate a few hours of enjoyment, that's still worth something. In the absence of piracy they may have purchased the game at a discount several months after its release, or bought it second-hand for example. So the existence of piracy results in some loss of income to PC game developers, publishers, retailers and even other consumers.

It says explicitly that there is a redressable loss due to piracy. It shows that every copy stolen has some value that is demonstrated in the effort made to steal it. They demonstrate worth and thus make the clear argument that they are stealing something of value. That value is exactly what makes it a crime. No one is claiming that physical property and intellectual property are the same. What we are claiming is that stealing either of them is theft and that they represent financial loss. Unsurpisingly, you'd equally be committing a crime if you entered someone's home and slept in their bed even if you didn't physically harm their home in any way. The obvious issue there being the same, that you've illegally utilized their property for your own gain without reaching agreement with them and without compensation.


You mean technophobes who can't find the power button? I know of a few personally. They'd never also be able to find a software store either. Heck, one had to get his Dell computer through me because he couldn't work out how to use their ordering system.

There's no real risk of any software sales beyond preinstalled OS'es from that particular quarter, legit or not.

You're cracking me up. Seriously, this level of hyperbole passing for you, but you think it's inappropriate to refer to those engaging in theft as thieves. Intersting dichotomy that one.



Sorry, I got bored with the rest of your reply. Put up or shut up. I get that some people find it upsetting to call things what they are, but piracy is theft and represents financial loss. That's a fact. The only thing in dispute by anyone with any evidence is how much of a loss there is.

If you'd like to claim no loss exists, you're going to have to dispute the actual clear demonstrated value people put on the intellectual property by going to the effort to crack it, to find it, to download it and to engage in all the acts relating to piracy. You're going to have to show that at no point and at no cost would those people purchase the software. Given that such an argument is contrary to the basic logic of the act of stealing, you've got your work cut out for you.

Meanwhile, I'll be over hear, referring to the act of acquiring something of value without the permission of the owner AND without compensation as theft. I'm silly like that.

Developers have no stats for piracy, so they cry the piracy wolf whenever their sales fall below expectation.

Untrue. They don't have exact stats for piracy. That is not the same thing.

It's not crying wolf when there are actually wolves and the only question anyone has is the exact amount of wolves.

I find it interesting that one person is arguing that developers who claim their software is being pirated are 'crying wolf' while another is pointing out that all software except preinstalled OSs are stolen from the first day.

True, however, most legitimate users have no reason to do that - as the game seems to be able to play on the console without breaking the console. This is a major difference between intrusive DRM like Starforce, and proprietary technology such as a PS3.

You keep making this argument without evidence. The difference on the console is that the protections are much more effective and that it's much easier to get caught. Because the console owns every part of what is on there, you're basically caught the moment you put it on-line. (Or at least the potential is quite high.)

Unlike the internet, the console maker can then permaban you from using that console online again. They have easily enforcable penalties and natural inconveniences that keep piracy down on consoles.

However, the console does betray another of your arguments as fallacious, as the lowered piracy gives every indication to result in higher purchases.

Again, I'm sure some people think that their lame justifications for theft somehow hold, but it's still justifying theft. No more. No less. Unsuccessfully, no less.

More importantly, your argument doesn't match the evidence. Evidence suggests that software with more complicated DRMs aren't pirated more. In fact, the only evidence for a relationship to some quality of the software and the amount of piracy is popularity and how easy it is to acquire a pirated copy.

You keep making this argument without evidence. The difference on the console is that the protections are much more effective and that it's much easier to get caught. Because the console owns every part of what is on there, you're basically caught the moment you put it on-line. (Or at least the potential is quite high.)

Unlike the internet, the console maker can then permaban you from using that console online again. They have easily enforcable penalties and natural inconveniences that keep piracy down on consoles.

Fair enough. I can't really argue that consoles are easier to protect. It's true.

However, the console does betray another of your arguments as fallacious, as the lowered piracy gives every indication to result in higher purchases.

You keep saying that I'm claiming piracy doesn't hurt sales. I believe if you go back in this thread, you won't find me saying anything of the kind anywhere. Would you please stop burning the strawman? He's had enough.

