Federal Trade Commission To Scrutinize DRM 211
Ars Technica reports that the FTC is getting ready to take a hard look at gaming DRM, setting up a town hall meeting to be held on March 25th. They're currently recruiting panelists, and they say the meeting will, in part, "address the need to improve disclosures to consumers about DRM limitations." The controversy over DRM came to a head in 2008 with the release of Spore and the multiple subsequent class-action lawsuits focusing on the SecuROM software that came with the game. Ars Technica says the town hall meeting will also look at "legal issues surrounding DRM" and "the potential need for government involvement to protect consumers."
Woot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2009: The Year Of Consumer Protection!
Re:Woot! (Score:4, Funny)
More like 2009: The Year of DRM on the Desktop, Laptop, Palmtop, Media Player, DVR, Television, The Automobile, Appliances, Your Brain, etc.
This won't amount to anything. The MAFIAA wouldn't have it any other way.
Re:Woot! (Score:4, Informative)
RIAA and MPAA license to big game developers (Score:5, Informative)
What does the MAFIAA have to do with gaming DRM?
Re:Woot! (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the MAFIAA have to do with gaming DRM?
Directly? Not very much. Indirectly? They're trying to pave the way for more DRM in general.
I think the problem is that we draw too many distinctions between this form of DRM and that form of DRM. The basic idea is that you either accept and agree with the philosophy of control underlying DRM or you see it as a threat to the freedom and assumption of good faith that most customers in most industries currently enjoy. If it's okay for media conglomerates to exert this kind of after-the-sale control of the market for music, it's also okay for software companies to exert this kind of after-the-sale control of the market for video games. It would be hypocritical to embrace one and resist the other.
The way I see it, this is not about DRM or SecuROM or gaming or the RIAA or the MPAA. This is about the acceptance or the rejection of an idea. Any successful DRM scheme in any industry is an argument for the acceptability of DRM in general. Taken to its conclusion, the acceptability of DRM and the legitimization of this kind of micromanaged control would eventually have DRM-like systems showing up in many industries, even those that do not depend on copyright law. What has the MAFIAA to do with gaming? You can bet that the gaming companies are looking at the lessons learned from systems like iTunes, such as why it was successful, and considering these things for their own DRM.
The part that bothers me is that you see this same pattern with most other systems of control. Remember the earlier PCs and the "Don't Copy That Floppy" campaigns and the severe antipiracy measures? They were not successful enough to become a widespread, enduring practice but the desire for control didn't just go away. The government is not the only large entity that is able to manipulate people and convince them that less freedom is somehow a good thing. So maybe people back then weren't prepared to accept it and here it comes rearing its ugly head once again. The pattern that bothers me is that this will keep coming up again and again, decade after decade, until it finally takes root, because the people pushing it know that once it is viewed as "just the way things are done" then it will be here to stay. Then the only "debate" will be about which forms of it are to be used and whether the FTC or anyone else will regulate it. If it ever becomes so legitimized, that would represent a significant victory for those who place short-term profits ahead of long-term freedoms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any successful DRM scheme in any industry is an argument for the acceptability of DRM in general.
This is not necessarily true. While DRM for you may be completely unacceptable, there are those of us who do not necessarily mind relatively unintrusive DRM. Steam has been repeatedly mentioned in recent Slashdot conversations about this, with numerous users (myself included) happy with what it provides. A recent story did raise the point that SecuROM was in the Steam distribution for one or more games, but t
Re:Woot! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because, as I explained, I find it to be abhorrent in principle. It's the practical implementation that the many find so acceptable. I won't mince words here; compromising principles not even for short-term gain, but worse, for no gain at all, on the grounds of "well it isn't really so bad (yet)", are the actions of weak-minded people who deserve what this inevitably leads to. Do it once and you prove that you and your beliefs and interests are compromisable. Prove that these are compromisable and you invite more of the same. Whether you are talking about nations or corporations, It is always a tiny, gradual, bit-by-bit encroachment and any particular "bit" never seems so bad at the time. Waiting until this happens and becomes entrenched is probably the worst time to resist it. With all of the examples provided by history, I can't believe anyone still doubts the inevitability of this process. Yet every time this comes up you always have the apologists who excuse the encroachment; their failure is that they are only looking at the immediate short-term and are not taking the idea to its full expression or at least asking "what precedent does this establish?".
