DRM - Even Bill Gates Thinks It's Dumb

[jonlink]

Gates said that no one is satisfied with the current state of DRM, which “causes too much pain for legitmate buyers” while trying to distinguish between legal and illegal uses. He says no one has done it right, yet. There are “huge problems” with DRM, he says, and “we need more flexible models, such as the ability to “buy an artist out for life” (not sure what he means). He also criticized DRM schemes that try to install intelligence in each copy so that it is device specific.

His short term advice: “People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then.” from TechCrunch (http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on-the-future-of-drm/)

Does [Tristan Nitot, president of Mozilla Europe] extend his belief in open source to the open sourcing of content as well as code? What does he think about DRM?

“I don’t think DRM has a future. Treating your customers like thieves is bad business practice. Today the customer is not ‘king’, they are considered thief first.”

He relates a story about his young son being visibly upset by a DRM-enabled music CD which would not play on his older model HiFi.
“It is stupid to think that the key to a DRM system won’t leak. So if it becomes more painful for a legitimate customer to use a product than it is for the pirates then that’s a problem,” he says. from TechCrunch (http://eu.techcrunch.com/2007/09/13/mozilla-president-kicks-ballmer-trashes-drm-quotes-spiderman/)


So, what do folks think? Is there such a thing as sensible DRM? Is Apple doing it right? Is there any dev's who have an idea how to do it right— if such a thing is even possible? Does DRM have a future?

[Quorlan]

Can't wait to see what kind of a debate this thread sparks. Here's my own opinions.

Personally, I don't believe DRM as it is conceived today has a future. DRM as used today punishes legitimate consumers and doesn't even make the content pirates bat an eye. Pirates strip DRM away with ease while those of us who pay for our content are forced to jump through hoops and are restricted as to how and where we can use what we buy.

The content distributors (music, film, television, print publishing, etc) still haven't woken up to the fact that this is a HUGE driver for legitimate consumers to resort to piracy. When it's easier to acquire and use a song or a movie or a tv show or an electronic book or a video game through piracy than it is via legitimate methods, the laziness of human nature takes over and people drift into doing things illegally because they want what they want, and are perfectly willing to pay for it, but it's so much harder to pay for it and then USE the content you bought where and how you want to use it.

Piracy is not always a case of people wanting something for free as it is for people wanting something convenient. It takes a certain amount of resolve to know that I can click three buttons and get a movie for free and use it wherever and however I want to but still take the longer, more restrictive route of going to iTunes, finding the movie I want, paying for it and then ONLY being able to use it on the five computers that are authorized to access my iTunes account (mine, my wifes, my sons, my daughters and our central server). I can't easily put it onto say a Pocket PC, or a netbook running Linux or burn it to a DVD so I can play it on my plasma television. I do this because I understand that piracy is wrong and content owners and creators deserve to be paid for the product of their labors. But as I said, it takes a certain amount of resolve.

So until the content distributors of the world wake up and take notice and do something about the way DRM restricts and hinders legitimate customers, treating them like complete criminals, there is no future in DRM. Piracy will always exist and this just helps it gain ground. The way to combat this trend is to STOP treating consumer who pay for content like the criminals. Content has to be just as easy to acquire and pay for and just as restrictionless as pirated , DRM-free versions or it is doomed to failure.

Free + Restrictionless > $Money + Locked Down

It's a simple equation.

Q

[EssentialParadox]

The solution is to legislate against the piracy networks. Once that happens, DRM won't be needed anymore.

[micah]

Well, piracy networks are illegal already. And the more the government tries to criminalize it the worse it is for internet users, what with all the "three piracy strikes and we get your ISP to suspend your account" legislation going on all over the world now.

I think that the DRM built into Steam for PC games is the best I've seen, by far. It doesn't stop piracy of Steam games at all, but I think that's not really the point of it. Instead, it makes it really easy for people to use their games as they actually owned them rather than just a license to them. There's no annoying CD keys, if you bought the game you can download it on any of your computers when you're logged into your Steam account, if you're done using it you can gift it to another Steam user, which will make it so you can't play it any more but then can install it on all their computers.

I don't think Steam stops piracy because of the anti-piracy checks built-in the binaries, those can be easily stripped (like all anti-piracy checks). It helps stop it because it makes it so piracy is no longer a lot more convenient for the user. If you're at a LAN party, it's way easier to burn 6 copies of that Diablo CD and use a keygen to make cd keys than it is to run to the video game store and buy 6 copies of the game. (Yes, I used to play Diablo at LAN parties.) Steam kind of fixes that problem.

I'm not a fan of DRM, and I don't include DRM in my own games that I develop. But I do think that Steam has it close to DRM done right.

[MidianGTX]

I'm not a fan of Steam at all, but their DRM system sounds fairer than most. Ideally of course, the best DRM would be totally invisible to honest consumers who've paid for their media, there's no reason us law abiding consumers should get caught up in the battle between the industry and the pirates. We shouldn't even have to know it exists.