Again, I'm sure some people think that their lame justifications for theft somehow hold, but it's still justifying theft. No more. No less. Unsuccessfully, no less.

I'm still not getting how, if I purchase a game, and then get a copy of the game online that has no DRM and runs cleaner, more efficiently, and uses less resources than the retail game, but has the overall same gameplay as what I have sitting in the box, how that's stealing. I'm fuzzy on that still.

More importantly, your argument doesn't match the evidence. Evidence suggests that software with more complicated DRMs aren't pirated more. In fact, the only evidence for a relationship to some quality of the software and the amount of piracy is popularity and how easy it is to acquire a pirated copy.

I never made this argument either. Please stop burning that strawman! He's crying out for mercy!


Also, you still haven't admitted you were wrong about the author of that article *not* claiming to be unbiased.

I find it interesting that one person is arguing that developers who claim their software is being pirated are 'crying wolf' while another is pointing out that all software except preinstalled OSs are stolen from the first day.

That's funny because I said no such thing. Of course software is being pirated, but at the rate and severity the developers claim? That's a different matter.

Stardock makes significant profit, despite having no DRM. They certainly don't seem to be having any financial problems. Do their products get pirated? Obviously. Are they going out of business or have no sales? Absolutely not.

And this is what they have to say about it as of 2008.

http://www.stardock.com/media/stardockcustomerreport-2008.pdf
Yeah, I've seen that report. ;)

You say "significant profit" - have you seen any numbers?

That before street date pirated release it might affect sales? It might affect sales, certainly. Will DRM put a stop to that? Bollocks. Just run a release date track on any pirate site for any software that will carry heavy DRM, and watch as it gets cracked before or within days of street release. However they're doing it, the crack groups are staying a step ahead.
In some cases it's worked, and in some cases it hasn't.


How many other games get cracked within days of release, sometimes on the day of release itself, and sometimes even before. Even your article acknowledges that such things happen.
Indeed. And it implies that the sooner it gets cracked, the less a game will sell.
You can't afford to be cracked. As soon as you're gone, you're gone, and your sales drop astronomically if you've got a day-one crack.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2

A boycott site, which lists the problems and provides some video evidence.

http://www.glop.org/starforce/

Interestingly, at the bottom of the page, there appears to be even an acknowledgment by Starforce that their DRM causes headaches, although they're careful to avoid specifying what sort of headache.
The article deals with that site as well, claiming there's no evidence. I can't contribute any further on this part of the topic. Sorry :p

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2

I don't see you doing anything other than providing anecdotal evidence via statements from developers and then continuously citing one report while still ignoring anything everyone else provides.

Stardock makes significant profit, despite having no DRM.

Non-DRM games often admit to something like 90% piracy rates and often submit that their policies wouldn't work for games with broader appeal and larger development costs. When your game costs 10 million dollars to develop, the issue is a bit stickier.

Now, you may like low production titles, and that is certainly your right, but undoubtedly, piracy is going to harm the number of titles available. Even the CEO of Stardock suggests that game developers are going to have to be more selective with titles.

More importantly, the company you tout as having the answer says that piracy hurt its sales.

I don't see you doing anything other than providing anecdotal evidence via statements from developers and then continuously citing one report while still ignoring anything everyone else provides.

What specifically has been ignored?

He was replying to a reference to that article by showing the conclusions from the same article. Do you suggest he talk about the conclusions to a different article and simply ignore the bounds of logic altogether?

For the record, I do actually hope that Stardock helps the industry find a more appropriate level of copy protection. I do think the industry can do better and likely will. I think they are just going through growing pains like car alarms did back when rain could set them off. I read a lot of what Stardock has to say, officially, and I like their approach even if some of their stuff is obviously a marketing ploy.

The argument here is whether or not one can argue that a software they don't need is somehow obligated to be provided to them under their terms. It isn't. People aren't obligated to buy the software. They have no excuse for stealing it.

The argument here is whether or not one can argue that a software they don't need is somehow obligated to be provided to them under their terms. It isn't. People aren't obligated to buy the software. They have no excuse for stealing it.

