Telling devs to stop wasting money on something that does nothing and pisses off legit customers is a bad idea now? Also, another news flash for you: Consoles have piracy. Its slightly more difficult than PC, but that isn't going to last; its gotten successively easier with each generation.
I think that DRM is necessary, but it only needs to be strong enough to prevent casual copying. You'll never stop dedicated hackers, but once ma and pa start doing it you're boned. I remember growing up my parents saw absolutely nothing wrong with copying cassette tapes for friends or whatever. Even now anyone can easily rip a CD with no technical know-how.
Consoles have the perfect sweet spot. The DRM is invisible to the end-user and it works. Sure it's easy to pirate an xbox game, but first you'll have to open up your xbox.... something most casual users would panic at.
I don't know if this contributes or anything, but we see a lot of fuss about getting the edge on pirates: game companies are going to some pretty insane lengths just to buy themselves a few more days before that crack hits the net. They're spending a fair amount of money and time just to prevent 0-day piracy, even going so far as to piss off legitimate buyers in an effort to just delay, not halt, piracy.
But I don't see those companies fighting for my rights as a consumer. I don't see the same amount of time and money being spent to make sure that buggy/unfinished/badly ported crap doesn't hit retail. I don't see some kind of body enforcing quality control on the games market or making sure that dipshit company X supports their game for more than 6 months.
In a perfect world there'd be no piracy, but there'd also be far less horseshit going around in the pc gaming industry.
And as a sidenote: I wonder how many people pirated Spore not to protest DRM but because they didn't want to pay for an overhyped creature creator with a quickly tacked on afterthought of a game ductaped to it. Just a thought.
If one didn't want to pay for an over hyped creature creator then one doesn't have to purchase it. One who purchases the game on release takes many of the chances that all early adopters do for any product.
I see no situation that ever justifies piracy.
Piracy IS theft but I do believe just as there are degrees of murder there are degrees of theft. I think that piracy should be treated a tad more lightly than say shop lifting, but that's another thread.
That being said, if consumers feel they are getting the "bait and switch" (being promised one product and delivered another) by video game developers/publishers that is just an argument for consumer rights in the form of being able to return a game for a refund. What I'm thinking of here is something akin to the "lemon law" for purchasing cars applied to video games. Of course this becomes a bit tricky because of the nature of digital media and it's not going to stop piracy.
Of course I've offered no real solution here but I don't think there is one yet. The thing I think everyone (who cares about the industry) is shooting for is something that protects the Publishers and Developers from theft but at the same times protects the rights of the legitimate consumers. Though currently, because the consumer representation or influence on the matter is a bit weak (not just for games but software in general), we are only seeing attempts at solutions from the industry side in the form of the current DRM schemes.
LittleBoots on
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
Not an entirely accurate article.
Every game on Steam has DRM, otherwise I'd be able to sell my old copy of Half Life 2 when I got with Orange box and I'd be free to let others in the house play with one online Steam game while I played another.
It may now have a slightly more user friendly form of DRM but it's DRM all the same.
I didn't mean that Bioshock's DRM has been lifted, but that it's a game that's going to be on retail shelves for a long time, longer than when the product is still relevant to the company.
And that's my point. If it's no longer relevant to the company, there's no reason for the activation servers to remain up.
Basically what I'm saying is that if the company involved isn't publishing it anymore, profiting from it, or doing anything with it, the servers are an added cost for no reason. And there's no legal or contractual obligation as far as I can see for them to have to release a patch to make the game playable outside of that context.
What I would like to see is an obligation for that, because I don't believe the current contracts, and almost certainly not the current law, cover that.
Should they be required to update the game to work on what ever hardware and OS is current in 10 years too?
They already have the unprotected files. All they need to do is make them available. This is not a resource intensive procedure, and I would argue it is in fact the responsibility of any organisation that benefits from being granted the time limited monopoly defined as copyright in the first place. I am not saying they need to update the title to every damn OS, and you know it. The DRM and the product are separately copyrighted entities, and the purpose of Public Domain is that the art in question needs to be available beyond the lifespan where it's profitable. I'm not talking about the frigging company re-writing the product in order to make it work again and again on new platforms, I'm talking about them not implementing measures that shut down the availability of said art because the originator doesn't handle it anymore. That's not how PD works, in fact it's the very thing that PD was designed to stop. This goes doubly so for people that purchased the original product.