DRM was not the result of overwhelming customer demand. DRM amounts to the corporations telling their customers how the market will be. This is backwards. It is the customers who should be telling the corporations how the market will be, with bankruptcy as the corporations' only option. I'll make my priorities clear to you: I would rather see every last member of the RIAA and MPAA and every last video game company go completely out of business than see the widespread acceptance of unnecessary limitations on freedom. Freedom is easily that precious.
To concern yourself with whether this form of DRM is a little bad while that one over there is quite agreeable is to miss the point. That's exactly the kind of shortsighted tunnel-vision that is hoped for by the people who want more control over you. Take my definition from my first paragraph. It is compromising sound principles, not even for short-term gain but for no gain at all, on the grounds of "well at present it's not that bad". Does this sound like the behavior of sane, rational people who are looking after their own interests?
It's like that saying, when you call things what they are everything becomes so much simpler. This is drastically more clear-cut than issues that cause half the amount of controversy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just wish I had saved the emails I shot back and forth with Valve over Steam, because I can tell you that I got screwed.
Ditto here.
I will never give Valve/Steam another penny of my money. And no, I don't pirate their software either- I refuse to support it outright.
Am I missing out? Probably, but I'm not going to cave in. I already paid $50 for software I'll never be able to use, so until I get a refund (which won't happen) I'm through with them.
Hell, when it happened I would have settled for an apology from them, and even paid a marginal fee to just get a new license number, but they basically accused me of giving out the s
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Woot! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Except that they just pulled DRM from the iTunes store. Completely.
So... how do I put this...?
I think Dr. Cox says it best [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's probably because the "DRM on the Linux" [wikipedia.org] isn't relevant to this discussion.
Consumers are in the driver's seat now. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you could make the argument that a recession makes for extreme competition, and its quite likely that it could turn out that DRM simply has to be dropped because a) it requires more money to actually DRM enable a product, particularly in testing, and b) there might be enough of a critical mass of consumers shopping for content based on the absence of DRM.
We won't really have a complete victory, though, until we see Microsoft drop entering those silly license key numbers for its products.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consumers are in the driver's seat now. (Score:5, Insightful)
(editing and emphasis mine)
Reinstall 98 and you need a key. Sure its easy to bypass, but a legitimate user never experiences a diminishment in functionality from reinstalling and using the product they purchased.
Reinstall XP and you need a key. That key may or may not authorize. To even find out, you either need an internet connection (not too hard in this day and age), or a telephone connection and you have to sit on the phone and wait. If the system doesn't automatically reauthorize (I had this happen the third time I upgraded my system when the motherboard had blown and it meant I had to replace the Motherboard, CPU and memory), then you have to call and explain to them why you should be allowed to use the product you purchased, even though you are installing a legitimate key.
The line that MS crossed was deciding that legitimate keys could only be used "so many times" some where in an algorithm.
This is a diminution of services, and is about the only major erk with XP I currently have. Fortunately they carried it forward to Vista which made my upgrade path more of a migration issue to another OS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Consumers are in the driver's seat now. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you have to ask at all.
You just didn't realize it. (Score:4, Insightful)
About a week after my son's second birthday, I formatted his hard drive and gave him a copy of Ubuntu Linux. He sat down and installed his OS with no help and no problems. You, presumably a full grown adult, had to call the manufacturer to get help installing your OS. You were reduced to a lower level of competency than a two year old child.
The reason that you could not accomplish the same task as a 2 year old must be attributed one of the two factors that was different. 1) The person doing the install. Or 2) The OS being installed.
Now, while I like to think that my kid is exceptionally smart, I don't for a second believe that your intelligence is less than a 2 year old. That leaves the fact that you did have a problem with the software, and just didn't realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done an install of XP with a single retail key in various forms (new machines, VM's, etc.) dozens of times over the last seven years. Never had a problem. If you wait six months between activations then you don't even have to call anyone.
This legitimate key of yours - was it an OEM key? Those get tied to your motherboard. New motherboard = new machine = new copy of XP. That's why
And once again pirates have it easier... (Score:4, Informative)
When Windows XP was released, some big customers were worried about depending on an external instance for authorization.
Microsoft appeased them by releasing the "Corporate Edition" that didn't require remote authorization.
Guess what happened?
The "Corporate Edition" got pirated. Once again, those who pirate the software are bothered less than legitimate customers...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if I'm both?
I've bought XP twice already with new computers but got sick of the activation bullshit after upgrading motherboards and pirated the corporate edition to avoid it.
So I paid for XP twice and got XP Corp. Illegal? Yep.
Unethical? Not to me it isn't.