But why can't we buy it and modify it? That's the argument you're making against me, and I'm still not clear what's wrong with modifying something I bought.

For instance, I drive a small sports car. It shipped from the factory with 230hp. I installed a cold air intake, bigger intercooler, and turned up the boost. It now pushes about 280-290hp. Why should I be arrested for doing this with my software?

Or, if you'd prefer something more intellectual property-like:

Sony was famous for putting a rootkit on their music cds. Let's suppose I liked the song on one of those cds, so I buy the CD, never open it, and download that song from the internet to prevent damage to my computer. Why is that wrong?

But why can't we buy it and modify it? That's the argument you're making against me, and I'm still not clear what's wrong with modifying something I bought.

You didn't buy the software. You licensed it and modifying it in the way you want to is not within the license.

As such your options are not to purchase it, which is certainly your right, or to steal, which is not.


For instance, I drive a small sports car. It shipped from the factory with 230hp. I installed a cold air intake, bigger intercooler, and turned up the boost. It now pushes about 280-290hp. Why should I be arrested for doing this with my software?

The difference is that you actually purchased the physical property. If you were, however, leasing it you'd be subject to terms.

However, to use a similar analogy, if you get a house in my neighborhood, why does your shed have to be approved by the housing association before you build it?

And you won't be arrested for modifying your software. You will be arrested if you distribute a modification that is designed to make it easier to pirate it. You will be arrested if you pirate the software.

Pirating the software and violating the terms of the agreement are not the same thing. Violating the terms simpy nullifies the agreement. Pirating the software means you stole it.

You didn't buy the software. You licensed it and modifying it in the way you want to is not within the license.

As such your options are not to purchase it, which is certainly your right, or to steal, which is not.

However, going with this line of thought, I already have leased the code sections that are still within the pirated version. The pirated version contains extra code sections (unusual) or with code sections removed (more common). Since I already am leasing all the parts, then it's not stealing from the company. At worst, it's stealing from the cracker who beat it for his code, and I think he's giving it away for free.


The difference is that you actually purchased the physical property. If you were, however, leasing it you'd be subject to terms.

So you're saying that this lease on my software will expire and I'll have to turn it back in? I hope not... I still play Worms: Armageddon.


However, to use a similar analogy, if you get a house in my neighborhood, why does your shed have to be approved by the housing association before you build it?

I object to home owner's associations on principle and think they should all be abolished, for similar reasons. But, that's another discussion for another day.

However, to use a similar And you won't be arrested for modifying your software. You will be arrested if you distribute a modification that is designed to make it easier to pirate it. You will be arrested if you pirate the software.

But you just said that because I download software that I have legally purchased, I can be sued or arrested, even though I already have a license to use all the code in that game.

Pirating the software and violating the terms of the agreement are not the same thing. Violating the terms simpy nullifies the agreement. Pirating the software means you stole it.

Naturally. I'm aware of the difference. So, what is wrong with downloading a version of the game that runs faster, more efficiently, and less headache on the system when I've already paid the manufacturer for the game?


As a better illustration:

There was a famous debacle with Sony putting a rootkit on their music cds. When the cd was inserted into a computer, it automatically loaded a rootkit that was invisible to the user and prevented the user from making copies of music to the computer.

If I liked one of those cds, bought it, and never opened it, but then downloaded the music that was on the cd (that I already purchased) to the computer in order to prevent my computer from being damaged, how would that be wrong?

However, going with this line of thought, I already have leased the code sections that are still within the pirated version. The pirated version contains extra code sections (unusual) or with code sections removed (more common). Since I already am leasing all the parts, then it's not stealing from the company. At worst, it's stealing from the cracker who beat it for his code, and I think he's giving it away for free.

No, you haven't. You've leased a license to use the specific format of the software. You are not permitted to break it down and that is, in fact, part of the license.

So you're saying that this lease on my software will expire and I'll have to turn it back in? I hope not... I still play Worms: Armageddon.

It actually could, but, no, strangely enough an analogy is not exactly it equal or it wouldn't be an analogy.


I object to home owner's associations on principle and think they should all be abolished, for similar reasons. But, that's another discussion for another day.

Does it justify stealing homes?