The problem with no DRM is when you get a superior product from pirating the software than from purchasing it legitimately.
Because it's free.
Did you read my point? Lets compare two games: Spore and Half-Life 2. Spore is protected by SecuROM, while Half-Life 2 is protected by Steam DRM. Steam offers auto-patching and the ability to re-install the game as many times as you need to, without worrying about finding CDs or authentication codes.
SecuROM, on the other hand, stops you from installing the game more than X number of times.
Developers and publishers need to combat piracy by adding value to legitimate purchases of software, not by detracting from it.
I didn't mean that Bioshock's DRM has been lifted, but that it's a game that's going to be on retail shelves for a long time, longer than when the product is still relevant to the company.
And that's my point. If it's no longer relevant to the company, there's no reason for the activation servers to remain up.
Basically what I'm saying is that if the company involved isn't publishing it anymore, profiting from it, or doing anything with it, the servers are an added cost for no reason. And there's no legal or contractual obligation as far as I can see for them to have to release a patch to make the game playable outside of that context.
What I would like to see is an obligation for that, because I don't believe the current contracts, and almost certainly not the current law, cover that.
Should they be required to update the game to work on what ever hardware and OS is current in 10 years too?
They already have the unprotected files. All they need to do is make them available. This is not a resource intensive procedure, and I would argue it is in fact the responsibility of any organisation that benefits from being granted the time limited monopoly defined as copyright in the first place. I am not saying they need to update the title to every damn OS, and you know it. The DRM and the product are separately copyrighted entities, and the purpose of Public Domain is that the art in question needs to be available beyond the lifespan where it's profitable. I'm not talking about the frigging company re-writing the product in order to make it work again and again on new platforms, I'm talking about them not implementing measures that shut down the availability of said art because the originator doesn't handle it anymore. That's not how PD works, in fact it's the very thing that PD was designed to stop. This goes doubly so for people that purchased the original product.
You're talking about a company having to take the time to so much as flip a switch (any time is time) and, since there is no existing repository for these things, you are really also talking about them expending their own storage and bandwidth to put this stuff out there.
Sorry. The costs may not be high, but there are still costs
I didn't mean that Bioshock's DRM has been lifted, but that it's a game that's going to be on retail shelves for a long time, longer than when the product is still relevant to the company.
And that's my point. If it's no longer relevant to the company, there's no reason for the activation servers to remain up.
Basically what I'm saying is that if the company involved isn't publishing it anymore, profiting from it, or doing anything with it, the servers are an added cost for no reason. And there's no legal or contractual obligation as far as I can see for them to have to release a patch to make the game playable outside of that context.
What I would like to see is an obligation for that, because I don't believe the current contracts, and almost certainly not the current law, cover that.
Should they be required to update the game to work on what ever hardware and OS is current in 10 years too?
They already have the unprotected files. All they need to do is make them available. This is not a resource intensive procedure, and I would argue it is in fact the responsibility of any organisation that benefits from being granted the time limited monopoly defined as copyright in the first place. I am not saying they need to update the title to every damn OS, and you know it. The DRM and the product are separately copyrighted entities, and the purpose of Public Domain is that the art in question needs to be available beyond the lifespan where it's profitable. I'm not talking about the frigging company re-writing the product in order to make it work again and again on new platforms, I'm talking about them not implementing measures that shut down the availability of said art because the originator doesn't handle it anymore. That's not how PD works, in fact it's the very thing that PD was designed to stop. This goes doubly so for people that purchased the original product.
You're talking about a company having to take the time to so much as flip a switch (any time is time) and, since there is no existing repository for these things, you are really also talking about them expending their own storage and bandwidth to put this stuff out there.