Re:Consumers are in the driver's seat now. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not trying to insult you here. Just point out that scumbags have tricked you into accepting abuse. You are a victim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're trying to apply proven business logic to the media industry. Your logic is sound but the media industry is not logical, any industry that
Re:Woot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't hold out a *whole* lot of hope that this will lead to anything useful.
However, Spore went WAY to far with DRM (like Sony did with music CDs a couple of years ago) and it does like instances where company cross obvious lines to draw attention to issues like this.
If nothing else, we can at least hope to familiarize those in authority as to how intrusive companies can be with DRM when they are not reigned in.
-JJS
Re: (Score:2)
Spore simply put a spotlight on the DRM problem. I suspect this move was instigated not really by consumers but by resellers of these games. Whole businesses have sprung up around used games that are threatened by DRM's violation of the First Sale Doctrine. There is more to this than consumer outrage. After all, since when did government care about public outrage...
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just another blip on the radar.
Copyright cartels have won victory after victory to the detriment of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until consumers effectively rebel against this kind of crap, it ain't going away. And the odds of that are pretty slim. Remember, this is the same population buying "converter boxes" for $40 or more just to continue watching "free tv". Myself, unless the advertisers send me a box for free, I won't be able to view their commercials after February 17th. My, what a loss.
Re: (Score:2)
These kind of stories swing both ways, and we've had literally dozens of "Finally the pendulum swings the other way moments" that have amounted to nothing more than blips across the radar... But I can't help but optimistically wonder if this is the start of a trend fighting back against corporate abuse of us, the customer? For several years now, I (and probably you) have been inured to new stories about corporation X doing new thing Y to screw customer z, and the news story hasn't even batted an eyelash because we're not surprised. Now the RIAA is backpedaling, and DRM is getting an appropriate scrutinizing. =) Its a good start to 2009!
The more the abuses go on, the bigger the backlash is going to be when it finally does happen. You could call it conservation of energy. The RIAA may actually be smart enough to understand that, albeit slow to admit and act on the truth of it, though I have my doubts that it will be this way with DRM. Where the RIAA had to go through channels (i.e. the legal system), I think DRM appeals too directly to the fantasy of market control for the content providers to give it up so easily.
Right now the averag
Video Games a Bad Candidate,this doesn't bode well (Score:5, Interesting)
Video games are by far the worst candidate for this discussion imho.
There is very little case law protecting consumer fair use with video games, as compared with audio and video.
This is a heavy bet on weak prospects.
Assuming the FTC does determine a need is required for video games, this will provide definitive and hefty leverage to expand it to music and video media.
If it does not, and it's a high likelihood the FTC determines it does not, it will be MUCH harder to press the issue on, for instance, the fact that blu-ray media will black peoples' screens at random due to undocumented HDCP issues.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True on the farr use but there is a ton of case history involving computer intrusion. That's not what this is about.
Installing software(securerom) on my computer without my permission is clearly a criminal act.
Re:Video Games a Bad Candidate,this doesn't bode w (Score:5, Insightful)
FAIL.
I bought Game X. I installed Game X. I consented to Game X I never knew that I was also installing SecureROM. It never tells you on the package nor in the EULA nor in the installer. That's unauthorized computer usage. That's completely criminal.
Consenting to something does not mean I'm consenting to everything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So by loading a web page that has a silent trojan installer you consent to have your machine rooted and joined to a bot net?
You opened the browser. You went to the web page.
Re:Video Games a Bad Candidate,this doesn't bode w (Score:5, Insightful)
There is very little case law protecting consumer fair use with video games, as compared with audio and video.
I'd have thought that was an argument in favour of starting with video games.
OK, so all DRM is bad, but the real horror stories (malware, limited installs, mandatory internet connections) have been with games.
The Spore case is a particularly clear example of DRM pissing off legitimate consumers while failing to deter (and possibly encouraging) large-scale illicit copying.
Also, whereas issues with Audio/Video DRM are normally to do with caselaw-based "fair use" rights such as format-shifting, the problems with video game DRM have been more fundamental "fitness for purpose" variety. I'm not defending audio/video DRM, but pragmatically speaking, audio DRM seems to be dying off by itself and "your lousy game broke my perfectly standard PC" is going to get more public sympathy than "why can't I watch HD content on Linux?".
Re: (Score:2)
the Spore case is very clearly one of a handful of trolls on Amazon. Games with DRM in general, however, are a clear case of what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about "i can't watch HD content on linux"
it's more along the lines of..