But you just said that because I download software that I have legally purchased, I can be sued or arrested, even though I already have a license to use all the code in that game.

You will not find an example of being sued for possession software you purchased.

And you keep saying that last bit, but it is not true.

Naturally. I'm aware of the difference. So, what is wrong with downloading a version of the game that runs faster, more efficiently, and less headache on the system when I've already paid the manufacturer for the game?

Well, technically, what is wrong is that you're violating the license. However, no one is ever going to enforce that despite your red herrings.


As a better illustration:

There was a famous debacle with Sony putting a rootkit on their music cds. When the cd was inserted into a computer, it automatically loaded a rootkit that was invisible to the user and prevented the user from making copies of music to the computer.

If I liked one of those cds, bought it, and never opened it, but then downloaded the music that was on the cd (that I already purchased) to the computer in order to prevent my computer from being damaged, how would that be wrong?

Because you'd be violating their rights. Company's have rights. It's not for you to decide which of those rights you'd like to respect. I rented a room at a hotel. I decided not to use that room because it had two beds rather than a queen, so I broke into another room and used that one. How would that be wrong?

Now, in the interest of fairness, make copies of cds that have software to prevent it. I do so for making backups. If I believe for a moment the company objected to me making legitimate backups, I'd actually stop (and likely stop purchasing their software). I have also done what you describe in terms of music. Again, it's for the company to decide if they think I'm wrong. I'd accept the consequences if the did so. It's their right.

Now, are you done with the red herring. No one is trying to prevent the normal use of the software. No one is trying to prevent you to have a copy of software you paid for and for that copy not to have copy protection. Unfortunately, by encouraging and defending piracy, and by people engaging in piracy, those protections you hate will likely be around for a long time. Make sure the next time you're on pirate bay that you thank all the people who don't pay for software for making DRM necessary.

I'm certain we'd all agree that companies would not pay for DRM if pirates didn't make it necessary.

No, you haven't. You've leased a license to use the specific format of the software. You are not permitted to break it down and that is, in fact, part of the license.

Bookmark #1. See labeled bookmark #2.

It actually could, but, no, strangely enough an analogy is not exactly it equal or it wouldn't be an analogy.

A poor analogy. A lease involves the manufacturer or owner receiving the property back in the condition that it was lent or in a similar condition. An ownership involves no such limitation.

Does it justify stealing homes?

That strawman is all cinders. Again, here we go equating copying with stealing. No. It would equate to going to your neighbor's home, admiring their kitchen, and modifying your kitchen to look exactly like it. It's a little weird, but not illegal.

You will not find an example of being sued for possession software you purchased.

Because they can't. It's covered on fair use for reverse engineering for compatibility and archiving.

And you keep saying that last bit, but it is not true.

So what does the license allow me to do? Does it not allow me to use the code for personal use? I.E. playing the game?

Well, technically, what is wrong is that you're violating the license. However, no one is ever going to enforce that despite your red herrings.

Bookmark #2. Bookmark #1 and Bookmark #2 should be read in sequence.

Because you'd be violating their rights. Company's have rights. It's not for you to decide which of those rights you'd like to respect. I rented a room at a hotel. I decided not to use that room because it had two beds rather than a queen, so I broke into another room and used that one. How would that be wrong?

Consumers have rights as well, or have you never read what constitutes "fair use" of intellectual property?

Now, in the interest of fairness, make copies of cds that have software to prevent it. I do so for making backups. If I believe for a moment the company objected to me making legitimate backups, I'd actually stop (and likely stop purchasing their software). I have also done what you describe in terms of music. Again, it's for the company to decide if they think I'm wrong. I'd accept the consequences if the did so. It's their right.

So you'd accept the consequences if the company decided to intrude into your fair use rights? I will not. I will fight it to the death.

Now, are you done with the red herring. No one is trying to prevent the normal use of the software. No one is trying to prevent you to have a copy of software you paid for and for that copy not to have copy protection. Unfortunately, by encouraging and defending piracy, and by people engaging in piracy, those protections you hate will likely be around for a long time. Make sure the next time you're on pirate bay that you thank all the people who don't pay for software for making DRM necessary.

