DRM is excellent/evil! I love/hate DRM!

[Kratos]

It's difficult to tell whether it's a mature individual with a genuine problem, a frustrated 12-year old that wants to blow off some steam, or just some schmoe that really wasn't involved but feels nice getting behind the picket line.

 

"I want suckers with chocolate in the middle, you are the only one who use to sell them, please make them again!" Yea...nobody would get sales from that.

 

On a more serious note, I could say the same thing about you, but I'm not an ignorant man who wants to close off from the world and brush off what tons of people are thinking and consider I am never doing something wrong regardless.

 

And on a less serious note again, GIVE ME MY DARN LOLLYPOP!

 

I hardly feel the circumstance is comparable.

 

Nobody cares how you feel. Now take in what I just said to you and use it as my argument against DRM. That's exactly how I feel about DRM. (meant as an example, not to flame.)

 

Any form of bull that constantly checks to see if you are being a good boy that YOU bought on YOUR PC is intrusive to the extreme. Yes, pirating is considered "wrong", but isn't the exrememity of the intrusion just as "wrong"? Or is it the cliche "two wrongs make a right?"?

 

They put forth the effort to fix it, now, didn't they?

 

Um, no, what it says now is "We apologize for excessively intruding on the consumer. We now changed our ways and will only intrude on you less frequently. Oh btw, you still don't own the damn product even though you bought it."

 

I will admit freely that exact numbers are uncertain.

 

Who the hell are you to defend them anyway? The only thing you are doing here is creating an entertaining pointless discussion against everybody here...oh wait it's entertaining, keep going.

 

 

So then if not this, what recommendation would you have to dissuade piracy?

 

Slap a copyright logo on it and go back to the old ways of finding out. Nothing is stopping piracy, ever.

 

That said, I still think copy protection of any sort is 100% useless, if someone wants to pirate a game, they will, all protections are eventually broken. Maybe the solution to piracy is reduction of costs and higher game quality, as I think Gimli said. 95% games today are ... junk.

 

Now if DRM would go away and companies can see this, they may actually make some money!

 

Please Kratos, do tone down on the swearing part. I'm sure you can get your message across without it. And I spent too much time editing your post...

SV

[Matri]

I have to wonder, though. Exactly how much of their budgets are allocated to the DRM? I'm guessing it's big enough that if they were to reallocate it they could get some quality testers or writers instead.

 

I mean, how the hell else can StarForce still be in existance if they are being paid a pittance AND deal with all the bad publicity?

[Strong Bob]

Any form of bull that constantly checks to see if you are being a good boy that YOU bought on YOUR PC is intrusive to the extreme. Yes, pirating is considered "wrong", but isn't the exrememity of the intrusion just as "wrong"? Or is it the cliche "two wrongs make a right?"?

 

Technically, you don't own the product. They do. You're paying for it's use. (Please look up "Copyright" and study the EULA at the beginning of every installation of just about every piece of software you buy. You might strike an epiphany.) By buying the product, which makes it very clear they are going to check up on you, they have every moral and legal right to do it. The only wrong that could be performed in that equation is you neglecting to notice the information.

 

Who the hell are you to defend them anyway? The only thing you are doing here is creating an entertaining pointless discussion against everybody here...oh wait it's entertaining, keep going.

 

I am not defending them wholly. (Please read ALL posts before posting.) I am making a simple counter point to get people thinking. There is always two sides to an argument, and from what I know about marketing and how things are not always so obvious, the whole point of this was to get people thinking from the perspective of the game makers themselves. Too often I see a clear explanation or reasoning, yet the masses senselessly scream "No wanna!". (See: Just about any sudden drastic change in anything ever.)

 

You must be quite the masochist. As entertaining as this is to you, your post reeks of being pissed off...

 

Slap a copyright logo on it and go back to the old ways of finding out. Nothing is stopping piracy, ever.

 

Of course nothing will. Nothing is going to stop thievery from ever happening, so should we all leave our doors unlocked and disband the police forces?

 

You quoted me saying "dissuade" not "halt". Or any such synonymous term.

 

I have to wonder, though. Exactly how much of their budgets are allocated to the DRM? I'm guessing it's big enough that if they were to reallocate it they could get some quality testers or writers instead.

 

If it works like any other company budget system, the money to the DRM probably comes from a very different budget reserve. And if it comes from the publisher, as Bomb Bloke mentioned, it's not likely in the hands of the developer to distribute it that freely.