Like we talked about previously, I've already stated there needs to be a central repository for these things. Failing that, it would be best for them and for the consumer to put in a contractual obligation to do so. They benefit from a government sanctioned monopoly that is fundamentally designed to benefit the public, as such they should have a responsibility to allow access once they have had their benefit.
I believe that this is something that should become a legal requirement, yes. Although that may be taking things beyond the scope of this debate on DRM.
As with patents for physical objects, the granting of a copyright was ensured by governments to promote innovation and guarantee first-to-market protection for the owner of the copyright (historically, more likely the publisher than the creator). This government-sponsored monopoly thus provides innovation and general benefit to society as a whole, but allows for capitalistic pressures after the first-to-market advantage has been provided as a reward (and effort to cover R&D time for such works to be developed).
wikipedia is not necessarily the prime source for world knowledge or phrasing
the issue with calling this a monopoly is that it belies the fact that the software company has painstakingly developed this individual code, and that others are still quite free to make their own similar, yet different, games.
Without the right to ownership of your own works, comercial software would NEVER be developed, so acting disdainful of ownership rights seemingly reflects a level of ignorance towards, well, cause and effect.
"Monopoly" may apply in this case, in an absolutely litteral denotative sense, but the connotations are all wrong. EA owning Spore is far different from Ma Bell not having any telephone competition.
wikipedia is not necessarily the prime source for world knowledge or phrasing
Now you're just picking nits, if you want feel free to look up any resources you want and they'll tell you the exact same thing.
the issue with calling this a monopoly is that it belies the fact that the software company has painstakingly developed this individual code, and that others are still quite free to make their own similar, yet different, games.
This is not in dispute. The monopoly is on the created work and its distribution. You are confusing aspects of Intellectual Property (in this case a created expression of a concept), and ideas and concepts themselves, which are not copyrightable.
Without the right to ownership of your own works, comercial software would NEVER be developed, so acting disdainful of ownership rights seemingly reflects a level of ignorance towards, well, cause and effect.
I am acting in no way disdainful of ownership rights and have given very definitive evidence of how those rights extend in the realm of copyright.I have given the definition of copyright, and the purpose behind it, and you have only responded by calling me ignorant, and not presenting why the view of copyright I have presented is somehow incorrect.
"Monopoly" may apply in this case, in an absolutely litteral denotative sense, but the connotations are all wrong. EA owning Spore is far different from Ma Bell not having any telephone competition.
Main Entry:
mo·nop·o·ly Listen to the pronunciation of monopoly
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈnä-p(ə-)lē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural mo·nop·o·lies
Etymology:
Latin monopolium, from Greek monopōlion, from mon- + pōlein to sell
Date:
1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
Copyright is a legally and government sanctioned monopoly on the control and distribution of an artistic or creative work. No legal authority in the world will tell you otherwise.
My point is that connotatively the word monopoly doesn't really fit in this discussion.
"Monopoly" implies alternatives. It implies subversion of a more free alternative, specifically.
There is no alternative here, save for extremes that go against our entire economic system, such as abolishment of ownership rights, or state-ownership.
First you tell me my usage of the term is wrong, next you tell me my definition of the term is wrong and proceed to call me ignorant, now you're telling me that I'm the one being pedantic. No, I am using established terminology with set and defined meanings, which is important when dealing with legal issues.
My point is that connotatively the word monopoly doesn't really fit in this discussion.
It fits the discussion just fine. If connotations, negative or otherwise are being brought into this discussion, they aren't being brought in by me. I'm using the necessary terms to discuss aspects of copyright and copyright law.
"Monopoly" implies alternatives. It implies subversion of a more free alternative, specifically.
There is no alternative here, save for extremes that go against our entire economic system, such as abolishment of ownership rights, or state-ownership.
I have to be honest here, I cannot really understand what you're trying to say here.
Yes, YOU are being pedantic, because you are using litteral definitions to insist that something is "technically" correct.
Do you consider yourself as having a "monopoly" on the name subedii on these forums? That is ALSO a technically correct usage of the term, but utterly fucked up in a connotative sense.