[jonlink]

For me the best system seems to be tying person info into the file. eMusic and Apple both do this with their DRM free files. I'm not sure what Apple's policies are, but eMusic gives you a lifetime ban and loss of whatever balance remains if they find files with your info floating around. Seems perfectly fair to me, and it is enough to keep honest people honest. Actually, eMusic was only place I would buy music for a while because of that (for a time it was just about the only legit DRM free music source).

[Hmar9333]

Well, piracy networks are illegal already. And the more the government tries to criminalize it the worse it is for internet users, what with all the "three piracy strikes and we get your ISP to suspend your account" legislation going on all over the world now.

I think that the DRM built into Steam for PC games is the best I've seen, by far. It doesn't stop piracy of Steam games at all, but I think that's not really the point of it. Instead, it makes it really easy for people to use their games as they actually owned them rather than just a license to them. There's no annoying CD keys, if you bought the game you can download it on any of your computers when you're logged into your Steam account, if you're done using it you can gift it to another Steam user, which will make it so you can't play it any more but then can install it on all their computers.

I don't think Steam stops piracy because of the anti-piracy checks built-in the binaries, those can be easily stripped (like all anti-piracy checks). It helps stop it because it makes it so piracy is no longer a lot more convenient for the user. If you're at a LAN party, it's way easier to burn 6 copies of that Diablo CD and use a keygen to make cd keys than it is to run to the video game store and buy 6 copies of the game. (Yes, I used to play Diablo at LAN parties.) Steam kind of fixes that problem.

I'm not a fan of DRM, and I don't include DRM in my own games that I develop. But I do think that Steam has it close to DRM done right.

Steam makes me want to spew out my a$$. I'm sorry, I just hate it that much.

[EssentialParadox]

Well, piracy networks are illegal already. And the more the government tries to criminalize it the worse it is for internet users, what with all the "three piracy strikes and we get your ISP to suspend your account" legislation going on all over the world now.
I actually support that system. Something does need to be done to discourage the vast numbers of people who illegally download. I don't do it, and I would hope you fall into the same boat, so we shouldn't be affected by it, only those who are doing it.

I think a better system would be to just block websites that offer illegal content. It already happens with child porn, whether it's on a European server or one in East China, so the same could easily be done with piracy networks.

if you're done using it you can gift it to another Steam user, which will make it so you can't play it any more but then can install it on all their computers.
Are you sure about this? I looked into that and on the Steam website it specifically says you can't gift a purchase once you've already downloaded and installed it yourself. They even use the analogy, "that would be like wrapping up and giving them your toaster you've been using every morning for the past year" - which I totally disagree with as an analogy, because digital products don't get wear and tear like physical goods do, but I still agree with their stance on this. Otherwise, what's to stop only a few copies of a game being sold, and then the customers play it, gift it… play it, gift it… play it, gift it, until everyone's played it without purchasing a copy, and so only a handful of copies only ever got sold. It would be like selling theater tickets and when you're done, you give your ticket to your friend to go see the play.

[MidianGTX]

I actually support that, because does have to be done to discourage the vast numbers of people who do it. I don't download copyrighted content illegally, and I would hope you fall into the same boat, so we shouldn't be affected by it.

I support that too. What if 11 year-old Johnny finds Limewire and gets busted for downloading music? Should his parents be monitoring him so much that as well as blocking adult material, they've also gotta sit by his side and make sure he never downloads an illegal MP3 file? Even if the answer to that is yes, it's not gonna happen. Far better to let the parents know they've had a strike than instantly get slammed with a bill for $2000 just because their kid is young and not too intelligent. Getting a warning is fair game, even for pirates.

[micah]

6_P4lJD_OPI

[jonlink]

I actually support that system. Something does need to be done to discourage the vast numbers of people who illegally download. I don't do it, and I would hope you fall into the same boat, so we shouldn't be affected by it, only those who are doing it.

I think a better system would be to just block websites that offer illegal content. It already happens with child porn, whether it's on a European server or one in East China, so the same could easily be done with piracy networks.
This seems like a very slippery slope to me. Who regulates it? Who chooses what is illegal? Who watches the people watching the people? How do you determine that someone has actually even downloaded something illegal, and that it was done intentionally? What provisions are their for hacked computers?

The "if you are honest, you have nothing to fear" argument has historically been used as a weak means to support flawed and invasive policing systems.

...They even use the analogy, "that would be like wrapping up and giving them your toaster you've been using every morning for the past year" - which I totally disagree with as an analogy, because digital products don't get wear and tear like physical goods do, but I still agree with their stance on this. Otherwise, what's to stop only a few copies of a game being sold, and then the customers play it, gift it… play it, gift it… play it, gift it, until everyone's played it without purchasing a copy, and so only a handful of copies only ever got sold. It would be like selling theater tickets and when you're done, you give your ticket to your friend to go see the play. Actually, both of those analogies are poorly chosen. In both cases you are comparing a limited resource to an infinite one. Putting that aside, you seem to also believe that stores like Gamestop are illegal. This would also lead to the conclusion that selling your used car, or house, or clothes is also illegal. And that everyone would stop buying these things if people proceed in such actions. What makes a game, movie, or album different?

