DRM Bill of Rights
Spalls Hurgenson
and general gamer disatisfaction with its SecuRom copy-protection.
Okay, maybe the mainstream media hasn't picked it up, but it got
mentioned on M-TV so its obviously gone beyond something just the
geeks and hard-code gamer crowd care about.
Now, I generally try to stay out of DRM conversations but the
following idea has been percolating in the back of my head for a few
days so I thought I'd share it. Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock,
recently suggested a "Gamer Bill of Rights" that beautifully
constructed an perfect world where paying customers weren't treated
like dirt (see http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095).
This is a very wide-ranging list of some very good -but hard to
implement- ideas. My idea is related, but a bit more limited in scope.
I want a DRM Bill of Rights, an agreement between Publishers and
End-Users about what their DRM software can and cannot do. It needs to
be palatable to both the Publishers -who want to protect their
copyright and investment in the software- and to the users, who want
to be able to use software they paid for not only today but in the
future.
Let me be straight on this subject: I hate DRM and especially online
Activations. I think DRM is invasive, anti-consumer, bad for the
culture, and ultimately an expensive, useless waste. It doesn't work
and all it does is interfere with paying customers while the people it
hopes to stop -the pirates- don't have to deal with it at all. But,
like it or not, it's here to stay and at best we can mitigate the
damage it causes.
So, below, I present the first draft of the DRM Bill of Rights. I
offer it to the newsgroup for discussion, ammendment and
dissemination. I encourage you to pass it on to your favorite
web-forums and post it on your blogs. You don't have to use it
verbatim; you don't even have to attribute it to me (although it'd be
nice if you mentioned me as the originator of the idea ;-). You may
disagree with certain ideas I have below, or think certain concepts
need strengthening. Feel free to add to or subtract from the list. But
the idea is to hammer out something both parties -the publishers and
the users- can agree to rather than just create a bitch-list of things
we hate about DRM. The publishers spent a lot of time
and money developing the software; it is understandable that they want
to protect the investment. We need to provide them
a way to do that without going so far as to interfere with our own
rights.
So, here it is. Take it away, gamers.
-----------------------
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the
publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one
or more computers based on their hardware
configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide
a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same
distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously
activated computers. The total number of
Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be
limited as to number of uses in a particular time
period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is
the standard practice today. However, what this
Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation
so the software can be transferred to another
computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool
needs to be provided free to the user, preferably
on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased
through digital distribution) and must be
stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in
the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and
would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software.
The User could then select the computers to be
de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the
Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software
to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the
Publisher can allow only a certain amount of
Authorizations/DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit
the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
Comments:
One of the biggest worries I hear about online Activations is the
worry about how to DEACTIVATE the software. Some users
wonder about being able to replay the game many years -and many
computer upgrades- down the line, others fear that
unexpected computer failure might lock them out of a game they paid
for, and still others wonder about how activations
might effect resale value. This Right provides a fair balance between
the Publisher's need to limit the number of people
using a game at anyone time while still providing the Users the
flexibility they desire.
-----------------------
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they
must provide some assurance of method to bypass this
should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to to Activate their
software through the method of their choice. But if
that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or
financial reasons), they must ensure that the user
can continue to use the software they paid for even though the
Activation service is no longer running. This assurance
can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the
Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of
rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to
allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held
in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down,
that allows installation and use of the Software
without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door"
that can bypass the Activation requirement should
they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is
costing them too much money or they are no longer in
business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or
some sort of universal serial number that allows
the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until
the Activation Servers go down and is then released
to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the
usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be
used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be
released to pay a programming team to successfully develop
a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User)
the Publisher can simply promise to release code
and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to
develop some method to bypass the Activation (but,
note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
Comments:
The second biggest worry I hear about Activation is this: what if I
want to play the game in ten years and I can't
Activate it because the Publisher dropped the servers, or went out of
business? This Right provides for that eventuality,
by legally binding the Publisher to allowing some sort of method so
the User can keep using the software should the
Publisher no longer want to support it.
-----------------------
3) Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation
services will be opt-out (except as what is required for
activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable
information and it absolutely, positively will not be
shared with anyone.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to collect information from the User's
computer solely for the purpose of identifying him for
Activation so that the software can only be used by Authorized
computers. However, any information collected for this
purpose, no matter how seemingly innocuous, cannot be used for any
other purpose beyond Activation. On De-Activation,
this information -no longer useful- will be purged. The Publisher can
run other data-mining operations, but this
data-collection cannot be a requirement of the Activation.
How It Would Work:
When the software is Activated, the Publisher needs to gather certain
information from the user. At the very least, a
snapshot of the computer configuration will be required; the Publisher
might also gather other information. If the
software is run on some other computer, that configuration is matched
to the one on file and the publisher can allow or
deny the software to run as they desire (with, of course, the
stipulation of Right #1: Right of Use given above, that
computers can be deAuthorized by the user at will). But any
information the Publisher collects for this purpose can only
be used for this purpose: it can't be used for any sort of
data-mining, it can't be shared with the marketing department
or partners. If the Publisher wants to gather this sort of
information, they can do so, but they can't make it a
requirement to install the software; it has to be an opt-in program
separate from the Software.
Comments:
The right of privacy is not something many people care about, but I do
and I think it's worth defending. We get that the
Publisher may need to collect information about our hardware so that
only that the software is activated to only one
computer, but beyond that the information cannot be used by them.
Publishers MAY offer to opt-in to sharing this
information, but this offer must be completely seperate from the
install (and not at all a requirement for activation)
and must be in clear concise language, preferably with some advantage
to the Gamer (so hiding it in the EULA is right
out)
-----------------------
4) Right of Resources: Copy-Protection mechanisms must be
self-contained software that leave no lingering traces on the
computer.
What it entails for the Publisher:
If the publisher requires DRM software to protect their copyright,
this software must be self-contained and non-invasive.