 

Essentially that means, the DRM will not likely affect the budget of the game's development that much. Gimli makes a better point on this, in that games tend to cost too much to make based on the technology they use and how much time/labor is put in. Cutting the DRM isn't going to make much difference, but cutting down on the super video cards and over-the-top graphics is guaranteed to do much.

 

Also, I just read up on Starforce. Apparently the only discontent for Starforce is from the consumers, which are people they are not supplying to. Starforce seems readily accepted by the gaming companies though, which is what counts. And clearly this indicates they feel the added protection is worth the bad publicity.

 

Actually, in reading about Starforce, a particular controversy between them and Stardock's games made it clear that while Stardock has no anti-piracy on it's software, it seems to clearly have an anti-piracy initiative. (Going as far as demanding very particular torrent sites remove their software, or face legal action.) Read article: https://forums.galciv2.com/107193

 

Not allowed updates unless you're a registered customer... Interesting.

 

Gimli, are you still reading? My questions to you still hang.

[Matri]

MPAA says it doesn't need evidence to convict pirates.

 

They love our money. They really, really do.

[Strong Bob]

Interesting. I just read through that entire case brief. It seems to be arguing that if you have a file in your "Shared Folder" then you're breaking copyright. Well... That makes perfect sense. But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the MPAA claiming it doesn't need evidence...

 

I mean, think about it. It's like setting up a stand at a Flea Market with a big sign that says: "Free burned video games and movies". They don't need evidence that you downloaded any of that... It's clear as day you're still distributing it, and that's illegal. The case brief written by Marie van Uitert esq. is basically saying that the copyright holder maintains a right to dictate "making available" of his or her work.

 

This pretty much is a motion for them to go after your "shared folders". So I would empty those things out if this manages to pass.

 

Also, I'd suggest people read the case brief instead of just the article it was posted on... That article is misleading as hell and clearly biased.

[Bomb Bloke]

My bet is that if you set up such a stand, the police would wait until they actually saw you pass out a disc before busting you. Sure, they'd probably stand around watching you like hawks until that time, but they'd wait. Making a crime possible isn't the same thing as commiting one.

 

File sharers make files available, but they don't provide authorisation to downloaders to have a copy. It's considered up to the downloader to take care of whether they are authorised to that copy or not. What the brief seems to be saying is that the act of making available IS equal to the act of authorisation, and so is illegal even if no one actually downloads the files (on the basis that only the copyright holder has the right to provide that authorisation, and the uploaders are breaching that right).

 

But, wouldn't that mean downloading without a purchased license becomes legal? I mean, if you're authorised - Even by someone lacking the right to authorise - you're authorised, right?

 

If you're still not "authorised" to download, then the arguement that the uploader is "authorising" people by definition doesn't hold. All they're doing is "making available", which apparently isn't considered illegal on it's own. Currently the MPAA has to provide proof that an illegal file transfer took place, not just that a file transfer was possible. This is the process they are trying to circumvent by linking the terms "making available" and "authorising".

 

Note that down here in Australia, it's quite legal to purchase burnt discs or download content from the internet so long as you already have a license to that media (that is, you have purchased a legal copy already). This is because we're allowed our backups. We're only licensed to use one copy at a time, but we're allowed as many copies as we like.

 

Granted, when someone starts downloading thousands of MP3s it looks dead fishy, but without coming around to our houses and checking to see if we have copies of the original media for all anyone knows it's perfectly legit. It could just be some guy who doesn't want to rip his warehouse of audio CDs manually... No proof, no warrant, no search.

 

(No, don't look at me like that. Just about all my music files are video game remixes, and even then I've only got a couple of gig worth. I'm providing an example).

 

Note that your SAMBA shares (Windows file sharing service for eg) don't function outside your subnet. Unless they somehow get software inside your LAN in order to spy on it, there's no way they should be able to tell what's in THOSE folders. Though the brief seems to only use the "folders" sketch as a possible example of file sharing.

[Strong Bob]

My bet is that if you set up such a stand, the police would wait until they actually saw you pass out a disc before busting you. Sure, they'd probably stand around watching you like hawks until that time, but they'd wait. Making a crime possible isn't the same thing as commiting one.

 

Depends on several factors, actually. For one, police would probably question (With you having complete right to silence without consequence) you about the meaning of the stand and if you sounded sketchy, would likely recommend removing it.