[micah]

Are you sure about this? I looked into that and on the Steam website it specifically says you can't gift a purchase once you've already downloaded and installed it yourself. They even use the analogy, "that would be like wrapping up and giving them your toaster you've been using every morning for the past year" - which I totally disagree with as an analogy, because digital products don't get wear and tear like physical goods do, but I still agree with their stance on this. Otherwise, what's to stop only a few copies of a game being sold, and then the customers play it, gift it… play it, gift it… play it, gift it, until everyone's played it without purchasing a copy, and so only a handful of copies only ever got sold. It would be like selling theater tickets and when you're done, you give your ticket to your friend to go see the play.

I could be wrong because I've never gifted a game on Steam before (and I'm not using a computer with Steam on it now so I can't verify), but I'm pretty sure you can give a game to another Steam user. All the Steam games do have copy protection DRM built-in that verifies that you own a copy of it through the Steam servers before it lets you play. So when you gift it, you no longer own a copy, and Steam doesn't let you play unless you buy it again.

Of course you can probably do things like disconnect from the network before playing your game, or just block the Steam servers, and it might still let you play. Or you can remove the DRM. But people can always do things like that. The thing that makes Steam better than normal DRM (in my opinion) is that it actually allows for things like giving your used game to someone else, etc.

[misfitskater6]

(You're wrong Micah :P You can only gift Steam games to other users as you're paying for it, if you've already bought it for yourself, it is permanently tied to your account. Unless, as was the case with the Orange Box for many people, you buy a game set that comes with one you already own, then you can gift that additional copy.)

I love Steam, been using it since it came out and it's all I use to buy PC games anymore if possible. Access to my account anywhere, and I can let people borrow my account to play games they don't have if I want (and if they are on my "very trustworthy" list :p). Easy to buy and play games, automatic updates, easy to gift games to people, and the networking ease through Steam Friends makes it simple to play with friends without having a separate function for each game. I used to worry about what would happen if Valve went under, how I would be able to continue to play my Steam games, but since then Steam has gone off, doubt it will be an issue anytime soon.

It's kind of weird, Steam is really the only sort of DRM I support. I still don't get why so many people buy music from online stores like iTunes or Napster when you can buy a physical cd for the same price (or sometimes less) and be able to rip it wherever, whenever, and as many times as you want, choose the quality of the song, and you get a hard copy as well as the liner notes. I can understand buying like one song if you don't like the rest of the album, but buying full cds with DRM seems like a total waste of money. Not to mention the cost if your hard drive crashed and you didn't have a backup (my cd collection has gotta be at least $3000...).

[MidianGTX]

This seems like a very slippery slope to me. Who regulates it? Who chooses what is illegal? Who watches the people watching the people? How do you determine that someone has actually even downloaded something illegal, and that it was done intentionally? What provisions are their for hacked computers?

The "if you are honest, you have nothing to fear" argument has historically been used as a weak means to support flawed and invasive policing systems

jonlink, almost every post you make in these topics seem to lean heavily towards you being pro-piracy. What do you mean "who chooses what is illegal"? How about the law? If you break the law, that's illegal. Simple as.

You also don't seem to recognize that this method is an improvement over the last. You get three warnings, then you get cut off from the internet... this is in place of the old system, delivering a court order and a bill for $10,000 to your door. Is a warning not a fairer system? It gives you the chance to redeem yourself, if the first instance had been an accident, it gives you the chance to ensure it doesn't happen again... I'm failing to see where the problem is. Are you suggesting that there should be an easy excuse for everyone who downloads illegally? That they should all be able to say "Oh, I didn't know", and your magical system will just let them off?

[cubytes]

digital media is kinda like an anomaly for the monetary system, because simply put; how do you effectively monetize something that can in essence be infinitely copied/replicated and distributed organically on technology that has been widely available for years with little or no extra effort or cost?

the answer is you cant......

with digital media scarcity be damned the supply will always always always over exceed the demand and as such prices lower when compared to physical media and if there wasn't laws preventing the organic distribution of content prices would be meaningless; it would be like trying to charge people for the air that they breathe

the only thing you can do to some degree is limit the capacity of sharing on a particular type of medium, try to control distribution or a specific medium entirely, and of course control platforms upon which the content can be experienced....oh and here's an idea -- make it illegal to share and/or distribute content freely, by implementing the concept of copyright.

all of this is great for monetization but not so great for consumers as it creates walled gardens for anything and everything that hits the market in the interest of perpetuating the relevancy of the monetary system. the arguments such as "piracy would be non existent only if the media companies would evolve and provide a better service" these arguments are all pointless since there is no way to evolve digital media business models and still preserve the profit structure, this evolution most speak of is essentially requests for breaking down the walled garden approach and that will never happen as the walled garden is essential for monetizing digital media and thus preserving the price that has been established.

a perfect example of this is the itunes and appstore; the songs and apps are typically only .99/1.29, and the itunes/appstore itself represents one of the best walled gardens on the market with the advent of homesharing yet piracy is still rampant for all kinds of media......

heres a question if you bought a record, A-track, album, CD/DVD/Bluray in the past and then lost it or it was ruined, do you think its alright to illegally download them since you already bought the media in the past? or are you alright with being forced to re-buy the same product over and over again as new technology comes out? this is what you have to live with in walled gardens

or how about this...