I'm tired of arguing semantics. I was just asking you to stop using your own personal buzzword of "government sanctioned monopoly" because, whether or not you want to admit it, that phrase means something that simply doesn't apply here (when you bring government in to the mix, you are talking about economics, and anti-trust laws, and ownership rights of a piece of software do not constitute a monopoly in the way that Ma Bell or Standard Oil did.)
Yes, YOU are being pedantic, because you are using litteral definitions to insist that something is "technically" correct.
Again, these definitions exist for a reason. There is no "technically" about it, in legal terms, copyright is considered a monopoly on the handling of the copyrighted article. The owner of the copyright is the one that holds the monopoly on it. This is not a bad thing, monopoly is not some evil word, it's simply the term that is used.
Do you consider yourself as having a "monopoly" on the name subedii on these forums? That is ALSO a technically correct usage of the term, but utterly fucked up in a connotative sense.
I don't consider myself to, since anyone can take that name or a facsimile if they want. It's not as if I can copyright the name. Unless of course the system doesn't allow you to create two occurrences of the same name, in which case yes, I do currently have the monopoly on the name "subedii" on these boards.
I'm tired of arguing semantics. I was just asking you to stop using your own personal buzzword of "government sanctioned monopoly" because, whether or not you want to admit it, that phrase means something that simply doesn't apply here
I have established in two or three different posts why it most certainly does apply here. Copyrights don't fall out of the sky, you apply for them and they are granted to you by the government. And I've already provided definitions of the purpose behind the creation and usage of copyright.
(when you bring government in to the mix, you are talking about economics, and anti-trust laws, and ownership rights of a piece of software do not constitute a monopoly in the way that Ma Bell or Standard Oil did.)
Government is very definitely already "in the mix" because it's the government that grants the copyright, and in the case of the Library of congress, even obtains copies OF that copyrighted work for everyone applying, as a centralised repository of works.
As far as I can tell you are using a very narrow definition of term monopoly, as if it can only apply in the large scale business world. You also seem to view the term as if it has an inherent negative connotation in itself. Neither of these is the case.
You also seem to view the term as if it has an inherent negative connotation in itself.
I can't think of an example of a word with an "inherent" connotation. Also, "monopoly" definitely has a negative connotation in the US. Since we're just linking any old thing here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006051031077
Not an entirely accurate article.
Every game on Steam has DRM, otherwise I'd be able to sell my old copy of Half Life 2 when I got with Orange box and I'd be free to let others in the house play with one online Steam game while I played another.
It may now have a slightly more user friendly form of DRM but it's DRM all the same.
Steam DRM is actually something that I'm curious about.
I have a Steam account, because there were a couple of games that they were giving out free to people with certain video cards, but I have never purchased any games over Steam, not extensively played anything on it.
My understanding (and I may be totally wrong here) is that Steam requires you to dial-in to them periodically, to confirm that you have the proper rights. Personally, I consider being forced to dial in (more than for just an initial activation) to be unacceptably intrusive, and a potential issue, since I don't believe that for single player content one should be forced to be on-line.
So my question is essentially A) am I right about how steam works, and if I am right, why do others see this as being okay?
You also seem to view the term as if it has an inherent negative connotation in itself.
I can't think of an example of a word with an "inherent" connotation. Also, "monopoly" definitely has a negative connotation in the US. Since we're just linking any old thing here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006051031077
All those respondents are not actually using a definition at all, just calling it evil.
You know what? Fine, I'll even give you that one, some people do have an irrational fear of the term monopoly in itself. It's still the established terminology when talking about copyright. The word monopoly isn't freaking evil in itself, and I can't help that some people view it that way. Some people view the term "regime" in a similar light, I'm not going to stop using that where it's necessary to the discussion either.
Oh yes, you make a good point. Replace "DRM" with "restrictive DRM" in my posts. Steam is fine. Some might even say it adds value to your games by allowing you to download them at will and keep saved games across multiple computers.
I am of the opinion that DRM means "digital restriction management" in the first place. Because that's what it does.