 

Advertising that you're doing something isn't illegal, sure. But perhaps that is a bad example. Think of, say, having a bowl of burned DVDs out on a table somewhere, with such a sign above it saying "Free Burned Video games". That right there is enough to warrant investigation. It's also interesting to note that, here in America, there have been cases where the distribution and sales of illegal goods can be charged on an individual without any proof. I'm not sure why this is, but when individuals are caught with enough drugs, they are also charged with the distribution of them. But I think there is a limit, on terms of weight, on how much drugs you must be carrying. Should the same thing be applied to copyright violations... A single file in a shared folder could be counted as infinite. >_<

 

For that matter, what else is a Shared Folder used for besides distribution? I mean, I could put up a stand or sign anywhere that says "Free Video Games" or "Free Drugs", but it's not illegal. It could be a joke. The same can't be said for shared software. Thousands of people can download that file without your knowledge, and you won't even have the initiative to stop them without removing it.

 

But, wouldn't that mean downloading without a purchased license becomes legal? I mean, if you're authorised - Even by someone lacking the right to authorise - you're authorised, right?

 

Their presumption to authorize you was illegal, therefore your authorization is void. I think the idea here is to make the authorizing party just as guilty as the one downloading the software, which makes perfect sense to me. I understand your semantic, but I'm not sure that is precisely what they're going for.

 

I could tell you that you can go into a restricted war complex, and if you do, you're guilty of a crime but I'm not. This brief is basically a motion that would make me guilty of handing out authorization that isn't mine to give. Kinda like... Fraud. (In fact, that makes sense too... To take on the right to make software available that isn't yours, against the wishes of the holder of the copyright, is indeed a form of fraud.) However, because that authorization isn't mine, and quite obviously isn't, then your authorization becomes void and you are subject to the laws regarding piracy.

 

Now, I suppose you could plead ignorance, under the belief I was the original maker of whatever product I copied. This would make you a victim of the crime, but that isn't going to fly well if you're downloading from a shared folder, via a P2P program.

 

All they're doing is "making available", which apparently isn't considered illegal on it's own.

 

Not inherently, but there are strict rules as to how you are allowed to make copyrighted material available. This turns "making available" into a grey area that needs to be watched.

 

Note that down here in Australia, it's quite legal to purchase burnt discs or download content from the internet so long as you already have a license to that media (that is, you have purchased a legal copy already).

 

Actually, you're half right. Once you legally buy a copy of something, you are allowed as many copies as you want. You may copy as many discs as you want for your personal use. And you can distribute 'free' copies of the software to others ONLY if they own the exact same software you're giving them.

 

Downloading from sites online seems to be a slight grey area to some judges. This is seen as being an accomplice to a crime. While you may already own the software, you're taking it from a source that is actively committing a felony, completely to your knowledge. (Think of it this way: You have a license to use medicinal marijuana. Does that make it legal to purchase it from a drug dealer?) This isn't always the case, as you could easily be downloading a file from a private server from someone that has this game as well.

 

Though the brief seems to only use the "folders" sketch as a possible example of file sharing.

 

Indeed, and if misread, this could lead to some terrible problems for some people. While I have no problems with them putting sanctions/fines on the use of a Shared Folder like that, I do fear what could happen if the term "Shared Folder" becomes too broad.

 

For example, I have a LAN with 2 computers and a laptop all connected at my house. All data on all machines are mutually shared. Does this mean all the connected drives could be legally considered shared data? I'm only authorized the use of one video game per purchased copy, so this immediately means I'm breaking the law by use of a LAN, as it's completely possible for me to play 3 copies of the same game at the same time, I'm thusly giving myself authorization where it simply isn't due, according to the case brief.

 

If this law goes into effect, which I strongly do not think it will, they will need a hefty description of circumstances where it constitutes a law breaking matter. Otherwise there will be a hell to deal with.

[Bomb Bloke]

Their presumption to authorize you was illegal, therefore your authorization is void. I think the idea here is to make the authorizing party just as guilty as the one downloading the software, which makes perfect sense to me. I understand your semantic, but I'm not sure that is precisely what they're going for.

I also doubt that's the perception they wish to encourage. But I reckon there's decent cause to bring the matter up, given the way they're trying to word this.

 

I could tell you that you can go into a restricted war complex, and if you do, you're guilty of a crime but I'm not. This brief is basically a motion that would make me guilty of handing out authorization that isn't mine to give. Kinda like... Fraud. (In fact, that makes sense too... To take on the right to make software available that isn't yours, against the wishes of the holder of the copyright, is indeed a form of fraud.) However, because that authorization isn't mine, and quite obviously isn't, then your authorization becomes void and you are subject to the laws regarding piracy.