if you bought fieldrunners on the iphone wouldn't you expect to not have to buy it again on psp GO? or are you ok with having to buy the same product over again on this mobile platform? assuming there wasn't any extra content of course. And even if there was extra content wouldn't it make more sense to only pay a fraction of the price for just the extra content or would you rather pay the full retail price since your so "oh whats the word...ethical?"?

why be ethical when the companies are obviously not ethical in fact you cant expect any company to be ethical in a monetary system all they care about are profits that would be like a retail company training their salesman to be honest and then you would hear them say "you know what for this price and this product your better off checking out the store across the street they have got the same product at a cheaper price" but you will never hear that will you?

the companies will never go out of their way to be ethical so why should we?

why should we even expect people to be ethical since society as a whole is built upon a system of differentiating advantage? we are forced to compete with each other over jobs that would be like someone saying "hey you know what i see your also applying for this job how about i just let you take it and i will find another one?" nah our "civilized" society conditions the masses to compete with each other over jobs or more obviously to be "cooler" then one another. what this guy is lame hes a geek a nerd hes got no life he hasn't tried weed? what kind of shoes are those? get the point?

also when arguing for piracy.....

its kinda hard to argue that the people should be able to share information that they have obtained freely between individuals or as a community (which sounds like a natural extension of free speech) when the same people more or less depend on earning wages from composing, creating, and distributing said information. information being content, ideas, knowledge, opinions, works of art so on and so on.

and there in lies the problem....

piracy will always be rampant because there will always be walled gardens besides its; convenient, a movement, an alternative, and last but not least its a way to protest/rebel against the big media conglomerates

walled gardens will always emerge in a monetary system because they are necessary to preserve the profit structure and without asserting pressure to preserve a profit structure there is no profits period.....

and you start passing laws to prevent piracy you end up with invasion of privacy, censorship and no choice but to be satisfied with the walled gardens or your thrown in a cage and looked upon as a criminal and with no choice theres no freedom and with no freedom then WTF is the point?

and i for one dont feel right allowing entities to gain ownership over anything let alone intellectual property, when its blatantly obvious everything is built upon the achievements of the previous generations and since copyright cant scale eventually only a select few will be able to afford to license just the opportunity to build upon what we have accomplished in this generation

but hey thats all great news for monetization and most definitely for the copyright owners since they will make tons of money just by licensing issh out so we can further progress our technology and understanding in the future and they don't have to lift a finger so future generations will not only have to do all the work like we have but they will also have to pay royalties and licensing fees too

forget small businesses or free market capitalism thats all slowly drifting away. the future will be a perfect storm for monopolies and oligopolies and just the continuation of conditioned corrupt behavior inherent in the monetary system.

[c0re]

how do you effectively monetize something that can in essence be infinitely copied/replicated and distributed organically on technology that has been widely available for years with little or no extra effort or cost?

By intellectual property and product value ;)

[jonlink]

jonlink, almost every post you make in these topics seem to lean heavily towards you being pro-piracy.

That is the stupidest and most insulting thing I've ever heard.

Being against draconian DRM systems and against system that place the interests of businesses over people's isn't "pro-piracy."

I am:
anti-piracy
anti-DRM
pro-consumer

[EssentialParadox]

This seems like a very slippery slope to me. Who regulates it? Who chooses what is illegal?
The law?

The "if you are honest, you have nothing to fear" argument has historically been used as a weak means to support flawed and invasive policing systems.
Jonlink, I'm getting the impression you're a very big privacy advocate?
On the internet you are not private in any shape or form, it's a very public area. Anyone thinking this system as "invasive" would be better off not using the internet at all. I see no difference in going to sell your products at the local market and seeing a police officer doing a brief walk around the stalls to check that nobody's selling anything illegal. If he does find, and accuse you of selling pirated DVDs, he's still going to need evidence to prove it in court.

This would also lead to the conclusion that selling your used car, or house, or clothes is also illegal. What makes a game, movie, or album different?
They're different because while you buy a car, and own the car itself, and are free to sell the car, you don't actually own the game, or the movie, or the album… you've purchased a license to play, or watch, or listen to the content. Like I said before, it's more comparable to a theater ticket than it is a car.

It's kind of weird, Steam is really the only sort of DRM I support. I still don't get why so many people buy music from online stores like iTunes.
iTunes used to have DRM, and I would've agreed with you about CDs then, but since longer than a year iTunes hasn't had DRM anymore. :)

the companies will never go out of their way to be ethical so why should we?
I think that's a very ignorant and generalizing statement to make, especially in a forum that is dedicated to the people here who are running iPhone game development companies.

I see many digital content providers who do everything they can to make the customer's experience as pleasant as possible… people who remove any sort of DRM from their content, offer it in multiple different formats for download, including open source formats, and the ability to re-download copies should you lose it.

And Digital products can be monetized, through selling non-transferable licenses to play the game. The game itself is never sold, only a license to play the game.