The DRM should only run when the Software runs, and stop running when
the Software runs. It cannot install any drivers or
background processes that linger in the background when the User is
not using the Software. While the DRM can refuse to
let the Software run should it find other programs in memory, it
should not interfere with the use of those other
programs when the Publisher's software is not in use. Finally, the DRM
must be fully uninstalled when the Publisher's
software is uninstalled.
How It Would Work:
DRM software needs to be limited in its scope. Currently, it runs
roughshod on the user's computer, installing ring-0
drivers and potentially installing rootkits and backdoors. It
interferes with other software, such as disc-emulation
programs EVEN WHEN THE GAME IT IS PROTECTING IS NOT RUNNING and does
not uninstall cleanly. All this needs to change. The
software will need to be rewritten and, potentially, this will make it
less effective. However, DRM is not particularly
effective now, so this is no big loss. The Publisher can still
restrict what programs run concurrently with its own
Software (both to prevent piracy and in-game cheating) but only when
the Software is running.
Comments:
Once I'm done with a game, I don't want some crudware sitting in the
background stealing resources. And I when I say
"done", I don't just mean "uninstalled"; I mean "done playing this
session". When I quit Bioshock, I want any and all
processes associated with it -including copy-protection mechanisms-
uninstalled from memory as well. Think of a way of
protecting your IP without ring-zero drivers that potentially
compromise my machine. And while I grant you the right to
refuse to run a game should I have potentially interfering programs
running (such as Alcohol 120), the DRM better let me
play the game once I kill that process, even if the software itself is
still installed (and if the game isn't running, I
should be able to use Alcohol 120% as much as I damn well please)
-----------------------
5) Right to Support: All problems with copy protection mechanisms must
be handled by the publisher (or their agent) free
of charge
What it Entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher must provide, either on their own or through an agent,
free support solely to handle problems that result
from its copy-protection software. This support must be both timely
and knowledgable, and if it cannot help the User with
their problem, must offer them the right of return. Toll-free numbers
wherever the game is sold and/or e-mail support
with same-day turn-around must be offered. This support must exist for
the lifetime of the product.
How It Would Work:
The Publisher needs to provide some method of support resulting from
problems caused by the DRM. This support needs to be
separate from regular support issues, and it needs to be free and
timely. The best method is to have the company that
developed the DRM software handle this for you. This support needs to
be knowlegable but, should they be unable to solve
the problem, they must offer -should they determine the problem to be
caused by the DRM- to let the User return the
software and get a refund.
Comments:
If your stupid copy protection is keeping me from installing a game I
paid for, don't make me pay for the call to correct
the problem. Set up a toll-free number and staff it with people who
can correct the problem. E-mail works too, but a
timely response is a must. Too expensive? Get the developers of the
copy-protection to do it for you; make it a
requirement of the contract. Maybe if SecuRom had to handle all the
calls they'd start to write decent software.
-----------------------
Spalls Hurgenson
offer it to the newsgroup for discussion, amendment and dissemination.
-----------------------
-----------------------
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their
-----------------------
computers can be de-Authorized by the user at will). But any
information the Publisher collects for this purpose can only be used
for this purpose: it can't be used for any sort of data-mining, it
can't be shared with the marketing department or partners. If the
Publisher wants to gather this sort of information, they can do so,
but they can't make it a requirement to install the software; it has
to be an opt-in program separate from the Software.
Comments:
The right of privacy is not something many people care about, but I do
and I think it's worth defending. We get that the Publisher may need
to collect information about our hardware so that only that the
software is activated to only one computer, but beyond that the
information cannot be used by them. Publishers MAY offer to opt-in to
sharing this information, but this offer must be completely separate
from the install (and not at all a requirement for activation) and
must be in clear concise language, preferably with some advantage to
the Gamer (so hiding it in the EULA is right out)
-----------------------
4) Right of Resources: Copy-Protection mechanisms must be
self-contained software that leave no lingering traces on the
computer.
What it entails for the Publisher:
If the publisher requires DRM software to protect their copyright,
this software must be self-contained and non-invasive. The DRM should
only run when the Software runs, and stop running when the Software
runs. It cannot install any drivers or background processes that
linger in the background when the User is not using the Software.
While the DRM can refuse to let the Software run should it find other
programs in memory, it should not interfere with the use of those
other programs when the Publisher's software is not in use. Finally,
the DRM must be fully uninstalled when the Publisher's software is
uninstalled.
How It Would Work:
DRM software needs to be limited in its scope. Currently, it runs
roughshod on the user's computer, installing ring-0 drivers and
potentially installing root-kits and backdoors. It interferes with
-----------------------
knowledgeable, and if it cannot help the User with their problem, must
offer them the right of return. Toll-free numbers wherever the game is
sold and/or e-mail support with same-day turn-around must be offered.
This support must exist for the lifetime of the product.
How It Would Work:
The Publisher needs to provide some method of support resulting from
problems caused by the DRM. This support needs to be separate from
regular support issues, and it needs to be free and timely. The best
method is to have the company that developed the DRM software handle
this for you. This support needs to be knowledgeable but, should they
be unable to solve the problem, they must offer -should they determine
the problem to be caused by the DRM- to let the User return the
software and get a refund.
Comments:
If your stupid copy protection is keeping me from installing a game I
paid for, don't make me pay for the call to correct the problem. Set
up a toll-free number and staff it with people who can correct the
problem. E-mail works too, but a timely response is a must. Too
expensive? Get the developers of the copy-protection to do it for you;
make it a requirement of the contract. Maybe if SecuRom had to handle
all the calls they'd start to write decent software.
-----------------------
That's it. I'm interested to see if this goes anywhere.
CJM
mistaken. They knew exactly what they were doing and planned it in advance.
