from TechCrunch from TechCrunch 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?
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
The solution is to legislate against the piracy networks. Once that happens, DRM won't be needed anymore.
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.
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.
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).
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. 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 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.
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. 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?
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.
(You're wrong Micah 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 ). 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...).
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?
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.
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
The law? 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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. And I agreed with you on that in my first post. Glad we agree on something of course.
