Metanet Forums

For those of you who don't know DRM (Digital Rights Management) is what software companies use to try and stop software piracy. It started out as code wheels (came with escape from monkey island) and gradually progressed up to the widely used CD-key which were generally quite effective until internet connection speeds got fast enough to feasibly upload and download software and pirates of the internet started publishing CD cracks and key generators making it much harder for software companies to restrict piracy of their products. Eventually as game companies got tired of their games being pirated they implemented new kinds of DRM which required users only to install games 3-5 times and have to verify online even if the game is single player, sometimes requiring the game to be re-verified every week or so. With precautions like this you'd think games would now be safe from piracy, but no pirates are cracking the DRM within 2-3 days of a games release and are enjoying the game hassle free while people who bought the game legitimately had to deal with the game only installing a few times and not being able to play it at all if they don't have an internet connection.

So as you can see it doesn't seem to be good at all for customers or companies as customers who buy the games have to deal with the DRM and the companies have to deal with more and more people pirating their games because they don't want to deal with the DRM.

Although it's not always a bad thing. Steam is a digital distribution program that allows you to purchase games over the internet and legally download them, it verifies your games every time you play them but even if you don't have an internet connection you can still play the games and you can download the games as many times as you want on to as many computers as you want as long as you're not logged in, in more than one location at a time. DRM that works in the background without hassling the customer at all.

So to sum up it can be good and bad, but what is your opinion on it.

I completely understand that software developers need to protect their interests, and they have a right to get a profit for a solid product (if they make one). But many modern DRM methods are just over the top (e.g. StarForce, SecuROM). I can't say that I can propose a good solution, but something needs to be different.
I do like the way Steam does things, though. They're definitely on the right track.

I fully agree with Suki. Private companies should be able to secure their properties any way they like. If DRM becomes too over-the-top or difficult to work with, some people might avoid buying those products and those comapnies will lose more business than they would have through piracy.

I also agree with Suki. I don't oppose DRM in principle, but StarForce and SecuROM are just ridiculous - they're annoying for honest users and they're ineffective against pirates. I've decided I'm going to spend my gaming dollars on a Wii rather than PC, in part because I can't be bothered dealing with this garbage.

I have somewhat of an in-principle aversion to DRM and the whole concept that we're not buying games, we're just licensing them. Still, it'd be alright if it actually worked, but most DRM only hurts and inconveniences legitimate consumers, while pirates can just go and get a cracked version that circumvents it all.

As has been stated before, the principle of DRM is good, the execution is just flawed. Perhaps there will be an alternate method of keeping pirates at bay while maintaining customer satisfaction, but until that day comes, I guess I really won't be needing a gaming PC next year.

PS. On the other hand, I still need a new computer anyway. This one's only 3 years old but its specs are bland.

Twistkill wrote:On the other hand, I still need a new computer anyway. This one's only 3 years old but its specs are bland.

i know how you feel. though: probably upgrading these holidays, weather/parents permitting. 5200FX ftl ;0;

ontopic -> good, done badly. like, almost always, really badly. secuROM my ass >_<

I completely oppose DRM. I could list all my arguments here, but they're better worded at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ (Defective By Design, a campaign of the Free Software Foundation) and http://www.eff.org/issues/drm (the Electronic Frontiers Foundation DRM issues page).

Please summarise, rather than just dumping links. Especially links which don't go to a specific article.

Also, I'd post a rebuttal, but I'm sure it's already been done somewhere at www.google.com

I'll summarize if you'll like, I just thought that readers might prefer a more authoritative (and perhaps organized) source.

> DRM restricts fair use. Case study: iTunes + iPod (note that Apple is moving to change this , but it's still a good example). Songs purchased via iTunes are encrypted with a proprietary DRM system that stops non-iPod devices from playing the media. In order to use a third party media device you must a) write the music to disc and then rip it again (reduces quality and is inconvenient) or b) decrypt the audio (violates Apple's EULA).

> DRM gives corporations too much control and there is too little oversight. Case study: The Sony BMG fiasco. the Sony BMG music group published millions of CDs with a DRM technology called XCP and MediaMax (the technologies are different but very similar). XCP and MediaMax installed themselves covertly on to the users computer and then concealed their presence (behaving as a rootkit), which immediately violates general computer standards and the law of most major countries. XCP and MediaMax offered no way to remove themselves; in fact, they directly worked to prevent removal. XCP and MediaMax were later found by security researchers to open a number of vulnerabilities in the users machine. In brief: XCP and MediaMax violated users rights and opened them to attack. Sony BMG was sued, they were forced to recall all affected CDs (almost 20 million). They are still criticized for failing to publicize the recall program and failing to refund the users.