Posts
EA is bringing Spore to Steam sans Securom.
EA games officially come to Steam, sans DRM
GT: Tanky the Tank
Black: 1377 6749 7425
I think that DRM is necessary, but it only needs to be strong enough to prevent casual copying. You'll never stop dedicated hackers, but once ma and pa start doing it you're boned. I remember growing up my parents saw absolutely nothing wrong with copying cassette tapes for friends or whatever. Even now anyone can easily rip a CD with no technical know-how.
Consoles have the perfect sweet spot. The DRM is invisible to the end-user and it works. Sure it's easy to pirate an xbox game, but first you'll have to open up your xbox.... something most casual users would panic at.
I wonder if the fact that Spore recently became the most pirated game in history had anything to do with this.
An estimated 1.7 million copies bamboozled.
If one didn't want to pay for an over hyped creature creator then one doesn't have to purchase it. One who purchases the game on release takes many of the chances that all early adopters do for any product.
I see no situation that ever justifies piracy.
Piracy IS theft but I do believe just as there are degrees of murder there are degrees of theft. I think that piracy should be treated a tad more lightly than say shop lifting, but that's another thread.
That being said, if consumers feel they are getting the "bait and switch" (being promised one product and delivered another) by video game developers/publishers that is just an argument for consumer rights in the form of being able to return a game for a refund. What I'm thinking of here is something akin to the "lemon law" for purchasing cars applied to video games. Of course this becomes a bit tricky because of the nature of digital media and it's not going to stop piracy.
Of course I've offered no real solution here but I don't think there is one yet. The thing I think everyone (who cares about the industry) is shooting for is something that protects the Publishers and Developers from theft but at the same times protects the rights of the legitimate consumers. Though currently, because the consumer representation or influence on the matter is a bit weak (not just for games but software in general), we are only seeing attempts at solutions from the industry side in the form of the current DRM schemes.
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
Not an entirely accurate article.
Every game on Steam has DRM, otherwise I'd be able to sell my old copy of Half Life 2 when I got with Orange box and I'd be free to let others in the house play with one online Steam game while I played another.
It may now have a slightly more user friendly form of DRM but it's DRM all the same.
They already have the unprotected files. All they need to do is make them available. This is not a resource intensive procedure, and I would argue it is in fact the responsibility of any organisation that benefits from being granted the time limited monopoly defined as copyright in the first place. I am not saying they need to update the title to every damn OS, and you know it. The DRM and the product are separately copyrighted entities, and the purpose of Public Domain is that the art in question needs to be available beyond the lifespan where it's profitable. I'm not talking about the frigging company re-writing the product in order to make it work again and again on new platforms, I'm talking about them not implementing measures that shut down the availability of said art because the originator doesn't handle it anymore. That's not how PD works, in fact it's the very thing that PD was designed to stop. This goes doubly so for people that purchased the original product.
Truth'd so hard. SO hard.
You're talking about a company having to take the time to so much as flip a switch (any time is time) and, since there is no existing repository for these things, you are really also talking about them expending their own storage and bandwidth to put this stuff out there.
Sorry. The costs may not be high, but there are still costs
Like we talked about previously, I've already stated there needs to be a central repository for these things. Failing that, it would be best for them and for the consumer to put in a contractual obligation to do so. They benefit from a government sanctioned monopoly that is fundamentally designed to benefit the public, as such they should have a responsibility to allow access once they have had their benefit.
I believe that this is something that should become a legal requirement, yes. Although that may be taking things beyond the scope of this debate on DRM.
it really doesn't apply here
Copyright IS a monopoly by its very definition.
the issue with calling this a monopoly is that it belies the fact that the software company has painstakingly developed this individual code, and that others are still quite free to make their own similar, yet different, games.
Without the right to ownership of your own works, comercial software would NEVER be developed, so acting disdainful of ownership rights seemingly reflects a level of ignorance towards, well, cause and effect.
"Monopoly" may apply in this case, in an absolutely litteral denotative sense, but the connotations are all wrong. EA owning Spore is far different from Ma Bell not having any telephone competition.