Perhaps, but there is reasonable DRM, which is tolerable - SafeDisc, Laserlock, etc. Then there are examples of DRM which are intolerable, like Starforce, and Sony's rootkit.

I'm certain we'd all agree that companies would not pay for DRM if pirates didn't make it necessary.

Oh, I don't disagree. But there's a difference between putting a lock on the door and having motion sensing auto-targeting turrets at your front door.

Amusingly, you've already conceeded this point. Even if some software is the exception (which requires me to simply accept your repeatedly debunked assertions), you've already admitted that not all software is cracked on the first day.

And what does this have to do with anything? Really? At all? Are you going to pretend that pre-release cracks don't exist next? Is the point you're trying to make being that somehow having a non-cracked release will have more sales than those which are? If so, I'd like to see some statistics regarding that, which your favored site so graciously didn't put up. I wonder why...


I like how you have to build up a strawman reply. It was you who, in fact, said they lack credibility. I don't happen to buy the hype, but that's mainly because there is no actually evidence for the hype.

Of course, I suppose video evidence won't do for you. And neither will a community? Who will suffice for your evidence then hmm? The firm that makes the contested software?


Uh, no. Having trouble reading? I blatantly said it was a mistake. Who here is claiming the RIAA doesn't make mistakes? They were however tracking legitimate piracy. They simply reached the wrong source.

Only because it was painfully obvious that it wasn't. That is the problem with shotgun approach to lawsuits. If the slightest doubt can be created that you've got a pirated copy, they'll jump on you. The favored tactic appears to be to scare you with lawsuits and get out of court settlements by the thousands.

So maybe you'll be able to fight it in court if it's just backups. If you can get the legal fees.


A backup is a copy meant to protect your license. Pirated software is a copy meant to circumvent the license. Seriously, how can you participate in this thread if you don't know the difference?

Wrong sort of answer. There is no physical difference between a backup and pirated software. If you make an image of a legit disc and the disc and proof of purchase is lost, there's no way to differentiate.


Only if you don't actually understand the argument.

The argument is a big sack of rubbish. It's in essence arguing that because someone drove to a store and picked up a copy of a game, the fuel costs can be added to the value that the developer reaps.

Trying to conflate the issue by tacking on theft as if to bolster the argument is nonsensical.


You're cracking me up. Seriously, this level of hyperbole passing for you,

Of course not, anecdotal evidence, since I do regularly deal with these sort of people, is no good according to you, but it's perfectly fine when someone makes a lot of arguments without evidence that supports your views. Your precious site for example, is sorely lacking in actual research aside from some site traffic information, but it's gospel for you.

Well whatever, go on believing you're right or what have you. Things will just go on as they always will.

Yeah, I've seen that report. ;)

You say "significant profit" - have you seen any numbers?

I'll admit that finding the relevant data about their yearly performance has been difficult. But I do submit that their continued growth is hardly a sign of sales suffering.


In some cases it's worked, and in some cases it hasn't.


In only one case, which is a little spotty. Release date for Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was 21st March 2005. Oldest known cracked release on piratebay shows 14 April, 2005. Hardly months in between release and crack now is it?


Indeed. And it implies that the sooner it gets cracked, the less a game will sell.

I find that sales of Spore, despite being a pre-release crack like most EA titles, does not seem to have been flagging. In fact, it's something EA seems to boast about, doesn't it?


http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183311.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=morenews&tag=morenews;title;2


And I counter with this.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10040941-52.html

How come Spore didn't flop on its first day/week of release then? It was cracked well before the street date.


The article deals with that site as well, claiming there's no evidence. I can't contribute any further on this part of the topic. Sorry :p

I wouldn't be surprised. But interestingly, doesn't your own site make a lot of unsourced claims about cd-mounting software like Daemon tools?

Someone appears to be not telling the truth then, doesn't it?

I wouldn't be surprised. But interestingly, doesn't your own site make a lot of unsourced claims about cd-mounting software like Daemon tools?

A piece of software recommended by Microsoft, I might add.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/es-es/subscriptions/aa948864.aspx

In only one case, which is a little spotty. Release date for Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was 21st March 2005. Oldest known cracked release on piratebay shows 14 April, 2005. Hardly months in between release and crack now is it?