They've upped the stakes in DRM discreetly by imposing harsh DRM measures at
first, and then appearing to relent and relax the restrictions a bit. We're
so grateful/relieved that they've taken 1 step back that we've forgotten
that they actually already taken 3 steps forward.
As for your BoR, I disagree with the clause that states that the progams can
refuse to run if other programs are loaded in memory. In some rare cases,
this would be justified, but more commonly the programs they object to are
ones like Alcohol 52%/120% and Daemon Tools. Yes they can be used to host
images of original disks (perhaps devs would stop requiring the DVD in the
drive every time) but they are also used for a multitude of legitimate (ie.
non-infringing) uses.
Bent C Dalager
> DRM is all in the news now, what with EA's bungled handling of Spore
> and general gamer dissatisfaction with its SecuRom copy-protection.
> Okay, maybe the mainstream media hasn't picked it up, but it got
> mentioned on M-TV so its obviously gone beyond something just the
> geeks and hard-code gamer crowd care about.
BBC World carried it as the sort of full-screen text announcement that
they do in between their regular programming.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Flo 'Irian' Schaetz
> Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock,
> recently suggested a "Gamer Bill of Rights" that beautifully
> constructed an perfect world where paying customers weren't treated
> like dirt (see http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095).
Imho, it's just hypocrisy. It's doesn't have to do anything with Gamer's
Rights, it's just another way of "That's the way we do it, let's give it
a cool name."
Don't forget: Stardock is the company who FORBIDS to resell their games.
Even if you bought the DVD in a shop, they try to prevent you selling
the game again (clearly against the law in some western countries).
Imho, the right to resell your property is one of the important ones.
Stardock makes nice games (I really like GalCiv 2), but they are surely
not a philanthropical company...
Flo
Knight37
> Let me be straight on this subject: I hate DRM and especially online
> Activations. I think DRM is invasive, anti-consumer, bad for the
> culture, and ultimately an expensive, useless waste. It doesn't work
> and all it does is interfere with paying customers while the people it
> hopes to stop -the pirates- don't have to deal with it at all. But,
> like it or not, it's here to stay and at best we can mitigate the
> damage it causes.
I basically disagree with the whole thing. The only method of copy
protection that I will put up with from now on is a CD-KEY and/or a
simple CD-presence check. If your game requires a code for me to be
able to install and/or play it, fine, I can live with that. What I
will not put up with is any program that installs on my computer that
hides itself from my OS and/or tries to tell me which programs I can
have installed at the same time. Or one that limits how often I can
install a game. That is completely unacceptable, and if I find out
that a game has that it's an instant no-buy for me, as well as if I
find out after the fact then I will take the game back or resell it to
someone else. But considering most games have this flaw these days, I
pretty much just won't be buying any games. And that's fine with me,
I'd rather do without than support this bullshit anymore.
SpammersDie
"Spalls Hurgenson" <yoi...@ebalu.com> wrote in message
news:0a0md4962m3ags0it...@4ax.com...
> Let me be straight on this subject: I hate DRM and especially online
> Activations. I think DRM is invasive, anti-consumer, bad for the
> culture, and ultimately an expensive, useless waste. It doesn't work
> and all it does is interfere with paying customers while the people it
> hopes to stop -the pirates- don't have to deal with it at all. But,
> like it or not, it's here to stay and at best we can mitigate the
> damage it causes.
>
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2658
"It seems that EA have threatened to ban the Spore accounts of members who
discuss (complain) about the DRM on the official game forum."
What more needs to be said.
Gandalf Parker
news:m60md4l9pl5996q98...@4ax.com:
I jumped in on this expecting to shout it down. But I must admit that in
general its better than Brads (which tends to push his purchaseable drm
model).
However I do think there would be a problem with this one which would need
some ironing out.
> 5) Right to Support: All problems with copy protection mechanisms must
> be handled by the publisher (or their agent) free of charge
There is just no way for a company to foresee all of the possible problems
with all of the different possible machine configurations. This gets into
part of the basic Pros and Cons between Mac and Windows. Mac maintains more
control over configurations and therefore can make more promises about
things working, and Windows allows more leeway on machine configurations
and therefore can get some really quirky setups. In some cases, fixing the
problems on some off-the-wall or haomemade system using parts from
countries that you have to look up could be a very expensive thing for a
company to have to do for free.
Gandalf Parker
CoinSpin
I think you kinda missed the point on that one... Yes, supporting their
own DRM schemes could be expensive, if they choose to use some
convoluted asinine system that lends itself to problems with various
configurations - in a good DRM system, configurations should not matter
one iota. Making the instigator of the DRM responsible for their own
actions and the damages they might cause should be of paramount
importance here - StarForce and Sony Rootkit anyone? If a company
chooses to use a questionable DRM scheme because it might be cheaper or
more effective, they need to be ready to face the consequences of their
actions. If they are supplying a game to customers, and some component
of that game causes instability in their customers' systems, they are
obligated to fix the problem - DRM is no different, it was supplied as
part of the game, sold by the publisher, so the publisher is responsible
for the outcome.
Make the publishers responsible for the DRM issues, and you'd rapidly
see a simplification and/or elimination of DRM schemes. It's a simple
tenant of business - threaten profits, see results.
CoinSpin
CoinSpin
<snip>
> 1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the
> publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
>
Excellent post, you have my vote :)
Just wanted to make a couple of comments on the number of installations
item. First, I'd love to see dual activations allowed for those of us
who might have a notebook and want to play on the road. Secondly, I
already have a prime situation where this type of installation limiting
works - antivirus and security suites. I was using Trend Micro for a
while, and when you buy their security suite you get 3 licenses for the
product, which are managed through an online account. You install,
enter your key, and give the installation a name that is relevant. If
you are over your 3 limit, the software lets you know, and allows you to
disable one of the other installs to make room - perfect if you
reinstall or upgrade to something new. You can log into your account
anytime and remove any of the installations you have active, which
affects that install the next time it does an update. If you are not
able to use the key and have an account available, your install fails,
whether it's a single or multiple license product.