I reckon because you can't give out a valid authorisation, you shouldn't be able to be booked for "doing so". Booked for fraud, maybe, but only if you actually pretended you have the right (which 99% of file sharers do not).

 

Whether the "making available" of copyrighted data should be legal should be a separate issue.

 

Indeed, and if misread, this could lead to some terrible problems for some people. While I have no problems with them putting sanctions/fines on the use of a Shared Folder like that, I do fear what could happen if the term "Shared Folder" becomes too broad.

 

For example, I have a LAN with 2 computers and a laptop all connected at my house. All data on all machines are mutually shared. Does this mean all the connected drives could be legally considered shared data? I'm only authorized the use of one video game per purchased copy, so this immediately means I'm breaking the law by use of a LAN, as it's completely possible for me to play 3 copies of the same game at the same time, I'm thusly giving myself authorization where it simply isn't due, according to the case brief.

 

If this law goes into effect, which I strongly do not think it will, they will need a hefty description of circumstances where it constitutes a law breaking matter. Otherwise there will be a hell to deal with.

Take your "bowl of burnt DVDs" example. Say you forget the sign and forget the fact that the discs are burnt. Say you have a retail disc just laying on your kitchen table.

 

If you leave your front door open, would that count as "making available"? In theory, anyone could pick up the disc and walk off with it, and YOU would be in the wrong whether you intended for that to happen or not, same as if you put up a sign...

 

To my understanding, the "sign" saying "come get it, it's free, you can have it" is what makes leaving the discs out illegal under the current rules, and that's the way things should be. The new rules say you don't need a sign, you can get booked simply for putting it where people can get it. As you say, that opens up a lot of people to get booked whether they deserve to be or not.

 

But in the event that the MPAA's argument does pass, I would be highly surprised if the required definitions were put into place fairly.

 

Here's hoping you're right and it doesn't make it through. Not that it affects me down here in Australia mind you, but I still cringe at the thought.

[Strong Bob]

If you leave your front door open, would that count as "making available"? In theory, anyone could pick up the disc and walk off with it, and YOU would be in the wrong whether you intended for that to happen or not, same as if you put up a sign...

 

But that is an act of negligence, a factor recognized by law. By leaving a tangible item, of any kind, laying in my personal dwelling, it's under the protection of the law. Someone could walk in and take it, but I did not allow them to do it, even if it was easy to walk in. However, this is a different matter entirely, once the CD is taken from me, it's gone. No copyright is violated, and the act falls under 'stealing'.

 

Now, if someone walked in through the door, and copied the data off my computer... That would be different. But once again, it's due to someone else's exclusive involvement. The data may have come from my computer, but I did not make it available by any means, not through a sharing program or anything. If they have to hack/break into my files to get at the data, I'm hardly a guilty party of "making available". I didn't make the product available at all.

 

If I inadvertently left my CD or my computer, somehow, on the front lawn by the sidewalk... Maybe matters would be different. Especially if the CD was just laying there, unmarked. It's in a publically accessable area so people have more access. (Though I have no idea why you would put a computer or disc out on the lawn, the concept is merely an example of "making available")

 

Putting a file into a 'public' file sharing program is a very intentional act. What reason would you have to do such a thing other than to distribute it to others freely? That may as well be the sign in the metaphorical "Bowl of DVDs". Even if you subtract the sign and just have the bowl of DVDs free for people to take, it's still illegal. When a bowl is located in a high traffic location, and does not have a "do not touch" sign, it is considered an unwritten rule that it is free for grabs. (Ever wait in line at a fancy restaurant and see that bowl of free butterscotch? I've never seen a sign over it that said "Free" candy, and there doesn't need to be.)

 

If you don't want people downloading your file, do not put it in a shared folder. It's really as simple as that. I suppose you could accidentaly download a file into such a folder, or inadvertently copy files into it absent mindedly... But you would have to pay for such negligence, just like you would pay for your negligence in leaving the front door open by getting your stuff stolen.

[Azrael Strife]

You should work for the MPAA and the DRM people

[Bomb Bloke]

The idea that putting copyrighted data where it is easily accessed by all and sundry should be illegal doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that:

 

1) There's far too much room for the MPAA to define "available". There are lots of ways files can be accessed online. Is a judge expected to understand them all? If not, then the possibility of abuse is huge.