I popped this disk into my completely normal beige box computer and it blacked my screen. I'm being ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because sugar pills don't have any side-effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they're sugar pills, or maybe they're dried blood serum of Ebola victims rolled into pills and personally cursed by the High Priest of the Church of Satan to weed the stupid from the world. All you know for sure is that you got them from some shady character on the Internet who's whereabouts you don't know and who is unlikely to ever make business with you again, making him far less trustworthy or interested in your continued wellbeing than the n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact I do! Just yesterday I was chosen to receive a very handsome sum of money from a member of the Nigerian royal family, and barely an hour later, not one but seven gorgeous women sent me flirtatious messages on MySpace.
I'm on a roll!
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who, acting in good faith, pays good money for any product that turns out to be unusable, when there was a reasonable expectation that it should be usable, has suffered. This is more true, not less, when the actual cause of the problem is not an honest mistake but a deliberate restrict
Are Pigs Flying? (Score:5, Interesting)
Truly a case of Uncle Sam's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, considering the recent creation of a Copyright Czar.
At least Apple is moving in the right direction, announcing yesterday that it will drop DRM from it's tracks.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4811674a28.html [stuff.co.nz] (and elsewhere)
Re:Are Pigs Flying? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it seems that Apple is giving in to the labels wishes to use differentiated pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad part is, if the market responds and buys less of the songs at the $1.29 price point than the $0.99 price point, then the industry will likely blame the removal of the DRM for the drop in sales rather than the increase in price.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, because price is not necessarily going to stop a person from getting a song. People are willing to pay more for certain songs as the market demands, and selling some songs at less, will generate more sales of those.
Removing DRM is a big thing. Overall I dont think it woudl make any difference in sales, and may even increase sales overall, as that is what the trends are.
Re: (Score:2)
Price will not stop everyone, but saying that raising the cost of an item (by 30% no less) will not stop some people from buying it is a bit naive.
Put it this way: I personally might still pay $1.29 for some songs. $0.99 would be better. However, $1.99 would be too much. So somewhere between $0.99 and $1.99 is my threshold (and just personally I'd say that threshold is probably $1.49 for ME). However, for some others, their threshold will fall between $0.99 and $1.29 - it could likely be the old old cos
Re: (Score:2)
It will also affect the people who have a strict budget that they follow for various things. Someone has $20 to spend on music. Used to be able to buy 20 songs. now they can buy 15.
The number of songs sold goes down, income stays the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the industry needs pesky things like "facts" for them to blame piracy for bringing down their profits.
You ascribe to them much undeserved truthiness.
Governments are smart (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Governments are smart (Score:4, Interesting)
I would actually like that solution very much.
It still has quite a lot of bad sides of DRM but at least we would have some non-corporate organization keeping the server up and eliminating the risk that corporation loses interest and DRM products won't work.
For any who think that government is no more trustworthy in this than corporations... Not only do I disagree but it doesn't matter. If there is gov run DRM server that goes down, corporations can (if they have the interest) set up their own servers again. If corporation's DRM server goes down, government isn't there to pick the pieces.
So I for one have little (read: not "none". I still doubt those products would work well on the platfrom I'm writing this from.) problems with the idea of government ran DRM server.
Re:Governments are smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me.
I'd like to see a new Digital Millineum Copyright Act that actually made sense. My DMCA would state that any work protected by technological means automatically loses its copyright on the grounds that it needs no legal protection.
You have copyright? You don't need DRM. You have DRM? You don't need copyright.
I'd also like to see copyrights expire after 20 years. Jimi Hendrix' music, JRR Tolkein's books, DOS 2.0, Disney's Fantasia, all should be in the public domain. That is, after all, why the US Constutution grants Congress the privelege of making copyright in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice idea, but the only reason DRM exists is because law enforcement isn't perfect, in fact outside of mass piracy cases they don't even try. So that position wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, because people would say, so what? I can't rely on copyright anyway, so taking it away from me won't change much. All it'd do is make DRM even more draconian than today as companies lose the ability to prosecute the really big professional pirates.
Re:Governments are smart (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a nice idea, but the only reason DRM exists is because law enforcement isn't perfect
DRM does not and cannot work. It only tends to inconvience the paying customer while doing nothing whatever to slow copyright infringement. DRM is a padlock with the key hanging from a chain attached to the padlock. As limited as law enforcent may be, DRM does not help a single whit.
Sony's ill-fated XCP had the price of having every single customer whose equipment was ruined by it swear to never ever buy another Sony product again. I'm a good example - I paid $1000 for a Sony Trinitron; I'd bought a Sony boom box, walkman, diskman, and God knows what other Sony products.