Might not be ideal, but it works. Of course, many will bitch about
having to have an account, online activation, etc. But when it comes to
DRM, you often have to choose between which pile of crap smells the best
- either way, it's still a pile of crap, but it's easier to live with
one that doesn't make you retch constantly.
CoinSpin
Mr. Stabby
>
> I basically disagree with the whole thing. The only method of copy
> protection that I will put up with from now on is a CD-KEY and/or a
> simple CD-presence check. If your game requires a code for me to be
> able to install and/or play it, fine, I can live with that. What I
> will not put up with is any program that installs on my computer that
> hides itself from my OS and/or tries to tell me which programs I can
> have installed at the same time. Or one that limits how often I can
> install a game. That is completely unacceptable, and if I find out
> that a game has that it's an instant no-buy for me, as well as if I
> find out after the fact then I will take the game back or resell it to
> someone else. But considering most games have this flaw these days, I
> pretty much just won't be buying any games. And that's fine with me,
> I'd rather do without than support this bullshit anymore.
I'm afraid I agree with Knight37. No limitations on installs. No
phoning home. We can't depend on the publishers to support install
and uninstall rights forever. Even with a revoke capability, what if
your hard drive crashes and you can't run the revoke program? What do
you do if the revoke program breaks?
Spalls Hurgenson
<cjm...@removeme-yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Nice idea, but if you think EA's handling of Spore was bungled, you are
>mistaken. They knew exactly what they were doing and planned it in advance.
>They've upped the stakes in DRM discreetly by imposing harsh DRM measures at
>first, and then appearing to relent and relax the restrictions a bit. We're
>so grateful/relieved that they've taken 1 step back that we've forgotten
>that they actually already taken 3 steps forward.
I don't think their "five installs instead of three" really helped
them that much. The general opinion seems to be disdain for such a
minor and pointless concession. It was slightly different with Mass
Effect which originally threatened periodic online reactivations in
addition to limited installations; the former was removed making the
latter much more palatable. But the addition of two more allowed
installs does not seem to have gone over very well with people who
care about these things (and their voices are starting to be heard)
>As for your BoR, I disagree with the clause that states that the progams can
>refuse to run if other programs are loaded in memory. In some rare cases,
>this would be justified, but more commonly the programs they object to are
>ones like Alcohol 52%/120% and Daemon Tools. Yes they can be used to host
>images of original disks (perhaps devs would stop requiring the DVD in the
>drive every time) but they are also used for a multitude of legitimate (ie.
>non-infringing) uses.
Actually, I agree with you but it's unlikely that the Publishers
would. So I suggested a compromise: the DRM can prevent you from
playing if the offending software (Alcohol, DaemonTools) is running,
but if it is disabled (e.g., not a threat) then it needs to
shut-the-hell-up. So you can have Alcohol installed for your
legitimate uses but just not as an active process when you play the
game.
In order to facilitate this, I considered adding "6: The Right to
Chose", which would allow players the choice of CD-checks versus
online-check when the game starts. But I wasn't sure if that really
needed to be a "right" versus just an option publishers should
provide.
Spalls Hurgenson
>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:10:05 GMT, Spalls Hurgenson <yoi...@ebalu.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I want a DRM Bill of Rights, an agreement between Publishers and
>
>I just glanced through it fast, but it gets two thumbs up from me.
>Online activation with the assurance (not a mere empty promise) that
>the software continues to be useful even if activation method does not
>exist anymore sounds perfect.
>
>I forgot to check if your bill of rights had anything about the right
>to transfer the license to third-party. Apparently some activation
>methods allow this, some (like Steam) don't.
It doesn't specifically state this, largely because a) being so blunt
about it would make the Publishers wary of the idea (for some reason
they fear resale of games more than piracy), b) because this is a
right already permitted us by US law, and c) because 1-The Right of
Free Use would allow this whether or not they specifically permit it.
If I can revoke an authorization, then I can resell it.
Spalls Hurgenson
wrote:
>And thus spoke Spalls Hurgenson...
>
>> Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock,
>> recently suggested a "Gamer Bill of Rights" that beautifully
>> constructed an perfect world where paying customers weren't treated
>> like dirt (see http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095).
>
>Imho, it's just hypocrisy. It's doesn't have to do anything with Gamer's
>Rights, it's just another way of "That's the way we do it, let's give it
>a cool name."
>
>Don't forget: Stardock is the company who FORBIDS to resell their games.
>Even if you bought the DVD in a shop, they try to prevent you selling
>the game again (clearly against the law in some western countries).
I was unaware of this. Still, they can forbid all sorts of things -
they can say by purchasing the product I can never eat cheese again-
but that doesn't make it legally binding. So these demands can safely
be ignored.
What can't be ignored is the DRM, which prevents us from doing these
things we otherwise are entitled to do. Right now, with unrevokable
online activations, you often CANNOT resell a game because it is
locked to your computer. Furthermore, thanks to the misguided DMCA (in
the US) it is illegal to bypass that DRM in order to retake the right
to resell.
The "Right of Free Use" would let bypass all this by forcing the
Publisher to give us a method to deactivate authorized computers. Then
I could resell the game should I desire.
Spalls Hurgenson
Coinspin hit the nail on the head; I don't truly expect such a support
team to be able to solve all the problems; the PC ecosystem is far too
complex. But on the other hand, too often DRM-related issues are
ignored by publishers and I think this is wrong.
Users buy a game and their optical drive won't read the disc because
the DRM is in the way, or rampant hardware failure left them without
any available activations. The publishers expect their paying
customers to then jump through hoops -often on their own dime- calling
toll-numbers or writing emails that are ignored trying to get the
problem solved. In many cases, the customer is left without any
resort; they can't install the game and the money they paid for it is
thrown away, all because of the DRM.