 

2) They're not trying to make "availability" illegal in itself, they're trying to make it illegal in that they're saying you're giving people "authorisation" to download from you... Whether that's what you claim or not. Given that you CAN unknowingly make data available (whether by a chance accident or just by plain ignorance of the systems people use), I believe there's far too much room for the innocent to be hurt by that.

 

3) I really do believe that if you've been given "authorisation", fraudulent or otherwise, the only thing the law should be able to require of you is to delete the files you obtained.

[Strong Bob]

You should work for the MPAA and the DRM people

 

Is this a crack that I am defending them too much?

 

Ideally, I would prefer people take both of them more seriously. I'm not in full support of what the MPAA is doing (Particularly since I do not feel such a motion is practical. Even if I see little wrong with the intended motion, it simply is not necessary.) but I do see where they are coming from and what they're trying to do. Unlike the average ignorant gamer which only sees things on the surface.

 

The MPAA and DRMs are not going to go away. DRMs are widely accepted in some places and not others, and as such we will continue to see the occasional DRM in our mainstream games. The best way to do this is to find a way for DRMs, or other such anti-pirate software, to work with the games we play while not pissing off the gamers. I feel the best way to do this is, instead of shouting out "No wanna" whenever we see something we hate, we instead offer our own solutions. And that's the only reason I stand in their defense on this topic.

 

1) There's far too much room for the MPAA to define "available". There are lots of ways files can be accessed online. Is a judge expected to understand them all? If not, then the possibility of abuse is huge.

 

You're absolutely right. And this is considered to be an immense problem in some cases. A judge likely spent too much time in Law School to really get much computer experience beyond the mere basics, and it was only recently that a separate branch of law was built entirely to understand cyber laws, and how they should be enforced and upheld. This means most judges that are aware of these things are often much younger and not as experienced. It's an untrustworthy field at the moment.

 

2) They're not trying to make "availability" illegal in itself, they're trying to make it illegal in that they're saying you're giving people "authorisation" to download from you... Whether that's what you claim or not. Given that you CAN unknowingly make data available (whether by a chance accident or just by plain ignorance of the systems people use), I believe there's far too much room for the innocent to be hurt by that.

 

I agree with this, but only such cases where a computer illiterate judge is appointed. Innocence is not always an excuse for negligence, however, and as such there should be a very defined description on what ways making copyrighted material available could be constituted as giving "authorization". (As an unrelated note... I'm becoming most amused at the difference in spelling "authorize" between our two countries. I don't know why but it makes me smirk a bit watching the rapid change between our posts.)

 

3) I really do believe that if you've been given "authorisation", fraudulent or otherwise, the only thing the law should be able to require of you is to delete the files you obtained.

 

But you've essentially taken copyright material that you haven't paid for. At the very least, you should be charged the price of the software to compensate the owner of the copyright.

 

After all, once you use pirated software, the damage is done. Especially if it's a video game you've since played through and beaten.

 

And what do you feel you should do with the person giving the false authorization? Technically, they are responsible for every download made from their shared folder. If you charge the people downloading the material, to compensate for "damages", what is to be done with center of it? I find that fining the individual as heavily as the MPAA wants is a bit too drastic, and not worth the effort, personally. I'd rather see some sort of community service or something. XD

[Bomb Bloke]

The MPAA and DRMs are not going to go away. DRMs are widely accepted in some places and not others, and as such we will continue to see the occasional DRM in our mainstream games. The best way to do this is to find a way for DRMs, or other such anti-pirate software, to work with the games we play while not pissing off the gamers. I feel the best way to do this is, instead of shouting out "No wanna" whenever we see something we hate, we instead offer our own solutions. And that's the only reason I stand in their defense on this topic.

One - commonly put forward! - suggestion is to drop DRM entirely. Use the money saved researching/implementing it to drop the prices the consumers would otherwise have to pay.

 

More people would pay the purchase price, less people would complain of those DRMs which have caused havoc with their hardware, and fewer people would pirate. The ability to pirate would be enhanced, yes, but the only difference there would be that the pirates would get their copy earlier. Or maybe not. The "recreational" crackers would give up distributing movies for free (as there's no challenge any more), but those who sold their ripped wares would love it...