Bioshock was also cracked roughly the same day as the release. The 360 version even sooner. If I have said it once, I have said it a million times: how much a game is pirated is directly proportional to how popular it is, not how draconian the DRM is.

I'll admit that finding the relevant data about their yearly performance has been difficult.
Seriously, I think yet again that it all boils down to this.

We don't have the necessary data. I haven't seen EA boast about sales of Spore. I haven't seen them saying they thought it to be a flop either. I haven't seen any numbers concerning the profits EA made off of Spore. I have no numbers to compare those with anyway. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence either way, and logical reasoning saying this and that, but I'm not getting anywhere because of the lack of hard, verifiable data.

The previously posted article indicates one thing, and you may disagree with it. I'm in no position to judge the veracity of the claims in the article versus the veracity of your claims.

The producers of games seem to indicate that what they're really worried about is the sales during the first few months, but I see your point that many games have been released cracked very early. So how does this impact the sales? I still don't know, because I still lack any data. Same with profits.

I'm back to my original question:

Will companies make more money releasing games without DRM than they will by releasing games with it?

I'm not convinced either way yet, and I don't suppose there's any point in continuing going back and forth until someone finds and posts some relevant data concerning this subject. The evidence we have so far is inconclusive in my mind.

I found the article (http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html) Geniasis provided to be very enlightning and very persuasive. And that shows very clearly that there is a need for DRM in what the author calls this climate of rampant piracy.
(Sory, but I have to steal arguments from the article in the following ;) )

Christ, you teach a man to fish...


:tongue:

Christ, you teach a man to fish...


:tongue:

...and he'll be wet for the rest of the evening? ;)

Thanks for the article. I've overused it well :p

...and he'll be wet for the rest of the evening? ;)

Thanks for the article. I've overused it well :p

Yeah, no problem. I remembered having read it awhile back, and since no one was doing any linking, I figured it couldn't hurt.

DRM "Anti-Piracy Hurts Sales (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ed6dd08-970a-11dc-b2da-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)". According to the Entertainment Retailers Association.

Edit: Fixed the link, I think.

Oh, here's something from Steve Jobs (Chief Executive, Apple) on getting rid of DRM (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5469e6ea-b632-11db-9eea-0000779e2340.html), as well.

And Bill Gates doesn't seem to think DRM is where it should be (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on-the-future-of-drm/), either.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=618065

Why DRM Should be Cause for Concern: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the Effect of Digital Technology on the Music Industry
Paul Petrick, Nov 2004
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School Research Publication No. 2004-09

In response to piracy and online file trading, the music industry has begun to adopt technological measures, often referred to as digital rights management (DRM), to control the sale and distribution of music over the Internet. Previous economic analysis on the impact of DRM implementation has been overly simplistic. A careful analysis of copyright law and the microeconomic principles governing the music industry demonstrates that commentators have failed to account for factors relevant to the measure of social welfare within the music industry. This paper develops a more refined economic model that is better suited to accurately assessing how legal or technological changes like DRM will affect the music industry.

Utilizing a refined economic model, the analysis suggests that the economic effects of implementing DRM technology are generally negative, albeit uncertain. While DRM implementation may inhibit piracy, facilitate price discrimination, and lower transactional costs, it will likely decrease social welfare by raising barriers to entry and exacerbating a number of existing market failures. Specifically, DRM implementation may facilitate the extension of monopoly pricing, decrease the amount of information available to potential music consumers, diminish the number of positive externalities, and raise artistic and informational barriers to entry into certain genres of music.

*snip*

What's funny is you're trying so desperately to claim they're going to sue you for making backups after admitting they'll do no such thing and now saying it's not even a violation of the terms.

What the thread is about is piracy. What we're arguing about is piracy. If you'd said, I just want to be able to backup my software, I'd say, then buy software that lets you back it up. I'd have said "so".

Instead, you justified stealing and everytime I make a comparison to stealing, you act like we're talking about you using software you purchased. We aren't. Worse, you originally began this by claiming that as long as you use some external method to intentionally and willfully avoid seeing the license but to still be able to view the license, that you've not agreed to it.