[jonlink]

Jonlink, I'm getting the impression you're a very big privacy advocate?
On the internet you are not private in any shape or form, it's a very public area. Anyone thinking this system as "invasive" would be better off not using the internet at all. I see no difference in going to sell your products at the local market and seeing a police officer doing a brief walk around the stalls to check that nobody's selling anything illegal. If he does find, and accuse you of selling pirated DVDs, he's still going to need evidence to prove it in court.I am a privacy advocate. I also think that it is a sad state when you think privacy is non-exsitent on the internet. Just because I am walking outside in public, doesn't mean you can look through my wallet. The internet is the same. People should always have to right to go on the internet and choose what degree of themselves is revealed. Of course, when you do go into any public place there is an immediate loss of privacy to a degree, but it doesn't need to be an absolute degree.

I don't want an agency specifically set up to watch what sites I visit and what I download and upload. I don't think that is unreasonable.


They're different because while you buy a car, and own the car itself, and are free to sell the car, you don't actually own the game, or the movie, or the album… you've purchased a license to play, or watch, or listen to the content. Like I said before, it's more comparable to a theater ticket than it is a car.I've heard this one before and it doesn't hold water. What you're expressing is a very new idea created in an attempt to criminalize a consumer behavior that has existed for as long as people have had things to sell.

If I buy a DVD what have I purchased? a license to watch it? In that case, if a friend comes to my house, should she also pay? What if a friend borrows an PlayStation game? Are we both criminals?

You don't own a game or a song, but you do own the _copy_ of it. And the consumer can (within some long ago defined limits) do what he or she wishes with that copy.

-------
Anyway.

I still haven't heard anything that makes me believe DRM is a viable system. It is my opinion that adding new restrictions to consumer's purchases is one of the most hostile moves a company or industry can make.

[EssentialParadox]

I am a privacy advocate. I also think that it is a sad state when you think privacy is non-exsitent on the internet. Just because I am walking outside in public, doesn't mean you can look through my wallet.
I find that a very obtuse analogy. Nobody looks in your wallet while walking the streets… But if you're standing on the street distributing pirate copies of copyrighted material, be sure you'd be arrested. I personally don't see a privacy problem with it, because you're not doing it in private.

I don't want an agency specifically set up to watch what sites I visit and what I download and upload.
Sorry if this sounds uncaring, but it's not you that they would be watching, it would be people who use a particular set of websites, and who download specific illegal files.

I've heard this one before and it doesn't hold water. What you're expressing is a very new idea created in an attempt to criminalize a consumer behavior that has existed for as long as people have had things to sell.
You're correct that it is a new idea, and that's because digital goods are a whole new idea. I don't see it as criminalizing anyone, it's purely to ensure the viability of selling the content as a business.

The thing about selling a book, or a car, or a VHS second hand is that the quality of the product's quality degrades over time. While there is a second hand market for products, there is a considerate difference between the new market for these products, which allows the car manufacturer, or book publisher to continue selling products.

…But if there was a second hand market for digitally distributed video games I don't see how it would be economically viable to the creators. In not all cases but many cases it's very easily consumed content, but the difference is there is no quality degradation over time.

Imagine someone just completed Half-Life and puts it up for sale on fictional site, 2ndhandgames.com — although it's *technically* second hand, you cannot apply that terminology to it, because they are selling a bit-perfect copy of the game as the original developer is selling. Why would someone buy a copy of [insert game] from Sega's website for $9.99 when an identical copy is for sale on another website for $7.99? But the difference is the developer won't get any money whatsoever from the latter sale.

If we allowed consumers to re-sell their digital purchases how is a publisher going to sell more than a handful of copies? Because those copies will just get played and then subsequently passed around, until a million copies of the game have been played and sold, but the developer only got paid for 19 sales. This is why we can no longer sell the notion of a 'copy' in the digital world, it needs to be a license to use the media, just like a life-long theater ticket, but one which you've purchased and once you've begun to use it, only works for you.

Anyway.

I still haven't heard anything that makes me believe DRM is a viable system. It is my opinion that adding new restrictions to consumer's purchases is one of the most hostile moves a company or industry can make.
And I agreed with you on that in my first post. :) Glad we agree on something of course.

[Brazilian Rider]

Wow.

OK, just to reserve my place in the fight, I'm on Johnlink's side on this one guys. Unfortunately I am on my iPod so you'll have to wait a couple hours for me to make a complete response.

[jonlink]

I find that a very obtuse analogy. Nobody looks in your wallet while walking the streets… But if you're standing on the street distributing pirate copies of copyrighted material, be sure you'd be arrested. I personally don't see a privacy problem with it, because you're not doing it in private.I was responding directly to the idea that there can't be privacy on the internet. I think that my analogy was spot on in that regard.


Sorry if this sounds uncaring, but it's not you that they would be watching, it would be people who use a particular set of websites, and who download specific illegal files.Do you ever use YouTube? I find it incredible hard to believe that if such a law was enacted YouTube would get a pass. And now we have the next problem, what if you watching streaming content that you believe to be legal? That's strike one. What about Google and Yahoo— I can search for pirated materials through search engines, so why wouldn't these places be watched? Who gets to decide what sites are watched and what level of transparency (a cornerstone of every democracy) will this policing body have? Who will they answer to? I'm just confused about where you imagine the lines would fall, my casual observation is that if you give the greedy organizations who are pushing the hardest for these kinds of laws an inch they'll demand ten to one hundred miles more. (note: I'm not saying all org's are greedy, but the RIAA, for example is mighty greedy and underhanded)


The thing about selling a book, or a car, or a VHS second hand is that the quality of the product's quality degrades over time. While there is a second hand market for products, there is a considerate difference between the new market for these products, which allows the car manufacturer, or book publisher to continue selling products.The right to sell what you bought has never been tied to some concept of quality degradation.