Meanwhile, of course, the pirate has none of these issues, and hasn't
paid a dime.
So instead, make the Publisher responsible for the problems and offer
reassurance to the customer that -should the DRM be an issue- they
won't be out $30. Yes, I'm sure some people will game the system, but
honestly, people already are doing that (call any customer service
line and make enough of a fuss and you get all sorts of free stuff
;-). For example, if the DRM is in the way, ask the customer to return
the CD and manual and then give them a downloadable version instead.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a full refund. But if the customer
knows that DRM problems will be resolvable -one way or another- he
will be much likely to switch over to piracy.
Frankly, I think these problems should ALL be handed off to the
writers of the copy-protection mechanisms. Remember, the developers of
the game don't create these things; the publisher buys a license from
Sony from secuRom and a wrapper is installed around the executable
from the game-developer. The publisher (or developer) often CAN'T
troubleshoot DRM issues because they don't have the background into
the copy-protection-software. So give over the troubleshooting to
those who DO know the intricacies of that software.
Spalls Hurgenson
<coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
><snip>
>> 1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the
>> publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
>>
>
>Excellent post, you have my vote :)
>
>Just wanted to make a couple of comments on the number of installations
>item. First, I'd love to see dual activations allowed for those of us
>who might have a notebook and want to play on the road. Secondly, I
>already have a prime situation where this type of installation limiting
>works - antivirus and security suites. I was using Trend Micro for a
>while, and when you buy their security suite you get 3 licenses for the
>product, which are managed through an online account. You install,
>enter your key, and give the installation a name that is relevant. If
>you are over your 3 limit, the software lets you know, and allows you to
>disable one of the other installs to make room - perfect if you
>reinstall or upgrade to something new. You can log into your account
>anytime and remove any of the installations you have active, which
>affects that install the next time it does an update. If you are not
>able to use the key and have an account available, your install fails,
>whether it's a single or multiple license product.
I think number of activations should be an option for the publisher,
and not a mandated right. That way they can decide how many computers
the software can be installed on. The more lenient ones will allow
two, three, four (e.g., main PC, laptop, kids PC, wife PC). But if a
developer choses to limit you to only one PC at a time, that's their
choice too.
I don't agree with the idea there should be a fixed number of installs
allowed, because this may be unpalatable to the publishers. Some
software you really DON'T need to have installed on more than one PC.
Sure it would be nice if I could put Crysis onto my laptop AND my
desktop, but I can see how the Publishers might not agree to that.
What the Publishers should NOT be allowed to do is say "One computer,
and that's it!". Revokation is a must.
That way if I am limited to one-computer-at-a-time and I want to play
on my laptop, I can deactivate the desktop if I really want to.
CoinSpin
Very true there... Maybe it should be "1 user" not "1 computer" these
days, since many have multiple machines. There are quite a few big
corporate programs (a few CAD packages that I can think of in
particular) that allow multiple installs for a user - they have kept up
with the times, and know that somebody might do their power usage on the
desktop, but still need the mobility of a notebook in the field.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that (where DRM is
concerned) there is only really 1 game genre that comes close to
guaranteeing the "1 user per purchase" rule... MMOs. You set up an
account based on your purchase (software key, etc) and then only a
single instance of that account can be active at one time. I've got
Guild Wars installed on no fewer than 3 computers (2 desktops, 1 laptop)
so I can play wherever I am in the house or out on the road. Sure you
can let somebody else use your account, but you can't use it at the same
time, so it limits the "sharing" issues of casual piracy.
No wonder everyone wants to get on the MMO bandwagon! heh
CoinSpin
SpammersDie
> Might not be ideal, but it works. Of course, many will bitch about having
> to have an account, online activation, etc. But when it comes to DRM, you
> often have to choose between which pile of crap smells the best
Actually, I don't. That's the lesson publishers need to learn. They're not
in the "PC games" business, they're in the entertainment business and there
are lots of forms of entertainment available to fill ones evenings. These
guys aren't delivering entertaiment anymore, they're delivering stress,
aggravation and yet more opportunities for arguing with some offshore
telephone rep who couldn't give a damn.
Richard
publishers, I wouldn't care what sort of DRM they used to protect the
game. That one thing is: When the program reaches the end of it's
support life, or is classified as reaching bargain bin status, issue a
patch to remove ALL DRM, so that I can finally own the game I bought and
not have to worry about the company that produced it going out of business.
Spalls Hurgenson
<coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:11:04 -0400, CoinSpin
>> <coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>
>Very true there... Maybe it should be "1 user" not "1 computer" these
>days, since many have multiple machines.
Well, that would be the best way of doing things, except then we'd
have to find some way to prove that the person in front of the
keyboard really is the same guy who activated the game yesterday;
simple passwords wouldn't cut it since they can too easily be shared.
I don't think I want to offer a blood sample every time I fire up Mass
Effect ;-)
>No wonder everyone wants to get on the MMO bandwagon! heh
Actually, you're more right than you know, but not for the reasons you
think. Publishers love the ideas of MMOs not because it controls how
many people are using the software, but because they can charge per
month. It is, in fact, the ideal many publishers are working towards,
and not just for service-based games like MMORPGs.
Big names in the industry -most prominently Microsoft- are working
hard to raise consumer acceptance of subscription-based software for
applications we normally do not associate with subscriptions... like
Microsoft Office. Ultimately, they'd want all software to work like
that: instead of one single payment, the publisher would get money
over months and years. Want to play Doom 6 ten years after its
released? You have to pay again for the privilege.
