Ditch The Restrictive DRM: Happy Customers Equals More Profit

[erocker]

I agree to an extent. But DRM panic wasn't unwarranted. Why? Because sales dipped at the dawn of digital distribution because there really wasn't a way to purchase music on line. I'm talking years ago not now.

So what happen is there were all these little FTP programs sharing music. NO ONE was buying music anymore from the store. They all just downloaded it for free. Sales dipped. Thats a fact. They dipped from mass piracy. DRM was/is a security blanket for investors from this era. Does DRM stop theft? No. But it does in fact slow it down. Most people in offices have one or two guys they go to for all their downloaded goods. Why? Because they can't DL it themselves anymore. DRM made a lot of things idiot proof. Nothing is nerd proof.

So you wanna have a conversation about DRM and not talk about the purpose of DRM?

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/1/29/129093119957096726.jpg

Also I have NEVER had an issue with DRM that I couldn't work out legally.

Isn't the purpose of DRM obvious? What I'm saying is find a better way to restrict "pirated" software. DRM is not the answer for reasons I already stated. Thinking that DRM is the only or even a good way of stopping piracy is extremely short-sighted. DRM is like the TSA. It inconveniences the people who play by the rules with little effect on those who don't.

 

[Mr McC]

Isn't the purpose of DRM obvious? What I'm saying is find a better way to restrict "pirated" software. DRM is not the answer for reasons I already stated. Thinking that DRM is the only or even a good way of stopping piracy is extremely short-sighted. DRM is like the TSA. It inconveniences the people who play by the rules with little effect on those who don't.

Amen to that!

 

[Easy Rhino]

Even the software companies that use DRM know it sucks. Unfortunately it is all the industry is using because it is actually pretty effective and nobody is willing to step up and try something different. Regardless, people use DRM as an excuse to steal and use a product illegally so if DRM goes away then they will have one less excuse to steal. Just because you think you have a right to use a product that you bought the way you want to doesn't actually make it legal. Change the laws, don't go around breaking them and them thumbing your nose at them. That is not a society anyone should want to live in.

 

[RejZoR]

If the DRM is also beneficial like Steam, i don't see any problem. Quite honestly, i'd want all games to have Steam Cloud support. Start playing on PC and finish on netbook. Now that they have powerful Radeon HD6310 or HD6320, this is really a reality. Plus if you delete the game, your saves and settings remain.

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.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That service and now Amazon and other spinoff online music shops have all jumped on the no-DRM music model. iTunes removed their DRM from music files a few years ago and they're still just as successful as before and likely more so.

Apple had to remove the DRM because why buy it from iTunes when you could get a DRM free version for $0.99 from Wal-Mart or Amazon that'll work in everything, not just Apple products. I'm sure Apple (they have a strong relationship with the music industry) played a role in making the music industry see the light about DRM because they both (Apple and music publishers) were losing business because of it. In 10 years, the music industry has gone from 99% CDs and 1% DVDs to more than than half MP3s.

The other fine example of course, are www.gog.com which started out from the start as a DRM-free service, which is their trademark and they're doing fine, too.

Keep in mind that most of their games are old and the original publishers no longer care about piracy in them (rely on micro-transactions). Only CD Projekt games are new and DRM free on there. It's a step in the right direction but it's too early to tell what will come of it.

Why can't you play BF3\Run Origin in Puerto Rico?

Most likely because their legal options are minimal not being a State in the USA.

Why does it cost people in Australia and the UK almost twice as much as those in the USA to buy the same damn product?

VAT in UK inflates the price by about 30%; Australia could be shipping costs but also customs duty (import) taxes.

Why did it take them 5+ years to get The Beatles on iTunes?

Because the publisher that owned the rights to The Beatles didn't want it on iTunes until it became obvious that's the way the industry is moving and they're missing out.

 

[digibucc]

Making it as difficult as possible for people just to use the product you sell them isn't the answer, offering people the product they want, for a reasonable price, when they want it, is in fact the way to curtail piracy.

yeah but that requires money and effort. you need to to hire people that actually understand what is going on in the markets. you have to sell things for what they are worth and not 200% mark up, and you have to provide a service for people that you look at as cash machines.

not gonna happen to any contemporary companies. they have to fail or be restructured. they simply will not adapt.