How many arguments are you going to abandon? I'll grant you that you should be able to make backups, and have in fact admitted I do the same. I've also granted that you won't ever be tried for it and they won't even make an attempt.

Let's be clear. Do you know the difference between stealing software and simply backing up software you've purchased? The software companies are trying to prevent the former. The second is a side-effect along with other side effects, but they wouldn't exist if people didn't steal software.

Again, state it clearly, do you think people should steal software? Do you, in any way, blame software companies for the illegal activities of people stealing their products? Do you think software companies should attempt to prevent people from accessing their intellectual property without contribution?

Also as for your brand new ridiculous and hyperbolous analogy, you let me know when the first dies as a direct result of DRM.

Oh, here's something from Steve Jobs (Chief Executive, Apple) on getting rid of DRM (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5469e6ea-b632-11db-9eea-0000779e2340.html), as well.

And Bill Gates doesn't seem to think DRM is where it should be (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on-the-future-of-drm/), either.

You mean, Apple and Microsoft who both use DRM in their own products and make everything about as proprietary as they can get away with, making it utterly inconvenient in order to protect their wares are suggesting someone else stop doing so?

You'll notice to moguls who use DRM for software are suggesting we lay off the pressure when it comes to music.

Every example you gave is about music. We're talking about software.

Alright so we're clear... everyone does realize that the DRM is meant to prevent stealing (piracy) the software, right?

Everyone does realize that we're talking about software?

You do realize that music and software are not the same thing even though the both have DRM, yeah?

Just checking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWPfcEOr2Yg

...

What the thread is about is piracy. What we're arguing about is piracy. If you'd said, I just want to be able to backup my software, I'd say, then buy software that lets you back it up. I'd have said "so"

...

Actually, the thread was about a flaw in the DRM for one game causing headaches for legitimate users. You have led the anti-pirate charge since then and various othes have defended the pirates.

Those of us who are legitimate gamers tired of dealing with technical headaches for stuff we paid for have found our posts ignored, or worse, we get hit with friendly fire attacks from the pro-DRM camp.

I'm tired of paying the game companies money to take my rights away, actually. Think I'll be more selective so I don't get burned again like I did before.

Epic claims it wasn't about DRM at all.

Gears of War maker says bug caused by anticheat technology, not DRM

The bug in Gears of War that locked out players starting last Thursday was caused by flaws in the game's anticheating software, not antipiracy technology, said an executive at maker Epic Games Inc.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127202

The online cheat detection features in Gears of War for Windows are based on digital signatures. Well, we made an embarrassing mistake: we signed the executable with a certificate that expired in a way that broke the game.

We're working with Microsoft to re-sign the binaries properly, and hope to have this fixed very soon. We know how much this situation sucks, and we apologize for the inconvenience.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/949/949988p1.html

If true, it shows how much they hate their legitimate customers, I guess.

Epic claims it wasn't about DRM at all.


http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127202


http://pc.ign.com/articles/949/949988p1.html

If true, it shows how much they hate their legitimate customers, I guess.

pff bet they only saying that as they know they fucked up

pff bet they only saying that as they know they fucked up

Could be.

The best and most hassle free way of getting games is to pirate them. Congratulations games industry!

Anyone else find it hilarious this anti-piracy measure can be defeated by fiddling with your system clock? That's just brilliant.

If it is in fact a simple certificate expiration date problem the date really does not have much to do with the protection the certificate itself

As such it is not really "broke" by changing your date/time but rather continues to make it operate as intended

pff bet they only saying that as they know they fucked up

From what I have seen of the explanation and knowledge of digital signing it seems reasonable

Man, that's like programming a car to stop starting once you've reached a certain mileage.


Smart, very smart.

(Reminds me of the anti-piracy clips they put on the legally purchased DVD which you can neither skip nor fast-forward. Pisses me off to no end - after all, I bought the frigging DVD! Annoying to no end.)

Its closer to programing a cars computer to verify that you have the correct key but accidentally make that program only run a few years instead of decades

The intended purpose was not to stop the car from functioning in years but rather check the key ... a fuckup caused the car to stop working not intended behavior