I am allowed to buy a car use it to drive to the store and then turn around and sell it the same day later, right? It is now used, though there isn't any wear to car to speak of. The person who buys it from me can do the same thing. I can't use the car anymore, and the car company doesn't get two more sales. No one would question the legality of these transactions. Likewise I can buy a CD, listen to it, decide I hate it, and sell it all on the same day. Perfectly legal.


If we allowed consumers to re-sell their digital purchases how is a publisher going to sell more than a handful of copies? Because those copies will just get played and then subsequently passed around, until a million copies of the game have been played and sold, but the developer only got paid for 19 sales. This is why we can no longer sell the notion of a 'copy' in the digital world, it needs to be a license to use the media, just like a life-long theater ticket, but one which you've purchased and once you've begun to use it, only works for you.
I find this argument ridiculous. Nineteen sales? You've picked a weird tiny number out of the air. I find it hard to believe that even you believe that 19 copies of a game could be passed around millions of times. A pirated version could be downloaded, but if its a legit copy that only one person can use the copy at a time I promise you the sales numbers would be substantially higher.

This licensing system some people are trying to force on the consumers is sketchy at best and for lots of reasons that I mentioned in my prior post— though I see the questions I'd raised earlier have been left alone.


This kind of system also requires DRM, and I think that DRM helps perpetuate piracy, which perpetuates the "need" for DRM and more invasive laws.

[EssentialParadox]

I was responding directly to the idea that there can't be privacy on the internet. I think that my analogy was spot on in that regard.
Nobody is looking through your wallet as you walk down the street, no more than anybody would be looking into your online bank accounts. The analogy of probing for shop stalls selling pirated goods is more comparable because that's about the equivalent amount of privacy any of us get when we distribute files over the internet. You talk about a 'slippery slope', as privacy advocates often do, but we wouldn't have seen you complaining about the anti-piracy operations that took place in the 80s and 90s to stop the distribution of illegal tapes and CDs.

At the end of the day you're asking for processes that are imbalanced; an advantage for consumers, but implausible for creators to make a living. You need to propose a middle ground solution that is fair on both sides. Despite your, arguably admiral, arguments for the rights of the consumer, at the same time I feel you're disregarding the rights of content creators.

[jonlink]

Nobody is looking through your wallet as you walk down the street, no more than anybody would be looking into your online bank accounts.

Sorry, I guess I'm not explaining myself clearly. I my analogy is a direct response to this:

On the internet you are not private in any shape or form, it's a very public area. Anyone thinking this system as "invasive" would be better off not using the internet at all.

As far as the rights of content creators go. I feel they have more then enough monetary leverage. Content creators have the RIAA and the MPAA (in the US) to advocate for their rights. Through their actions they have demonstrated that they certainly aren't worried about my rights as a consumer. I'm not saying that they don't have rights, but I am saying that I am not worried about them getting a raw deal.

[EssentialParadox]

Sorry, I guess I'm not explaining myself clearly. I my analogy is a direct response to this:
I know, and I still don't see where your analogy is accurate. It's not *individuals* who are being watched, it's the locations which are distributing pirated material which will be monitored. Those who keep away from those websites should have nothing to worry about. So your privacy fears are unnecessary here.

As far as the rights of content creators go. I feel they have more then enough monetary leverage. Content creators have the RIAA and the MPAA (in the US) to advocate for their rights.

How many of the small music labels or indie video producers are members of the RIAA or MPAA?? Even better, find me a single developer on this forum who is a member of a larger organization that protects their rights??

The fact you've even brought the RIAA into this discussion is short of incredible… What started as a discussion on how to protect indie developers has turned into an emotional argument against big business. You want to take them down in a hail of fire, but who cares about putting a priority toward focusing on the small guys, right?


Anyway, I think I've made all my points earlier in this thread. Anything further would be nothing more than a game of ping pong with you.

[c0re]

I'm so bored of people crying at developers choices to fight piracy, as they are quite never giving any alternative proposition.

As long as there wouldn't be any magical solution to piracy, there will be obvious flaws. If you can't deal with it, just go further than crying or protesting.

I'm not saying that they don't have rights, but I am saying that I am not worried about them getting a raw deal.

Then if you're happy with devs having a raw deal despite some piracy, devs are happy with you playing a good game despite some piracy protection inconveniences.
Anyway, who are you to decide if a dev has earned enough money or not ?


At last, Jonlink, for god's sake, could you just stop to keep spamming posts and threads about how devs are wrong with every single way to fight piracy ?
Do you realize you're trolling a developer forum ?


As long as you don't use your brain to find a way that would please everybody, and as long as you will find every attempt to save our work "ridiculous", come on, do us a favor : put us all on ignore.