 

But at the end of the day DRM does not stop piracy, is completely invisible to the average pirate (but not always to the legitimate user), and flat out fails to achieve what it is aimed at doing - Stopping people from copying stuff.

 

If no DRM is better, then that on it's own should be reason enough to drop it. At the end of the day the only people it benefits are the companies contracted to develop it.

 

(As an unrelated note... I'm becoming most amused at the difference in spelling "authorize" between our two countries. I don't know why but it makes me smirk a bit watching the rapid change between our posts.)

And Firefox also sticks an angry red line under every word I type that way. One day I'll find a proper English dictionary for it.

 

But you've essentially taken copyright material that you haven't paid for. At the very least, you should be charged the price of the software to compensate the owner of the copyright.

 

After all, once you use pirated software, the damage is done. Especially if it's a video game you've since played through and beaten.

The thing is though, if you can claim that you had the "authorisation" to have it, then the person who gave that authorisation is the one that should be charged. This is of course ridiculous when someone is downloading for free, again, I only feel it applies if you follow along with the argument the MPAA is now trying to present.

 

On the other hand, the issue of cost IS an interesting one. You're quite right, multimedia is "consumed" by enjoying it, not by actually destroying it, so just deleting it doesn't count as "payback".

 

But what is the price of the software/video/album? Fifty dollars, on average? How much of that money goes towards pressing a disc, packaging it, then transporting it to a shop? You took advantage of none of those services, indeed, it's unlikely your copy's quality is anything like that of an off the shelf version. Should you therefore be expected to pay full price for it?

 

The opposing argument is that the MPAA lost the full amount since the only copy they made available was the packaged pressed disc in the store - which you would've bought had you not pirated it. Since they aren't offering a cheaper version, you should be made to pay no less then the full price they are offering.

 

Then the argument against that is that no, you wouldn't've bought it, you'd have just gone without.

 

Both of these arguments can be taken with a grain of salt. The MPAA doesn't know you were going to buy their copies instead, but it's also very hard to believe all those pirates would go without their movies even if they had to pay for them.

 

And what do you feel you should do with the person giving the false authorization? Technically, they are responsible for every download made from their shared folder. If you charge the people downloading the material, to compensate for "damages", what is to be done with center of it? I find that fining the individual as heavily as the MPAA wants is a bit too drastic, and not worth the effort, personally. I'd rather see some sort of community service or something. XD

What I'm saying is book one, or book the other. You can't say that the uploader is acting as a false "authoriser", then turn around the very next minute and claim the downloader knew that. If the uploader lacked all credibility in the first place then what basis was there to charge him with?

 

Why make two people pay for the same product?

 

Well, that's not the MPAA's goal here, they want to make two people pay for the same crime (that is, they're asking for a lot more then $50 from each party). But I still think it's lacking in fairness to do so, at least by the terms they are using.

[Strong Bob]

One - commonly put forward! - suggestion is to drop DRM entirely. Use the money saved researching/implementing it to drop the prices the consumers would otherwise have to pay.

 

However, this is not going to happen. As I've mentioned already, mainstream video games and other software are the only places you'll find DRMs opposed. Bioware has been using a DRM for Neverwinter Nights modules since it's first expansion, as far as I'm aware, and possibly earlier for other games. And, for the most part, it works. And nobody has made any attempt to boycott it, save for the occasional youngling that doesn't want to go through the trouble of asking his parents for their credit card. (And that one topic on the Bioware forum was removed within the hour it was made...)

 

DRMs are widely used in the pornography industry for paid videos. (And this seems to be where the very concept of a DRM actually originated...) These can be bypassed as well, but has certainly done a lot to ensure that some sites do not lose too much of their income to a simple Google search for a 'free' version.

 

Sure, neither of these DRMs are invincible. I'm certain that with some effort, any half decent hacker will be able to bypass the DRM on the Neverwinter Nights mods and allow them to be played without an internet connection. But even now, I cannot find free versions of the software anywhere. Nobody complains about the DRM, nor tries to boycott it... Why do we boycott Mass Effect with a DRM but not a Neverwinter Nights mod? Probably because you at least have the option to play Neverwinter Nights without a connection, but you would expect at least SOME fuss over it.

 

Why aren't DRMs in porn often hacked? Well, I suppose that one is too easy. You can't go 5 websites without running into a naked woman, in modern day internet. There really isn't much satisfaction/reason to breaking the DRM in a video, unless it was supremely popular for some reason.

