Sunday, October 9th 2011
Ditch The Restrictive DRM: Happy Customers Equals More Profit
Rice University and Duke University are the latest in a long line of educational institutions to fund research on the effect of using restrictive Digital Rights Management (DRM) to try and control levels of so-called "piracy", which is allegedly reducing sales of content-only, infinite goods/virtual products, such as music, movies, computer games and books. (Some observers writing about DRM replace the word "Rights", giving us the phrase Digital Restrictions Management, which seems a more accurate description of what it's really about and removes the veneer of legitimacy from it. When buying DRM'd content, you are buying digital handcuffs, nothing more, nothing less.) The universities sponsored a study called Music Downloads and the Flip Side of Digital Rights Management Protection and what it found is that contrary to popular belief amongst the big content companies, removing DRM can actually decrease levels of piracy and increase sales. The fact is that DRM is always broken by hackers and pretty quickly too, often within a day or two (there isn't a single one still standing) leaving legal users who work within its confinements with all the restrictive hassles that it imposes, while the pirates get an unencumbered product to do with as they please. How is this progress?
The study says:
The points above are something that websites such as Techdirt have been saying for years, so the message has been out there for a long time, if only the big corporations would listen.
This study is due to be published in the November-December issue of Marketing Science, produced by the Marketing Science Institute, a well-respected organization established 50 years ago in 1961. However, looking at the MSI's website, one can see that they unfortunately do operate a paywall system, itself a form of DRM. Therefore, it seems safe to say that this new research will be locked away from the general public, which is ironic indeed. On top of that a copy is likely to appear on file sharing websites like The Pirate Bay anyway, so why bother?
While this story was reported directly from Rice University's announcement, thanks go to engadget for their news story, which inspired this one.
TorrentFreak has also reported on this story, here and is a website well worth reading.
Source:
Rice University
Removal of these restrictions makes the product more convenient to use and intensifies competition with the traditional format (CDs), which has no DRM restrictions. This increased competition results in decreased prices for both downloadable and CD music and makes it more likely that consumers will move from stealing music to buying legal downloads. Unlike in earlier literature, we examine consumers' choices among all the major sources of music. By analyzing the competition among the traditional retailer, the digital retailer and pirated music, we get a better understanding of the competitive forces in the market.Then the punchline, the part that really matters in this whole debate:
Decreased piracy doesn't guarantee increased profits. In fact, our analysis demonstrates that under some conditions, one can observe lower levels of piracy and lower profits.Yes, that's right, preventing someone from making a copy in no way equates to that person actually buying a copy, which is really quite obvious to most people, except the big content companies.
The points above are something that websites such as Techdirt have been saying for years, so the message has been out there for a long time, if only the big corporations would listen.
This study is due to be published in the November-December issue of Marketing Science, produced by the Marketing Science Institute, a well-respected organization established 50 years ago in 1961. However, looking at the MSI's website, one can see that they unfortunately do operate a paywall system, itself a form of DRM. Therefore, it seems safe to say that this new research will be locked away from the general public, which is ironic indeed. On top of that a copy is likely to appear on file sharing websites like The Pirate Bay anyway, so why bother?
While this story was reported directly from Rice University's announcement, thanks go to engadget for their news story, which inspired this one.
TorrentFreak has also reported on this story, here and is a website well worth reading.
65 Comments on Ditch The Restrictive DRM: Happy Customers Equals More Profit
However, i don't agree with idiotic pricing that i still just can't understand. For us in EU, certain game costs 49,99 EUR. Exactly the same game in US, $49,99 (36,85 EUR). Why? With global distribution, prices should also be global based on the current exchange rate. So if the game is 49,99 bucks in US, the same game should be 36,85 EUR in EU. It's the same bad when there are big discounts. 5 EUR for EU users and 5 bucks for US users. That's not even 4 EUR!