[jonlink]

I know, and I still don't see where your analogy is accurate.

ugh... Sorry, I seem unable to get this across. It's my fault though, I was in a rush and copied too much of your quote. I am not in any way referring to any of the three strikes you are out policing force. I am only referring to the idea you put forward that the internet isn't a place for privacy. You said, "On the internet you are not private in any shape or form, it's a very public area."

I also feel like the asking for middle ground is fairly disingenuous as you don't seem to be willing to even address a lot of the questions I've asked. It seems to me you are looking to make people agree with you. Though, maybe that's something I'm guilty of to an equal degree.


Anyway, I think I've made all my points earlier in this thread. Anything further would be nothing more than a game of ping pong with you.
I started this thread in the hope that I'd see a decent debate about how DRM works and doesn't and where its future (if any) was.

My question and intention was to talk about:Is there such a thing as sensible DRM? Is Apple doing it right? Is there any dev's who have an idea how to do it right— if such a thing is even possible? Does DRM have a future?But you started talking about legislation. I probably should have ignored that, and would have had I known how far off topic this would get us.

This has been a valuable lesson for me on staying on topic. Instead of learning more about people who are for DRM and what their arguments are I've had series of blundersome arguments where neither of us is really listening to the other.

I'd love to hear more about your ideas of legislating and censoring the internet. I probably won't agree, but I'd like to know more. Honestly. From the get-go you've been a little light on details, and it's felt like being in a game with someone making up the rules as we go. If you have a link or something to post so that I can read and learn more I'd be happy to.

[EssentialParadox]

I am only referring to the idea you put forward that the internet isn't a place for privacy. You said, "On the internet you are not private in any shape or form, it's a very public area."
Okay. Even though you've clarified now I still have to disagree. Everything you do on the internet is recorded; every connection, every exchange of information, it's logged at multiple points along the way. If someone really wanted to, they can view everything you did online today, yesterday, last week. Technologists will tell you that if you have privacy concerns on what you do on the internet, you shouldn't be using the internet. It's something we all need to be very careful of.

I also feel like the asking for middle ground is fairly disingenuous as you don't seem to be willing to even address a lot of the questions I've asked.
Which questions are you looking for answers to?

My question and intention was to talk about:But you started talking about legislation.
Well I know from past topics that you're against DRM, and I agree with that. I think more restrictive DRM is only problematic for the customer and doesn't affect pirates. I simply expressed my opinion that we could remove the need for worsening DRM if the problem of piracy was tackled more effectively at ground level. I only posted one sentence. It was only when a couple of people posted in agreement with me that you responded and turned it into something more.

[micah]

Okay. Even though you've clarified now I still have to disagree. Everything you do on the internet is recorded; every connection, every exchange of information, it's logged at multiple points along the way. If someone really wanted to, they can view everything you did online today, yesterday, last week. Technologists will tell you that if you have privacy concerns on what you do on the internet, you shouldn't be using the internet. It's something we all need to be very careful of.

Well, I have to disagree. I support people's right to privacy on the internet, and while it's true that most things are logged and recorded, it's not very hard to work around that, if you want to be anonymous. You can use tor (http://www.torproject.org/), for example, to route your traffic through a bunch of volunteer tor nodes around the world so that the web server you're communicating with doesn't know who you are. You can use firefox and edit the preferences to not save your browsing history.

You can pay $3/month for cheap web hosting somewhere that gives you access to an ssh account, and tunnel your traffic through that server, and no one operating a website will have any idea who you are.

The internet is a huge decentralized network, which means you can't stop people from doing whatever they want on it, no matter how many filters you set up, how many laws you pass, how many websites you block. And I think that's a good thing, what with freedom of speech and all.

It's true that people break laws on the internet, and most of that is piracy (and I suppose identity theft). But trying to ban things that people want (like pirated movies, music, and software) isn't really possible, since people can always host stuff in different countries and use proxy servers, and write software that makes this easy to do for non-computer nerds too. Trying to police the internet, and monitoring what everyone does, and giving power to kick people off the internet (I think internet access should be a human right), will just end up being like the war on drugs or the war on terror. It can't be won, but it'll cost a whole lot of money, and it will be used as an excuse to violate people's rights.

I'm trying to make a living off of selling software I write too. But I honestly don't think piracy is that much of a threat to my income.

[EssentialParadox]

Well, I have to disagree. I support people's right to privacy on the internet
I understand that point of view, and I hear that comment made a lot in piracy discussion

… but as soon as someone mentions child porn, or other dangerous materials, are you still in approval of not policing the internet? I don't believe we should allow the internet to have no laws, people can't be merely allowed to do whatever they please when it harms another person.

[jonlink]

I understand that point of view, and I hear that comment made a lot in piracy discussion

… but as soon as someone mentions child porn, or other dangerous materials, are you still in approval of not policing the internet? I don't believe we should allow the internet to have no laws, people can't be merely allowed to do whatever they please when it harms another person.

But there already are laws against child porn and piracy. I can't understand how you justify bringing child porn into the discussion while simultaneously reprimanding a mention of the RIAA. Let's leave both out as they aren't apropos.

Which questions are you looking for answers to?
What you're expressing is a very new idea created in an attempt to criminalize a consumer behavior that has existed for as long as people have had things to sell.