Change the laws, don't go around breaking them and them thumbing your nose at them. That is not a society anyone should want to live in.

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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

yeah but that requires money and effort. you need to to hire people that actually understand what is going on in the markets. you have to sell things for what they are worth and not 200% mark up, and you have to provide a service for people that you look at as cash machines.

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. 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.

Ah so you are taking the Robin Hood angle. Cool. Haven't heard that one in a while.

 

[digibucc]

Ah so you are taking the Robin Hood angle. Cool. Haven't heard that one in a while.

ah so you're taking the "hard line, former pirate" angle. haven't heard that one in awhile... it's not an angle mailman, for me like i doubt it is for you. this is the way i see the world. sorry.
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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

ah so you're taking the "hard line, former pirate" angle. haven't heard that one in awhile...

it's not an angle mailman, for me like i doubt it is for you. this is the way i see the world. sorry.

Its not food you are stealing. Its music. Not something you "need" to survive. Its no better then being a shop lifter at Bloomingdales.

 

[digibucc]

Its not food you are stealing. Its music. Not something you "need" to survive. Its no better then being a shop lifter at Bloomingdales.

look at my steam account, what is left to steal? i probably own that on my d2d account, ss for proof if you need not music either. i still listen to my old cds and have bought only comedy and a few black keys albums the last few years.
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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

look at my steam account, what is left to steal? i probably own that on my d2d account, ss for proof if you need not music either. i still listen to my old cds and have bought only comedy and a few black keys albums the last few years.
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.

Ill agree there. Intrusive laws are here to stay and get much worse. I just don't see DRM being really something to be worried about if your not stealing. Personally I have NEVER had an issue with it stopping me from doing something with its intended purpous.....leagally.

 

[digibucc]

I just don't see DRM being really something to be worried about if your not stealing. Personally I have NEVER had an issue with it stopping me from doing something with its intended purpous.....leagally.

i have. there are more than a few games i have had to call ea to install on my computer. legally purchased owned games, but because i had too many crash-reinstalls where i was unable to revoke a license, i had to sit on ea,activision support for 20 mins to get it reset. now, that's not HUGE - but it simply shouldn't be the case.

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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

i have. there are more than a few games i have had to call ea to install on my computer. legally purchased owned games, but because i had too many crash-reinstalls where i was unable to revoke a license, i had to sit on ea,activision support for 20 mins to get it reset. now, that's not HUGE - but it simply shouldn't be the case.

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 by removing DRM it will stop the equation "Money = Power"? No man. DRM is not about big corporations holding down the little man. Its about protecting investments on luxury items.

 

[digibucc]

So by removing DRM it will stop the equation "Money = Power"? No man. DRM is not about big corporations holding down the little man. Its about protecting investments on luxury items.

in their minds, in theory , MAYBE. but in effect - it does limit legitimate users while doing nothing to actually prevent pirates from getting drm-free copies out with hours of release.

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!

 

[TheMailMan78]

in their minds, in theory , MAYBE. but in effect - it does limit legitimate users while doing nothing to actually prevent pirates from getting drm-free copies out with hours of release.

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!

Don't buy games with always on DRM. I don't and I am dieing to play that last Splinter Cell. But I won't. I refuse to deal with always on DRM unless its steam....maybe. However the great thing is I don't HAVE to. I don't need games or music to feed my family. So I just won't buy that product. See what I mean? Let them have their DRM. It doesn't effect you. If DRM is as bad as all the pira.......errr "customers" say then their sales will stop. They will change course. No law can MAKE you buy anything.......except health care but thats a different story lol.

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.

 

[MatTheCat]

For most PC users, free access to practically any popular media content is never more than a few mouse clicks away. However, although 9/10 I will 'try before I buy', as a rule I nearly always purchase the games that I like. If I really enjoy a game and the original has any kind of restrictive DRM on it that makes using it more markedly more inconvenient than using the alternative, such as requiring that the game be accessed through STEAM or require an internet connection despite being an offline game....

.......then I wont buy it.

Is it a sold good? Yes. Did you pay for it? No. This means you stole it. Its theft.