This just isn't fair. I'd understand physical games where they have to ship them in EU and that costs extra, but for digital distribution, there just isn't any valid excuse.
not gonna happen to any contemporary companies. they have to fail or be restructured. they simply will not adapt.you make it sound easy. you are talking about organizing hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals who for the most part sit at a computer all day.
i'm not arguing that breaking the law is the answer, at all. but i am arguing that there is an illusion that the american people for example still run their own country. they don't. it's past something that class action suits and protests can reverse. fighting with your money is not an option. they have billions of dollars, we are lucky to have thousands. everybody sees what's happening, and nobody will do anything as nobody feels they can. it's just not as simple as "change the laws" anymore.
there is also something to be said for the authoritarian argument. if laws are unjust they should not be followed. now i don't think these laws are yet "unjust" but theoretically i can see laws that i will simply not follow. just because some ivy leaguer made it up and wrote it down thousands of miles away, doesn't mean it's right or i should follow it just because he has status.
individuals are disenfranchised - corporations and those with money have power. they don't deserve to hold power over everyone else. call it what you will, it's wrong.
my argument was towards rhinos generalized "change the laws, don't break them" argument. i don't think this is a law to break, but i do believe there are those laws in existence and there will be more in the future.
and i'm not saying the government is some evil entity. it's filled with normal people, with a lot of money and the power to keep it and get more. of course they will exercise that power. the fault imo more lies at the feet of citizens. of us. we have become complacent and would rather be protected and coddled than deal with reality. those who would give liberty for security deserve neither.
I was unable to play settlers 7 because of internet connection issues. always on drm prevented me from playing a game i paid $60 freakin dollars for - and then they refused return on it.
why so many protections for multi billion dollar companies but if i try to take legal action against monsanto for poisoning people - it's impossible. MONEY. that's why.
this is just another example of big money forcing legislation, restriction, and complacency. it's only because of their money that they have this power, and ignoring any instance of this abuse simply because it's music / video games and not a necessity i think is not recognizing the importance of the situation. important to you or not, this is one of the few legal issues that can rile up gamers. make use of it to talk about politics and maybe spread ideas. don't just shoot it down because it's not important enough.
so then the argument becomes: how far should they be allowed to go to protect their product?
well in a free country, as far as they want. but what that means for the consumer is not good - so whether they have the right to or not, we need to consider what effect it will have in the future for the meaning of "ownership" and "buying". if i buy a game of monopoly, i own it. it's not the same with video games.
how long before buying the video game actually gives them legal rights over my hardware? i don't see that as being unfeasible. they see suspicious activity in the background (actually my controller emulator) and enact their security measures. my pc locks up and windows says i have pirated "xyz" software (even though i haven't) and so i am now locked out of my legally purchased computer hardware, and legally purchased windows os.
if the road to that is paved with small stepping stones like "always on drm" and "securom" then it's only a matter of time, and we will all be too busy arguing with each other about what's happening to do anything about it!
Anyway I'm done in this thread. I have fought almost every jackass (not you) on this forum about DRM and piracy more then once. So Ill bow out now and let them all have a nice little Ali Baba circle jerk.
.......then I wont buy it.That is quite a fascistic view you take of 'theft'.
Under common law, theft is:
A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
Or in other words, if you deprive someone of thier property, which doesn't apply to copying a file.
I dont want to live in a world where people think it is ok to equate common law and corporate law. The former is about right and wrong, the latter is about business and politics.
and again, what does that mean for customers? if eventually the choices are rootkit laden drm or only indie titles (no offense, but AAA is AAA), that's not a good situation to be in. and if there aren't enough who care to change it that path is inevitable. i just see it as likely coming from this far away and so am trying to at least recognize it and it's implications. just ignoring each step over the line is no good, eventually we'll be behind the line with no options.
i'm done too, but only because no one else has said anything since we started ;)
DRM is useless just as the studies state.
Thanks qubit for this entertaining story. It makes me laugh how corporations' intellects are greatly reduced by their sheer greed for profits.
Or try installing a game that has a 5 install limit a sixth time (activation limit reached).
Or try playing the original CD release of Beyond Good & Evil on a 64-bit machine. Don't bother, the DRM is not 64-bit compatible, it won't install, nevermind play.
Just because you haven't encountered many major issues doesn't mean there aren't people that do. All of the above which hinder legal owners can be fixed by circumventing the DRM which is illegal--even if you legally own it. Most gamers (legit and not) these days see warez groups as their saviors from the tyranny of DRM. DRM encourages a lot of people to pirate be it region restricts, incompatible hardware, no 24/7 internet access, or just plain hate having a ball and chain on their software.
Just because it is a law doesn't make it right. You should be well aware that politicians rarely know what's best.The owner is not deprived even temporarily. The owner still has it. According to traditional copyright law, it isn't a theft--it is borrowing (not a crime). It wasn't until the 1990s that a separate rulebook was established for digital copyright that made it illegal (like DMCA)...unless you're a library.