If I buy a DVD what have I purchased? a license to watch it? In that case, if a friend comes to my house, should she also pay? What if a friend borrows an PlayStation game? Are we both criminals?

Finally, I'd just like to say once again. I'm interested in hearing out your views (and I think I've heard that already — as you have mine), but I what I haven't seen is how the policing you feel is necessary would be implemented. I am sure I can google something, but I've heard about this idea a bit before and the opposition seems far more vocal. If you have a link or can tell me in detail how you think it should be, I'd be interested in reading it.

[micah]

I understand that point of view, and I hear that comment made a lot in piracy discussion

… but as soon as someone mentions child porn, or other dangerous materials, are you still in approval of not policing the internet? I don't believe we should allow the internet to have no laws, people can't be merely allowed to do whatever they please when it harms another person.

Well of course child porn is horrible. And piracy is bad too. And it's completely reasonable for police to monitor people's activity's on the internet if they're suspected of either. But seeing as how I'm not under investigation for child porn or for pirating copyrighted material, I don't think it's ok to give the police the power to monitor what I'm doing on the internet. Not until they have probably cause that I'm breaking the law.

So while I'm fine with police using digital surveillance to catch criminals, I'm not ok at all with police doing surveillance on everyone just in case someone happens to be a criminal.

Police use pirated music and child porn as an excuse to conduct illegal laptop searches at airports all the time. That's backwards. Instead, if police want to catch a music pirate, then they should start with their username at torrent sites and expand their search from there. That way they don't have to treat everyone like criminals by default, only actual criminals.

[EssentialParadox]

If I buy a DVD what have I purchased? a license to watch it? In that case, if a friend comes to my house, should she also pay? What if a friend borrows an PlayStation game? Are we both criminals?
No. no. And no. All seem fair use to me, and I don't know a single music company, movie studio, or game publisher who would care, or prosecute you. I also believe there are consumer laws that protect personal use in each of those cases.

But at a more general level, I do believe the copyright holders should continue to reserve that right to prosecute, in the case they ever come across someone operating a large scale unlicensed rental operation, for example, which would be classified under that banner.

Finally, I'd just like to say once again. I'm interested in hearing out your views (and I think I've heard that already — as you have mine), but I what I haven't seen is how the policing you feel is necessary would be implemented. I am sure I can google something, but I've heard about this idea a bit before and the opposition seems far more vocal. If you have a link or can tell me in detail how you think it should be, I'd be interested in reading it.
It's simple. You don't need to watch people, and you don't need to track anyone's traffic.

The fairest, most effective, and easiest way to deal with it is to simply require websites (e.g. the pirate bay) to remove copyrighted material (or torrents that link to copyrighted material,) when requested by the copyright owner. P2P services have to do the same, and filter traffic accordingly.

Any websites that refuse to remove copyrighted material are reported to whomever the designated independent watchdog is (along with evidence), who will refer any infringing websites to be censored by ISPs until they remove the material. Any non-complying P2P services are blocked until the material is properly filtered by the service manager.

I believe this method to be fair for all parties (copyright owners are happy, torrent and P2P websites have a fair chance to go legit), I don't believe there to be any privacy concerns for individuals, and nobody would lose internet access. Jon, do you see any issues with it that I could be missing?

[jonlink]

It's simple. You don't need to watch people, and you don't need to track anyone's traffic.

The fairest, most effective, and easiest way to deal with it is to simply require websites (e.g. the pirate bay) to remove copyrighted material (or torrents that link to copyrighted material,) when requested by the copyright owner. P2P services have to do the same, and filter traffic accordingly.

Any websites that refuse to remove copyrighted material are reported to whomever the designated independent watchdog is (along with evidence), who will refer any infringing websites to be censored by ISPs until they remove the material. Any non-complying P2P services are blocked until the material is properly filtered by the service manager.

I believe this method to be fair for all parties (copyright owners are happy, torrent and P2P websites have a fair chance to go legit), I don't believe there to be any privacy concerns for individuals, and nobody would lose internet access. Jon, do you see any issues with it that I could be missing?
I'm dead tired, but I find that approach interesting and not terrible at all, though it sounds a lot like what the DMCA already is. My only concern would be the review and appeals process. There have been a large number of cases where people and organizations use the DMCA as a tool to silence critics and cast a large net that eliminates fair use (see: one (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/07/universal-says/) & two (http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2007/03/nfl-fumbles-dmca-takedown-battle-could-face-sanctions.ars) & three (http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2721) & four (http://www.copyrightings.com/2007/02/carlos-mencia-uses-dmca-to-silence.html)). Of course doing that isn't legal, but often times the victim doesn't have the resources at the disposal of the copyright holders, or they just don't know their rights. I'm all for the theory of your proposal— it looks mighty fair on paper. I'd just want lots of things in any such policy that remove the possibility of abuse.

[EssentialParadox]

I certainly think copyright holders would need to refer all evidence to an independent agency who would be the ones to determine whether a website is infringing on copyrighted content. In which case, it comes down to the website owner to be responsible for removing it.

At any rate, I think it's a better solution than targeting individuals.