The industry has been boiling this frog for a long time trying to
reach that goal. At first it was physical infrastructure that limited
them - but now everyone has high-speed internet. Then it was the
software infrastructure - but strides made by MMO games and digitial
distribution systems like Steam have made that less of a worry. And
always it was consume acceptance - but slowly but surely they've been
chipping away at that. First it was CD keys, then one-time
registration, then online activations. Soon it will be an accepted
requirement for you to be online all the time even to play an
otherwise offline, stand-alone game.
That's why I think it is important to take a stand -one that is well
reasoned and can be accepted by both sides- that says to publishers
"This far, and no farther" before things get out of hand. Hence the
start of this thread, and I urge people to "spread the word" to other
forums so some sort of consensus can be hammered out.
Spalls Hurgenson
That's pretty much what the 2nd "Right of Activation" is all about,
although in most ways that is also the theme of the entire post. In
general, it grants that DRM may be a temporary necessity to protect
the publisher's investment, but after they've gotten our money they
need to move it the-hell-outta-our-way so we can protect OUR
investment.
Because otherwise gamers are going to stop "investing" in their games,
turning instead to piracy or other forms of entertainment and the
software publishers won't be making any money at all.
Flo 'Irian' Schaetz
> I was unaware of this. Still, they can forbid all sorts of things -
> they can say by purchasing the product I can never eat cheese again-
> but that doesn't make it legally binding. So these demands can safely
> be ignored.
No they can't, because StarDock uses it's StarDock-Software to
distribute Patches - and you need to login to use StarDock. So they
can't prevent you from selling the game, but the new customer can't
download any patches, because the serial number is already bound to a
account.
Flo
Briarroot
Bingo!
--
"Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two
diametrically opposed classes, one rich, one poor, both in a permanent
state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of
the other?" - Ronald Reagan
"Since Franklin Roosevelt discovered it was a great way to get himself
elected." - Briarroot
Gandalf Parker
> Users buy a game and their optical drive won't read the disc because
> the DRM is in the way, or rampant hardware failure left them without
> any available activations. The publishers expect their paying
> customers to then jump through hoops -often on their own dime- calling
> toll-numbers or writing emails that are ignored trying to get the
> problem solved. In many cases, the customer is left without any
> resort; they can't install the game and the money they paid for it is
> thrown away, all because of the DRM.
Those are excellent examples. Of why this will never fly.
In the case of the optical drive, its often a case of the user getting a
drive that is above and beyond just a drive. Something that is specifically
advertised as being able to "copy problem discs" (basically bragging that
it can get past most DRMs)
The many activations problems tends to fall toward the user going with
cheap hardware or built-it-myself machines. Thats not necessarily something
that the game company needs to eat it on. This would also be a very
difficult thing to verify.
Im not saying that the game companies are always right, or should always
get off the hook. I would be just as willing to argue that point. Its not
the WHO I would argue, it would be the ALWAYS.
Gandalf Parker
CoinSpin
Actually, that's not entirely true... One of the reasons StarForce got
the big boot from people like Ubisoft was that it was affecting standard
CD-RW (and DVD-RW) drives, not just hopped up super "I can copy
anything" drives, as you mentioned. I ran into it firsthand, actually
had a drive (I think it was a Sony) that just absolutely refused to do
anything productive at all, until I found the StarForce removal tool and
used it - then my anything-but-cheap drive miraculously began working
just fine again. The problem was widespread, enough that many big names
dropped StarForce and ran to SecuRom or other methods. Funny how,
instead of giving ridiculous DRM schemes a black eye, it just affected
StarForce. Those other DRM guys were quick on the spin doctoring,
whispering words of doom and piracy while proclaiming they were good,
StarForce was just a single bad apple.
In my estimation, if a DRM scheme is pervasive enough that it will
possibly not work on any quantifiable percentage of the PCs out in the
marketplace, it should not *ever* be considered for use in a software
product aimed at that market. If the publishers are stupid enough to
take their chances with a questionable DRM, then they should also step
up and support any and all issues that arise because of it, free of
charge. Or supply a full refund of their junk. And *without* requiring
paying customers to jump through hoops to accomplish it. It's really
pathetic that the PC gaming industry is one of the only places that
consumers are forced to put up with such crap...
CoinSpin
CoinSpin
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:23:20 -0400, CoinSpin
> <coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:11:04 -0400, CoinSpin
>>> <coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>
>
>> Very true there... Maybe it should be "1 user" not "1 computer" these
>> days, since many have multiple machines.
>>
>
> Well, that would be the best way of doing things, except then we'd
> have to find some way to prove that the person in front of the
> keyboard really is the same guy who activated the game yesterday;
> simple passwords wouldn't cut it since they can too easily be shared.
> I don't think I want to offer a blood sample every time I fire up Mass
> Effect ;-)
>
>
>> No wonder everyone wants to get on the MMO bandwagon! heh
>>
>
> Actually, you're more right than you know, but not for the reasons you
> think. Publishers love the ideas of MMOs not because it controls how
> many people are using the software, but because they can charge per
> month. It is, in fact, the ideal many publishers are working towards,
> and not just for service-based games like MMORPGs.
Well, unless you count Guild Wars... Which, in my estimation, is a
near-perfect example of how an MMO should be implemented to ensure
quality and not milk the player base dry. It's still online, so that
the 1 account per person rule is enforceable, but it really plays more
like just an RPG with some MMO thrown in when and if you want to use
it. I usually solo in it, the only time I team up is with my son when
he's on, typically.
> Big names in the industry -most prominently Microsoft- are working
> hard to raise consumer acceptance of subscription-based software for
> applications we normally do not associate with subscriptions... like
> Microsoft Office. Ultimately, they'd want all software to work like
> that: instead of one single payment, the publisher would get money
> over months and years. Want to play Doom 6 ten years after its
> released? You have to pay again for the privilege.
>
Microsoft is always trying to pad their pockets, and bilking customers
on subscriptions is yet another in their barrage of profit seeking.