Anyway this is a retarded thread. We have been down this road WAY to many times. It a powder keg.

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.

 

[digibucc]

If DRM is as bad as all the pira.......errr "customers" say then their sales will stop. They will change course. No law can MAKE you buy anything.......except health care but thats a different story lol.

there simply aren't enough who care. but since when has being outnumbered meant you are wrong?

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

 

[ChaoticAtmosphere]

Sales are affected minimally by copying or piracy. I have been getting my music that way all my life. Friend buys record and I record it on cassette for evrybody who wanted it. Nothing has changed except the technology used to do it.

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.

 

[TheMailMan78]

For most PC users, free access to practically any popular media content is never more than a few mouse clicks away. However, although 9/10 I will 'try before I buy', as a rule I nearly always purchase the games that I like. If I really enjoy a game and the original has any kind of restrictive DRM on it that makes using it more markedly more inconvenient than using the alternative, such as requiring that the game be accessed through STEAM or require an internet connection despite being an offline game....

.......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.

Um....

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

DAT SHIT BE STOLEN DAWG!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ill agree there. Intrusive laws are here to stay and get much worse. I just don't see DRM being really something to be worried about if your not stealing. Personally I have NEVER had an issue with it stopping me from doing something with its intended purpous.....leagally.

Try to play a single player game that requires you to be online without an internet connection. It won't work even though there is no legal reason why it shouldn't. They're screwing you out of the product/service you purchased and getting away with it.

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 actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

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.

 

[Easy Rhino]

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.

you are right, it is not easy. and even the U.S. founding fathers believed in not following laws if they were immoral AFTER a series of abuses. i still think there is hope after all, those old corporatist bastards in washington and in the executive boardroom have to eventually die. let's try to occupy their seats with the next generation who wants a society that reflects a more fair version of things. not just in tech, but in general.

 

[TheMailMan78]

you are right, it is not easy. and even the U.S. founding fathers believed in not following laws if they were immoral AFTER a series of abuses. i still think there is hope after all, those old corporatist bastards in washington and in the executive boardroom have to eventually die. let's try to occupy their seats with the next generation who wants a society that reflects a more fair version of things. not just in tech, but in general.

I would thank you for this but alas.......I'm 1337. So thanks.

 

[erocker]

I find it humorous that some people here try to sit on high, condemning "pirates" when the thread has nothing to do with piracy. It's almost obsessive and they are completely blind to the actual topic of this thread.

 

[cheesy999]

Because the publisher that owned the rights to The Beatles didn't want it on iTunes until it became obvious that's the way the industry is moving and they're missing out.

bit more complex then that

In 1978, Apple Records filed suit against Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with the payment of $80,000 to Apple Corps. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. A dispute subsequently arose in 1989 when Apple Corps sued, alleging that Apple Computer's machines' ability to play back MIDI music was a violation of the 1981 settlement agreement. In 1991 another settlement, of around $26.5 million, was reached.[47][48] In September 2003, Apple Computer was again sued by Apple Corps, this time for introducing the iTunes Music Store and the iPod, which Apple Corps asserted was a violation of Apple's agreement not to distribute music. The trial opened on 29 March 2006 in the UK,[49] and in a judgment issued on 8 May 2006, Apple Corps lost the case.[48][50]
On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. took ownership of all of the trademarks related to "Apple" (including all designs of the famed "Granny Smith" Apple Corps Ltd. logos),[51] and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential.[52][53][54]
The website for Harmonix's The Beatles: Rock Band video game is notable as the first evidence of the Apple, Inc./Apple Corps Ltd. settlement: "Apple Corps" is prominently referred to throughout, and the "Granny Smith" Apple logo appears but the text beneath the logo now reads "Apple Corps" rather than the previous "Apple". The website's acknowledgements specifically state that "'Apple' and the 'Apple logo' are exclusively licensed to Apple Corps Ltd".
On 16 November 2010, Apple Inc. launched an extensive advertising campaign that announced the availability of The Beatles' entire catalogue on iTunes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps#Apple_Corps_versus_Apple_Computer

 

[v12dock]

DRM has gone to far when pirated data is easier to obtain and better quality than its legal counterpart