Now you're just picking nits, if you want feel free to look up any resources you want and they'll tell you the exact same thing.
This is not in dispute. The monopoly is on the created work and its distribution. You are confusing aspects of Intellectual Property (in this case a created expression of a concept), and ideas and concepts themselves, which are not copyrightable.
I am acting in no way disdainful of ownership rights and have given very definitive evidence of how those rights extend in the realm of copyright.I have given the definition of copyright, and the purpose behind it, and you have only responded by calling me ignorant, and not presenting why the view of copyright I have presented is somehow incorrect.
Copyright is a legally and government sanctioned monopoly on the control and distribution of an artistic or creative work. No legal authority in the world will tell you otherwise.
My point is that connotatively the word monopoly doesn't really fit in this discussion.
"Monopoly" implies alternatives. It implies subversion of a more free alternative, specifically.
There is no alternative here, save for extremes that go against our entire economic system, such as abolishment of ownership rights, or state-ownership.
First you tell me my usage of the term is wrong, next you tell me my definition of the term is wrong and proceed to call me ignorant, now you're telling me that I'm the one being pedantic. No, I am using established terminology with set and defined meanings, which is important when dealing with legal issues.
It fits the discussion just fine. If connotations, negative or otherwise are being brought into this discussion, they aren't being brought in by me. I'm using the necessary terms to discuss aspects of copyright and copyright law.
I have to be honest here, I cannot really understand what you're trying to say here.
Do you consider yourself as having a "monopoly" on the name subedii on these forums? That is ALSO a technically correct usage of the term, but utterly fucked up in a connotative sense.
I'm tired of arguing semantics. I was just asking you to stop using your own personal buzzword of "government sanctioned monopoly" because, whether or not you want to admit it, that phrase means something that simply doesn't apply here (when you bring government in to the mix, you are talking about economics, and anti-trust laws, and ownership rights of a piece of software do not constitute a monopoly in the way that Ma Bell or Standard Oil did.)
Again, these definitions exist for a reason. There is no "technically" about it, in legal terms, copyright is considered a monopoly on the handling of the copyrighted article. The owner of the copyright is the one that holds the monopoly on it. This is not a bad thing, monopoly is not some evil word, it's simply the term that is used.
I don't consider myself to, since anyone can take that name or a facsimile if they want. It's not as if I can copyright the name. Unless of course the system doesn't allow you to create two occurrences of the same name, in which case yes, I do currently have the monopoly on the name "subedii" on these boards.
I have established in two or three different posts why it most certainly does apply here. Copyrights don't fall out of the sky, you apply for them and they are granted to you by the government. And I've already provided definitions of the purpose behind the creation and usage of copyright.
Government is very definitely already "in the mix" because it's the government that grants the copyright, and in the case of the Library of congress, even obtains copies OF that copyrighted work for everyone applying, as a centralised repository of works.
As far as I can tell you are using a very narrow definition of term monopoly, as if it can only apply in the large scale business world. You also seem to view the term as if it has an inherent negative connotation in itself. Neither of these is the case.
Steam DRM is actually something that I'm curious about.
I have a Steam account, because there were a couple of games that they were giving out free to people with certain video cards, but I have never purchased any games over Steam, not extensively played anything on it.
My understanding (and I may be totally wrong here) is that Steam requires you to dial-in to them periodically, to confirm that you have the proper rights. Personally, I consider being forced to dial in (more than for just an initial activation) to be unacceptably intrusive, and a potential issue, since I don't believe that for single player content one should be forced to be on-line.
So my question is essentially A) am I right about how steam works, and
All those respondents are not actually using a definition at all, just calling it evil.
You know what? Fine, I'll even give you that one, some people do have an irrational fear of the term monopoly in itself. It's still the established terminology when talking about copyright. The word monopoly isn't freaking evil in itself, and I can't help that some people view it that way. Some people view the term "regime" in a similar light, I'm not going to stop using that where it's necessary to the discussion either.
I am of the opinion that DRM means "digital restriction management" in the first place. Because that's what it does.