 

They exist elsewhere and will continue to work there. So they're not going away completely. Best thing we can hope for is if they do not affect future games much, not use DRMs for mainstream games, or they find a more manageable version to work with.

 

...but it's also very hard to believe all those pirates would go without their movies even if they had to pay for them.

 

And this is the exact reason why I find the argument "They wouldn't have paid for it anyways" to be a piss poor argument. I'm glad someone has finally stated something like this, besides me.

 

Why make two people pay for the same product?

 

Something I learned, studying law before I quit the legal program in College.

 

This isn't a Civil Case we're talking about. In a Civil Case, the only reparations to be sought would be the damages to the company due to taking copyrighted material. This would mean the price would be the exact amount lost, which would be $50. This would need to be paid back by the two individuals that participated in the download, and the one that downloaded his copy would be free, and have a newly purchased game.

 

However, you will not see that happen, because we're talking about a Criminal Case, which yields different consequences. I mean, think about it... If I stole 50 dollars from you, would my punishment be to pay you the 50 dollars back? No. Depending on where you are, there are fines, jail-time, and in older times my hand would be removed as an example.

 

If the uploader lacked all credibility in the first place then what basis was there to charge him with?

 

If he's not authorized to authorize, he can't authorize anyone. (Har.) The charge is simply to make the claim that he "made available" when he shouldn't have. I'm trying to read through the case brief again to see if there are any descriptions to the term "authorize", because you're right. If a judge views this the same way, then only one party could be considered guilty of anything.

 

However, that is certainly not the intention they're going for. And I'm sure most judges will see that at least, because the very basis of the matter (Disregarding the whole "making available" claim) is that there are at least two individuals that have acted together to commit a copyright violation. Something that is a felony and can be charged harshly.

 

But maybe this would be a better tactic than attacking the people downloading the pirated software. If you were very well aware that putting a video game .exe in your shared folder risked you losing thousands of dollars... Would you be so keen on supplying it to anyone?

[Matri]

What about libraries? All forms of media is made available to potentially millions. Should they be sued too for having music libraries and computers that can copy them, therefore making available and facilitating distribution?

[Zombie]

No, a library shouldn't be sued as it is not blatantly "giving" away things to the public. Last I checked, you need a library card to check out items and in certain cases they limit what can be taken "off-site". Music was one of these items and I wouldn't doubt that videos and computer games fall into this category as well. Of course, that doesn't stop someone from going to a library with a device to copy files, but that's what librarians are for, no? (To police fair-use).

 

Not too long ago the FBI was targeting college students at a nearby university for downloading music off the internet illegally. While I can sympathize with this tactic, it doesn't really fix the crux of the problem. If nobody on the internet offered music files for download illegally, there wouldn't be any need for people to break the law as they would have to resort to other ways to get the things they want (friends, buy the music, etc). The same thing applies to prostitution: police run sting operations where an undercover "jane" will attempt to get a "john" to agree to sex. Instead of creating "nuisance" criminals via entrapment, the police should be targeting the real criminals: the prostitutes. No prostitutes = nobody paying for sex. At least, that's how I see things.

 

- Zombie

[Strong Bob]

No, a library shouldn't be sued as it is not blatantly "giving" away things to the public.

 

You're right. Libraries are strictly controlled environments, and do not make things available without explicit permissions. While they have access to the internet, via "Media Centers", usually they are regularly policed by actual people. While visual supervision is not perfect, it is more than effective. If someone is hacking the Web blocker at the library, usually they'd spot who it was pretty quickly.

 

Instead of creating "nuisance" criminals via entrapment, the police should be targeting the real criminals: the prostitutes. No prostitutes = nobody paying for sex. At least, that's how I see things.

 

It's actually not entrapment unless the "fake" prostitute clearly states that she will have sex for money. The criminal is arrested when he makes the offer, after strategic "innuendo". However, this is not always the case... And plenty of people arrested for propositioning are released, due to entrapment.

 

They do hunt actual prostitutes, however. On a side note, a few years ago, on the TV show COPs, they dressed a man up in a clown outfit. He basically drove around town stopping by girls on sidewalks just to shoot party favors at them and compliment their appearance. And they have, on film, women offering sexual favors for money with virtually no provocation for such a thing.

 

It was hilarious... What could be more humiliating than being on video offering a clown sex for money?

 

Regardless, some people have the right idea about how to tackle a problem. Although I don't think prostitution is something that so much resources should be spent on stopping.