> DRM is unnecessary. The need for DRM almost always indicates a failing business paradigm. In the Economics of Abundance, the avenue for profit should be added value, not litigation. (see Chris Anderson's lecture, The Economics of Abundance. Summarized at http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2 ... ics_o.html )

> DRM may violate privace. Many online DRM systems report usage of media to the seller, along with identifying information. This information may violate the user's privacy to varying degrees. Case study: Amazon UnBox's EULA includes terms that allow Amazon to monitor and report all hard disc activity.

> DRM may violate user rights. Many DRM systems prevent the user from carrying out activities that are completely legal and considered general rights. An example would be creating a copy of a disc as a backup in case the original disc is damaged. Case study: SecuROM, SafeDisc, etc...

> The 'progress' of DRM may block out small content creators, open source projects, and free software: The RIAA and MPAA are currently lobbying for laws that will require DRM on all software products. Regulations like this virtually always block out small companies and individual content creators. Case study: Apple's App Store, video game consoles, etc...

Companies that use DRM know that consumers will hate it, so they're trying to conceal it. On September 2005 a Disney executive named Peter Lee told The Economist, "If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed,".

DRM is bad for users and bad for industry.

Atilla: Linking to websites focused on this exact issue from respected organizations with summaries of the relevant information on the home page is in no way comparable to linking to Google.

Agreeing with most people, use it for games in a way that Steam does. Steam's ahead of the game here (No pun intended) and other companies need to follow in its tracks.

The only problem I have with Steam is that I have no guarantee that I can play my single-player games if the Steam servers go down.

As others have said, DRM is good in principle, but utterly pointless in execution, other than games. If I want to get an unprotected copy of a music track, I stick my propriety music player next to a high-quality microphone, and then record that, or burn/rip a CD. Both of these take an hour at maximum, and inconvenience the non-tech-savvy customer base, as they may have problems when they unexpectedly can't play the tracks where they want to.

I think DRMs are going to help kill the PC industry. I don't think they're illegal and I fully support a company's right to protect their software in whatever bizarre ways they desire. I think the average consumer is just going to stop buying these games, because of DRM. I think that's the bottom line.

Well, I think game developers are just struggling against a growing piracy industry, and frankly, they're grasping at straws. But on the other hand, they're welcome to put anything they want into the game.

I have a serious problem with anyone who decides that they hate DRM and that this entitles them to download an illegal copy of Spore, or any other game. It would be far more of a protest to avoid playing Spore at all.

SlappyMcGee wrote:I have a serious problem with anyone who decides that they hate DRM and that this entitles them to download an illegal copy of Spore, or any other game. It would be far more of a protest to avoid playing Spore at all.

Agreed. Pirating something because you think the DRM is evil just give the company an opportunity to yell "Look! Piracy! Piracy! We need even more stringent DRM!" It also says that you're unwilling to go without the product, and therefore that the company can make more money if they can force you to acquire it legally.

Yeah well it's still kinda obvious why it's being pirated. And why Spore got a 1/5 on Amazon.

SlappyMcGee wrote:I have a serious problem with anyone who decides that they hate DRM and that this entitles them to download an illegal copy of Spore, or any other game. It would be far more of a protest to avoid playing Spore at all.

Agreed.

DRM is one of two reasons that I'm not buying spore.

Like many of you said before, the idea is decent, executed badly... For pc users they become too much of a hassle & in some ways they can lose money either way #1) being the users may become irritated in the execution of the drm therefore making a decision to not buy their products & the obvious #2) pirates cracking there stuff and then distributing it as such. Its more common that pirated versions are more popular in the sense that once its cracked, well the uses dont really have to worry about reoccurring verifications (aside from the ones that forward you to an online registration). But there are still ways around that even still. Another thing to note though, whether the companies know this or not, but piracy is another way that information on there product spreads: its released into a community, news get around & well if people really like it then eventually the actually go out and buy the product themselves, or at least they try and encourage them to do so... but drm's just need to be executed differently. So i say, bad.

I have a contemporary thought on this...
On the issue of Steam - the model of playback depending on confirmation of rights with a server is used by a number of services. One key concern, however, is what happens when these servers fail or their owners go bankrupt.
WalMart recently closed it's music download service. When this happened, the activation system stopped working. Music purchased through this service could no longer be moved to another computer or device.
Paying customers have now lost the product that they paid for, through no fault of their own. And how is WalMart compensating them? not at all.

This isn't the only time something like this has happened.

True but steam is taking over the world of PC gaming. If steam were to die PC gaming would take a huge hit. But I get your point though.

Randal Munroe (of XKCD) took a shot at DRM today.