While I will always root for an app store where one can get great premium games at inexpensive prices, and for devs to get a ton of sales, what Primoz is saying is somewhat valid too. Look at Samsung vs Sony like in mp3 players and such. Sony was king of the hill 15 years ago, Samsung was small then. Samsung made things easy to open their systems and did not get involved with drm stuff issues alot. Same too goes with Android vs ios now to some extent. However, I hope an appstore where piracy is minimized, and somewhere you can get a great game for a buck still lives on. But who knows what the future will bring.
I believe he does understand. Whether you are buying or licensing, you are paying a fee for goods or services. In essence (not necessarily in law) they are the same thing. With the world moving more towards licensing media rather than buying it, it is a complicated issue. If I bought a Nintendo game when I was young I could trade it, lend it, or rent it. Nintendo went toe to toe to fight the ability for people to rent their games. They lost. In there mind You were licensing the right to use the game in the privacy of your own home only. I'm grateful they lost that battle as it would have eroded consumer rights. There have been similar battles over the sales of used games. Again, the companies fighting them have so far lost. I assume most of us are all for universal games. What if Apple allowed publishers to limit the installation of your licensed software to 1 device? Universal apps would be a joke. I wouldn't assume this will not happen. The fight between DRM and consumer rights has been around since before digital media transfer (in any mainstream sense). The fact is, it is a fight between consumer rights advocates and corporations. I would rather see myself as an advocate of consumers. What about you?
I am in favor of any system that allows people to produce great games and sell them at a price that's affordable to most people who care to buy them. A system that is too onerous for consumers is wrong, but so is one that makes it impossible for content producers to make a profit. I find it amusing that the same people who complain about the dearth of single-player games and cry foul when publishers want to restrict rentals or used game sales -- which hit single-player games the hardest. But that's immaterial. My point was that there is a big difference between buying a physical object and licensing intellectual property. A consumer advocate has the right to push for terms that are more favorable to consumers. But people don't have a "right" to use intellectual property any way they want (and more important, outside the scope of their end user agreement). You don't have an absolute right to jailbreak your phone, though you can say that Apple shouldn't restrict people from jailbreaking. Again, I have no problem with jailbreaking personally. I just think that talk of having a "right" to so is a misunderstanding of what a right actually is.
This is the basic tenant of the DRM debate; it's all a matter of how open end user agreements should be and what practices developers can/should put into place to control their intellectual property. You people may be aware of a recent European court decision that users have a right to resell even digital downloads. There's a lot of different interpretations but here's some interesting articles cited below: It's not clear what impact, if any, the decision will have on international distribution (since still no digital vendors currently allow resell, but users may "gift"/redistribute on Steam) and DRM. It's a nice thought to think you could resell your iOS software "license" once you complete a game.
First, I appreciate both of your thoughts and contributions to this discussion. Secondly, the nature of the argument really is what "rights" an end user has to things they buy. Including modifying or reselling. The whole idea of "licensing" does not rest very well with me. I didn't license my iPad, iPod or iPhone. I BOUGHT them. People may question my "right" to JB my devices. I question Apples "right" to tell me I can't. To be clear, I actually haven't jailbroken my devices. If Apple wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my product, that offends me. I do view piracy as theft. I believe where evidence exists, prosecutions should as well. I also believe that this fact has nothing to do with DRM. DRM has never been shown to stop pirating of software. It may, however, it has a much greater effect on legitimate purchasers. The DRM debate gets more interesting when looking at digitally downloaded content. It opens up interpretations more. I am inclined to say I am buying things rather than licensing them. I look at the term licensing as an attack, unto itself, on consumer rights.
I do understand it btw, DRM has brought more harm to users and the gains are all for these huge game companies... and all we want is a better alternative that would favor users who actually paid to make these companies grow. In the end, you paid for it, you should be able to use it without any hassle. I have a theory, does DRM contribute to the success of free-to-play games?
I can't speak too much about European efforts to redefine what it means to license intellectual property -- I just don't know EU law very well. In the US, though, when you buy an iPad you are actually "buying" two different things: a physical device and the software that runs it. You are free to do anything you want with the physical device. You can crack it open, sell it for parts, reassemble it into something else. You can also lend it to someone else, rent it, or even resell it with the software intact (all of which are covered by the same court rulings that allow for media rental and used game sales). Now, you may end up voiding the warranty doing any of those things, but legally you have every right to dispose of the physical device in any way you want*. You actually own it. The same cannot be said for the OS, which is owned by Apple and licensed to you under a legally binding agreement. You don't have any rights over that software beyond the ones covered by the license agreement. That includes adapting the OS: unless explicitly stated on the EULA, you don't have a "right" to do it. If you disagree with the terms, you have the right to purchase your tablet from another company. What many people don't realize is that the same laws that protect mega-corporations like Apple also protects tiny content producers like yours truly. When I sell a book cover to a multinational publisher, copyright law prevents them from reselling the rights to foreign publishers without my permission. Copyright law also prevented a big theater company from altering a poster I designed because their creative director though that "the goat should be wearing glasses" (it's a long story). When I create something, I license only the rights that I want to license. My customers are, of course, free to tell me to go to hell. I do agree that most DRM is a waste of time. *There was a recent case where someone was prevented from selling a computer that had a piece of expensive CAD software installed because the EULA stated that the software license was not transferable . The case went to court and the customer lost -- make of that what you will.
*partial quote - altered for length. I agree with a lot of what you've said. For your personal experience (corporate licensing) you obviously had an agreement with terms that the image you were selling could not be re sold or altered. I think that is fine. If altered in a distasteful manner it can damage your reputation. I get that. Your agreement is based on case by case contracts, I assume. You don't need DRM legislation if that's the case. On the flip side if I buy a copy of that movie poster, digital or physical, for personal use, I should be able to colour sunglasses on the goat. Maybe I like goats with sunglasses and think it'll class up my place. I don't expect the Gestapo to kick in my door for doing so. That's what, in the end, these massive corporations would ideally like to see happen. Or at least to see me face some form of punishment. Although in this conversation I'm pushing one side pretty hard, I'm something of a moderate on the issue. Like yourself, I'd like to see a balance that does not strip any chance of financial gain from developers/retailers of digital media. I don't want to see user rights eroded though. Considering these companies have PR firms and lawyers to represent themselves, I choose to attempt to represent the voice of the other side. Obviously if the pendulum swings to far to one side or the other we all lose out. If we can copy and redistribute any digital media as we please (pirate) without any threat of consequence, no more digital media would be produced. As I said earlier, it's a complicated issue that people should educate themselves in and make up their own minds, i.e. don't just take what any of us say as fact in this discussion. This is not aimed at those involved in the discussion, just casual readers.