[Bomb Bloke]

However, that is certainly not the intention they're going for. And I'm sure most judges will see that at least, because the very basis of the matter (Disregarding the whole "making available" claim) is that there are at least two individuals that have acted together to commit a copyright violation. Something that is a felony and can be charged harshly.

Well, yeah, but you can already get booked for that. What remains to be seen is if one person can get booked for a possible transfer on the basis that that amounts to a "copyright violation".

 

No, a library shouldn't be sued as it is not blatantly "giving" away things to the public.

Aren't they, though?

 

If you accept my earlier definition of how multimedia is "consumed" (just letting you listen to music or watch a video), whether it's on library premises or otherwise that's the same as giving you your own personal copy.

 

"After all, once you use pirated software, the damage is done."

 

I always imagined there were laws that basically gave libraries some leeway. I don't know any specifics though.

[Strong Bob]

Well, yeah, but you can already get booked for that. What remains to be seen is if one person can get booked for a possible transfer on the basis that that amounts to a "copyright violation".

 

True, it would be a bit harsh to charge on the threat of copyright violation. However there are plenty of laws that dictate you can be charged with just the possibility of breaking the law.

 

After all, it's not illegal to own a gun here. It's not exactly illegal to have a gun pointed at someone. But if you had a gun out, and aimed at anybody, police are allowed to gun you down even if you did not shoot anyone, nor had any intention to shoot.

 

You can also be charged for selling drugs, just by having more than enough in your possession. You don't need to actually distribute any to be charged for this.

 

While I do suppose that having material in your shared folder is not exactly a copyright violation. The threat is there, however you can have other reasons for putting something in a shared folder besides supplying it to someone that doesn't have it.

 

I always imagined there were laws that basically gave libraries some leeway. I don't know any specifics though.

 

I believe libraries function similarly to any subscription based service. A library card requires a fee, so you're paying for the service at least.

 

I'm guessing the library pays a similar fee to whomever they get the DVDs and other videos from. My local library also has a Playstation 2, complete with a section to check out PS 1 and 2 games. There has gotta be some kind of mutual interest there.

[Slaughter]

Gamers strike back! (nothing huge, but a start)

[FullAuto]

450 1-star reviews? That's a fairly impressive unified response from what is often a fractured community.

[Space Voyager]

So much for Spore... I always felt they should go for something more evolutionary developed.

[FullAuto]

Red Alert 3 to have 'more lenient' DRM.

 

The game will only need to be authenticated online once after installation, according to a developer post on the official forums, and can be reinstalled up to five times. EA support can be contacted if further installations are needed. Red Alert 3 will also run without a CD.

[FullAuto]

Witcher developer says publishers are scared to drop DRM.

 

"We're trying to convince [publishers] there is nothing to be afraid of," said Kicinski. "DRM-free, that is something they are really scared of, but on the other hand we can say 'all of those games are available pirated widely so it's better to sell them for small money than make the customer's life difficult and get some more revenues'.

 

"I think that if somebody is paying for the game then they deserve own it, not with a certain list of conditions - and sometimes the list of conditions can be long."

 

Can't see this attitude catching on. The few who hold this view are relatively small compared to EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.

[FullAuto]

Stardock DRM Solution?

 

The initiative came in the wake of The Gamer's Bill of Rights, which implores game makers to ditch obnoxious copy protection methods. Stardock has been an advocate of non-intrusive copy protection for years, selling commercially successful games such as Galactic Civilizations and Sins of a Solar Empire that have no copy protection.

 

But as Stardock approached major publishers to agree to the terms of the Bill, they were still unwilling to go DRM-free.

 

Wardell said, "While Stardock doesn't put copy protection on its retail games, the fact is that most publishers are never going to agree to do that.

 

"So the publishers are telling us, 'Put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you guys develop something that you think is suitable that would protect our IP, but would be more acceptable to users?'

 

"We're investigating what would make users happy to protect their needs, but also provide some security for the publishers. ... We're actually developing a technology that would do that."

 

Wardell didn't divulge which piracy-fearing publishers had suggested Stardock take on the task.

 

I'm sorry, perhaps I am totally retarded, but have Stardock not already "put their money where their mouth is" by releasing their games without DRM? What else can they do? "Oh, you want to prove your point to us? Come up with a new system of DRM."

 

Their entire point is that you don't need DRM!

 

How in the name of God will coming up with a new system of DRM prove that you don't need DRM?

 

Are they on drugs or is it me?