Their subscription-based office idea has really been aimed at enterprise
marketplaces, such as ginormous corporations, where such a plan could
actually be beneficial (because much of the support is rolled in, rather
than a pay per incident style like now). Of course, M$ is constantly
losing ground to free packages like OpenOffice, even in corporate
settings, and if they go to a distributed online system they have some
Google and other free office services to fight. M$ always has delusions
of grandeur, but all they really do is regularly prove what
profit-mongering whores they are, and push people towards alternatives.
> The industry has been boiling this frog for a long time trying to
> reach that goal. At first it was physical infrastructure that limited
> them - but now everyone has high-speed internet. Then it was the
> software infrastructure - but strides made by MMO games and digitial
> distribution systems like Steam have made that less of a worry. And
> always it was consume acceptance - but slowly but surely they've been
> chipping away at that. First it was CD keys, then one-time
> registration, then online activations. Soon it will be an accepted
> requirement for you to be online all the time even to play an
> otherwise offline, stand-alone game.
>
Hey, just look at Gametap for an example of how this can actually be
beneficial... Pay a monthly fee, play any of the games in the system.
You can whip through multiple titles in a month, and pay *far* less than
you would have buying them all retail. Sure the titles are typically
older, but the concept has some serious merit. The average consumer can
get serious bang for their buck, and if they pick a lemon to try, they
just toss it and grab a new one right away - no real loss of money.
> That's why I think it is important to take a stand -one that is well
> reasoned and can be accepted by both sides- that says to publishers
> "This far, and no farther" before things get out of hand. Hence the
> start of this thread, and I urge people to "spread the word" to other
> forums so some sort of consensus can be hammered out.
>
People have been trying to do that with DRM issues virtually since they
first appeared. And yet here we are, still having discussions about how
bad DRM is and how it needs to have limits. The problem is that nobody
listens when we talk, because for every one of us "enlightened"
consumers, there is at least 10 that really don't care, don't have any
idea about it, or just shrug and take it anyway so they can buy that
shiny game they would otherwise miss out on if they boycotted it. Or
they just flock to consoles, where most big titles are cross-released to
those platforms now anyhow... And no DRM to fight... People want
simple, and if it's a choice between playing it on a console or fighting
it on a PC, guess which one will usually win?
We can't just "spread the word" on this... What we need is to be
*heard* on the issue, and it can be done. Look at the mass exodus from
StarForce DRM for an example of consumers being heard. Of course, the
companies ran right into the waiting arms of SecuRom and others, so it
wasn't necessarily a victory for the good guys - it was more of a
sideways shuffle to a lesser evil. But at least it happened. So how do
we get heard instead of futilely talking into the wind?
CoinSpin
Loren Pechtel
<mindyouro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yup.
I'd like to see a requirement of any activation system that the
distributor should be required by law to put a copy of the current
version (and patches if anything on-line is required to download them
like Stardock does) with some sort of escrow service. The agreement
is that they are kept confidential so long as a monthly fee is paid,
if the payment isn't made they are released to the public.
Loren Pechtel
<coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The more I think about it, the more I realize that (where DRM is
>concerned) there is only really 1 game genre that comes close to
>guaranteeing the "1 user per purchase" rule... MMOs. You set up an
>account based on your purchase (software key, etc) and then only a
>single instance of that account can be active at one time. I've got
>Guild Wars installed on no fewer than 3 computers (2 desktops, 1 laptop)
>so I can play wherever I am in the house or out on the road. Sure you
>can let somebody else use your account, but you can't use it at the same
>time, so it limits the "sharing" issues of casual piracy.
For anything played on-line this is a good answer. No activation or
anything, one license key can be used by only one machine at a time.
Loren Pechtel
<gan...@the.dead.ISP.of.Community.net> wrote:
>In the case of the optical drive, its often a case of the user getting a
>drive that is above and beyond just a drive. Something that is specifically
>advertised as being able to "copy problem discs" (basically bragging that
>it can get past most DRMs)
Maybe often but not always. I've had a perfectly ordinary drive
refuse to work with one game.
>The many activations problems tends to fall toward the user going with
>cheap hardware or built-it-myself machines. Thats not necessarily something
>that the game company needs to eat it on. This would also be a very
>difficult thing to verify.
A lot of us build our own hardware.
I think a lot of the activation issue could be handled by putting the
activation information into a file that may be freely backed up and
will work on basically the same hardware even after a drive
replacement. Few people will do more than one major hardware
replacement during the life of a game.
Also, how about regenerating installs? Perhaps you get 3 installs but
they regenerate at one per 6 months.
Gandalf Parker
news:qtfDk.1257$ty3...@newsfe10.iad:
> Also, how about regenerating installs? Perhaps you get 3 installs but
> they regenerate at one per 6 months.
Thats an interesting thought. It would make most pirate copies worthless.
Im not sure how easily it could be incorporated witohut providing another
easy to bypass protection. But it would be a great thing if it could be
done.
Loren Pechtel
<gan...@the.dead.ISP.of.Community.net> wrote:
If you're using some sort of activation server it's no problem at all.
The server handles it. It's got a trustworthy clock.
User activates:
If the key is new, create an activation record for that key, last
regeneration date = today.
Record the date the activation occured on.
If the machine signature <> the one on file, decrement remaining
activations.
Record the machine signature.
Periodic:
If the number of activations < max and the last regeneration date is
more than 6 months old:
Increment remaining activations.
Set regeneration date to today.
Note that this requires nothing on the user's machine that isn't
already there other than the machine signature recording.
Magnate
But does the law protect their right to limit the availability of patches?
If I buy the game on CD, and legally sell it on when I've finished with it,
is the buyer not entitled to patch the game s/he legally bought, however
s/he got hold of the patches?
For instance, I could keep copies of the patches and give them with the CD
when I sell on the game. The buyer has not done anything wrong in that
situation, and neither (I think) have I.
