Thread: Thought I would never say this...

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Do I?
I think I do. But what exactly am I defending when I'm disabling the right of the consumer to make a backup copy of his CD or DVD?

That's true. Clearly you are infringing on consuer rights by disabling copies.
I agree. Backups are a good thing and should be allowed.
But then again, as a copyright holder of a certain something, you should be entitled to have some kind of protection or right to defend your work.

I hope I made it clear why I don't think there is such thing as good copyright protection schemes. DRMs, in the absence of the DMCA, would essentially become illegal.

I don't really know much about this DMCA law.
But certainly, I do think there can be a non-intrusive copyright protection, and Mass Effect is a step in the right direction. It's not quite there yet, but I think it will be less to complain about rather than SecuROM or Starforce.
I also believe you in when you say sales will decline, unless something is done about these draconian copyright protection systems and inferior product quality.

I remember I stayed out of the big debate, too. I know of only a law that says it's illegal to circumvent copyright protections and thus making it illegal to make backups from such things. Though if there are no copyright protections, the law states it is legal to make backups.
I don't know if DMCA is this law or not.

I see.
Although I did say "Digital Millennium something" law.
Not "Digital Millennium Copyright Act", which I believe it stands for.

Nope, I avoided the whole DMCA stuff.
And I will admit I did not know they were one and the same. I don't live in US. I don't know US laws. Simple.
I know what I have heard, but I am not a master on US laws and I don't I ever intend to be.

Originally Posted by medievalelks

Do people *really* backup games that cost somewhere between $10 and $50 and are played or viewed a handful of times? If so, I'd guess they're a fraction of one percent of all consumers.

It's irrelevant whether they do. It's their given right. I don't care otherwise.

Besides the DMCA extends far beyond video games and touches 3 and 4 figure software as well as other digital content, where the need for a backup is more emergent. You can bet your programming fingers one of the first things I did after spending over 2,000 Euros in Adobe's Master Collection was to backup the DVD, and I couldn't care less for the DMCA that strictly prohibited me from doing so.

Originally Posted by medievalelks

That's fine, but you can bet they're willing to lose your business in an attempt to dissuade the other 99.999% from making copies for friends and family.

That's not the point. The point is, if it weren't for the DMCA and equivalent laws, it would be illegal for them to do so.

I think it depends on the market. In a mass market like the gaming market, copy protection is pretty much useless. It only takes one smart person to figure out how to crack the software, then everyone can use it, because there is a demand for the cracks.

In niche markets companies can often get away with simplistic copy protection, just enough to prevent accidental misuse of products. If somebody is determined to break the copy protection, it's going to happen, though.

You could choose to waste your time in an arms race against the crackers, or you could invest your time into improving your products and creating value for your paying customers. I think that's a much better use of your time.

But certainly, I do think there can be a non-intrusive copyright protection, and Mass Effect is a step in the right direction. It's not quite there yet, but I think it will be less to complain about rather than SecuROM or Starforce.

Mass Effect uses SecuROM. The draconian parts were removed because of an onslaught of emails from players saying they would purposely not buy the game and would pirate it if they pursued it. Bioware backed down and now the game only checks CD keys during downloads of extra online content. This is fine by me but nasty SecuROM is still on my system and is still using bad registry keys to keep me from removing it. Also they now detect some SysInternals software that will help you remove bad keys and will thwart it's attempts and/or make your game unplayable if you have it installed.

If I write software and give it to you that makes use of tricks and hacks in the registry so you cannot remove my software what would you think of me? What would you think of my product? I ask you what is the difference between a so-called 'legal' company doing this to my registry and a hacker or piece of malware or spyware? I say there is no difference. Both are equally as wrong and both should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because 'intent' is not what makes something legal or illegal.

If the government won't protect the consumer then I'm sure private consumer protection companies will begin to. Fact is the market always sets the course for these types of things. When the market is no longer willing to bear the brunt of these draconian copy protection schemes companies had better wake up fast.

I'm referring to copy protection here as it pertains to the mass consumer PC market. Other forms of copy protection in hardware or software for embedded systems are understandable and very few, if any, of them are as stringent or ridiculous as the ones being employed in the PC market.

Gamers are finally speaking out. Gamers are also saying they went to consoles just because of the copy protection schemes. Gamers are shouting loud and clear that they do not want this junk on their computers. If companies refuse to listen and continue to do what they feel best or what they want regardless of the effect or want of the consumer then those companies are doomed. It's simple economics.

Complacency to the voice of the consumer is dangerous in any market. We've all seen big companies die near instantaneous deaths when they felt their market position was such that they could do whatever they want without regard to the consequences.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Btw, as a creator of something, do you not have the right to defend your work?

Absolutely. I also have the right to not be taken seriously if what I produce is a joke, and my target audience has the right to consider me a joke because of my pathetic attempt to do something that doesn't actually do what it is advertised to do.

Originally Posted by Elysia

I don't think it would be fair to complain about this until it stops working.

By that logic, it isn't fair for people in an earthquake prone area to complain until an earthquake hits and destroys property (or life). Certainly they can foresee problems and want to voice their opinion (or complaints as some might call them), can't they? If you live in an earthquake prone area and have an idea for how to make things safer, or even just realize that the existing measures are ineffective, isn't it your duty to make yourself heard?

---

I would love to see a game company take a gamble and change the "copy protection" concept for a game into an information gathering concept.

Instead of disabling the game, just gather information. A unique computer ID (using the hardware configuration and MAC address and such) to go along with the CD Key so if the same computer "registers" multiple times, it isn't counted as multiple registrations with that CD Key, and they could see which CD Keys are being pirated and correlate that with how many copies of the game were sold.

This would be win-win I think. Consumers would get a game that isn't crippled by horrible copy protection, and the game company could determine whether piracy really is a problem or not. And the pirates would still get the game anyway since we know copy protection doesn't actually work the way companies seem to think it does. After a certain amount of time, they could publish their findings and if the results are that piracy was a big problem, they would be justified in using harsher copy protection schemes and we would hardly be able to complain. Or, more likely, I think it would show that the majority of consumers will actually pay for a good game and that game companies should devote more money to development and less to copy protection.

Heh, perhaps this is why I am not the CEO of anything.