The buyer could obtain future patches from p2p, which should not be illegal
as s/he is a legal owner of the game.
I too was unaware that Stardock attempts to prevent the reselling of games.
That's bad. They still get kudos for not using DRM, but they've just lost
some credibility with me.
CC
Magnate
> Spalls Hurgenson <yoi...@ebalu.com> contributed wisdom:
>
> I jumped in on this expecting to shout it down. But I must admit that in
> general its better than
Me too. I have to say I'm basically with Knight37 and Mr Stabby and
SpammersDie - I don't agree with DRM at all and will not buy anything which
tries to tell me what to do with my PC, including having the CD in the
drive. I'm not fussed about serial keys, even with a phone-home check
(though there needs to be telephone verification for standalone installs),
but anything else stinks.
But as the OP said, DRM is here to stay, and I think this is a good start
towards a position that the publishers could and should accept.
Good luck,
CC
SpammersDie
"Magnate" <n...@receiving.here> wrote in message
news:ufjcr5-...@news.terminalarrogance.com...
> "Flo 'Irian' Schaetz" <ir...@gmx.de> wrote
>> And thus spoke Spalls Hurgenson...
>>
>>> I was unaware of this. Still, they can forbid all sorts of things -
>>> they can say by purchasing the product I can never eat cheese again-
>>> but that doesn't make it legally binding. So these demands can safely
>>> be ignored.
>>
>> No they can't, because StarDock uses it's StarDock-Software to
>> distribute Patches - and you need to login to use StarDock. So they
>> can't prevent you from selling the game, but the new customer can't
>> download any patches, because the serial number is already bound to a
>> account.
>
> But does the law protect their right to limit the availability of patches?
>
> If I buy the game on CD, and legally sell it on when I've finished with
> it, is the buyer not entitled to patch the game s/he legally bought,
> however s/he got hold of the patches?
>
> For instance, I could keep copies of the patches and give them with the CD
> when I sell on the game.
That won't help you.
Despite common belief, Stardock does use product activation. They only
disable the requirement on the *unpatched* version you buy in the retail
store. As soon as you apply an official patch (or if you bought the game
originally from their online store), the game won't start unless it finds
the sig.bin license file on your disk. And you guessed, sig.bin is tied to
your serial, email addy *and specific OS install* and can only be generated
by an algorithm inside Stardock.
So neither you nor your third-party buyer can install a patched version on a
new machine or reformat and reinstall without contacting Stardock for a new
sig.bin file. Burning the patch installers to a CD won't help you.
So there's no DRM - as long as you're willing to run only the unpatched
version. (Note that their second expansion to galciv2 did ship with at one
bug widely considered a game-killer, so even this isn't always plausible.)
Really, I don't consider them the "DRM good guys" that so many seem to.
Magnate
> "Magnate" <n...@receiving.here> wrote in message
I didn't know that about the patch-related activation. Thanks for the info.
CC
mcv
> "Spalls Hurgenson" <yoi...@ebalu.com> wrote in message
> news:0a0md4962m3ags0it...@4ax.com...
>> Let me be straight on this subject: I hate DRM and especially online
>> Activations. I think DRM is invasive, anti-consumer, bad for the
>> culture, and ultimately an expensive, useless waste. It doesn't work
>> and all it does is interfere with paying customers while the people it
>> hopes to stop -the pirates- don't have to deal with it at all. But,
>> like it or not, it's here to stay and at best we can mitigate the
>> damage it causes.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2658
> "It seems that EA have threatened to ban the Spore accounts of members who
> discuss (complain) about the DRM on the official game forum."
They really want people to pirate the game, do they? I bet that's the easy
way around such a ban.
I now have this image of EA with a machine gun aimed at their own foot,
and they can't figure out how to release the trigger.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
mcv
> Knight37 wrote:
>>
>> I basically disagree with the whole thing. The only method of copy
>> protection that I will put up with from now on is a CD-KEY and/or a
>> simple CD-presence check. If your game requires a code for me to be
>> able to install and/or play it, fine, I can live with that. What I
>> will not put up with is any program that installs on my computer that
>> hides itself from my OS and/or tries to tell me which programs I can
>> have installed at the same time. Or one that limits how often I can
>> install a game. That is completely unacceptable, and if I find out
>> that a game has that it's an instant no-buy for me, as well as if I
>> find out after the fact then I will take the game back or resell it to
>> someone else. But considering most games have this flaw these days, I
>> pretty much just won't be buying any games. And that's fine with me,
>> I'd rather do without than support this bullshit anymore.
>
> I'm afraid I agree with Knight37. No limitations on installs. No
> phoning home. We can't depend on the publishers to support install
> and uninstall rights forever. Even with a revoke capability, what if
> your hard drive crashes and you can't run the revoke program? What do
> you do if the revoke program breaks?
All of that I can live with, as long as they point out exactly what
their DRM does in very big letters on the outside of the box. Then I
know to avoid that game.
I think that needs to be the first rule: make sure the customer is
fully aware of the limitations of the DRM on the game before he pays
money for it.
mcv
> On 2008-09-25, Spalls Hurgenson <yoi...@ebalu.com> wrote:
>> DRM is all in the news now, what with EA's bungled handling of Spore
>> and general gamer dissatisfaction with its SecuRom copy-protection.
>> Okay, maybe the mainstream media hasn't picked it up, but it got
>> mentioned on M-TV so its obviously gone beyond something just the
>> geeks and hard-code gamer crowd care about.
>
> BBC World carried it as the sort of full-screen text announcement that
> they do in between their regular programming.
It's been in a Dutch free daily newspaper. Short, but pretty well written,
with a good explanation of why exactly people don't like this DRM, including
the mention that pirates get more value out of the product. The only thing
they failed to mention is that people have been complaining about this
long before Spore, which makes sense, because it's Spire that's bringing
it to mainstream attention.