Then my daughter, who worked in a record store, brought a CD home, and the only CD player was the PC's CDROM. As I'd shut off autoplay and she trusted the record label, she actually ran one of the programs on the disk. Fixing it cost me hardware replacemet, software replacement, and God knows how many hours of my time.
As a rusult, I will never EVER buy another Sony product of any kind again. They have shown themselves to be a company run by sociopaths who install a rootkit on their paying customers' computers. I would be an idiot to buy anything from them.
The sad part is, the dumbasses probably didn't realize how evil that particular brand of DRM (which ironically and hypocritically included FOSS software, itself being a copyright infringement) was malware.
If your company uses DRM, you are putting your company in danger of making enemies of your faithful customers.
Before the digital age, there was no DRM but there was copyright infringement. Law enforcement handled it well enough that no company ever went broke as a result of not having it.
DRM is brain dead stupid. If you buy a product using DRM, you are giving your money to morons.
Re: (Score:2)
But I do, and it's a big one: it will let the government know exactly what content I'm using and when. Every time you read an infected book, it's logged into government database; every time you watch infected movie, it's logged into a government database; every time you listen to an infected song, it's logged into a government d
"Legal Issues Surrounding DRM?" (Score:2, Interesting)
Linking to a previous news item (Score:5, Insightful)
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/178259 [slashdot.org]
Go read it. Seriously. The author has many good point, and this panel only highlights the points he makes.
The /. comments on this article are spot on, in the sense that most of them are knee-jerk reactions predicted all along the article. Sad.
Re:Linking to a previous news item (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the guy's "good points" were rendered null and void when he slammed everyone who engages in civil disobedience against unjust, anti-consumer, and economically crushing copyright over-reach.
Apparently he wasn't paying attention when the elephant walked into the room and crushed the fledgling digital age, crib and all.
Re: (Score:2)
Your reaction just proves my point. Read the article. I mean it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your reaction just proves my point. Read the article. I mean it.
I'm sorry, but the fact an article which short-sightedly bashes people for their rightful conclusions about unjust copyright law accurately predicts people being indignant about its veiled invective does not make it or its author any more correct.
"judge, that there (n-word redacted) just wants white women! Don't believe me? He'll get pissed off and indignant if you tell him he does"
Re: (Score:2)
civil disobedience against unjust, anti-consumer, and economically crushing copyright over-reach,
is rather disingenuous. I agree that the extreme extensions of the length of copyright protections have become "the elephant in the room." However, piracy of new games, music and/or movies is not truly a civil protest against those extensions but is actually a complete rejection of any form of copyright.
Consider, for example, a fairly recent example of true civil disobedience to an unjust law - the Mongomery Bus Boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott). Those w
Re: (Score:2)
except im not talking about length. The length of copyright protections isn't the elephant in the room.
The elephant in the room goes by the name of "DMCA section 1201: prohibitions against circumvention of technical protection measures"
There's a reason there's no box that plays everything, and everyone loves to ignore that big fat pink elephant.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider, for example, a fairly recent example of true civil disobedience to an unjust law - the Mongomery Bus Boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott). Those who wished to bring attention to the unjustness of the bus segregation rules did not ride the busses while paying nothing or only what they felt was a "fair" price; they simply refused to ride the busses.
That would not be civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is to willfully, and usually with great public fanfare, break a law in an attempt to showcase the unjustness of that law. Choosing not to take a bus is a customer choice, not civil disobedience.
Piracy as civil disobedience is mostly criticized not because piracy is illegal (if it were legal, it couldn't be civil disobedience) but because it's usually carried out covertly and that voids the whole point of engaging in civil disobedience. It's hard to sh
Mod Parent up, and GGP Down! (Score:3, Insightful)
This post is really great, how it manages to remain on the edge of trolling, but you're not quite sure.
Well, I might be feeding the trolls today, but if the poster was serious, he also forgot that little thing, you know, what was it? "Totally destroying the resale value and second-hand market"? Yes, that's it!
That and GGP is nothing more than a thinly veiled troll as well. Pretty much all the +5's I remember from that were very simple.. "you, the author of this article, are either a moron or deliberately disingenuous"
At the bare minimum... (Score:5, Interesting)
At the very least, the FTC should make it illegal to advertise any product infected with DRM as a "sale" as opposed to a "rental" or "lease". As it's impossible to own them, that's false advertising.
Yes, that means that everyone from Wal-Mart to the local mom-and-pop would have to change their advertising, in-store displays, and receipt printouts. That's a problem for them to work out with their suppliers, though.
Re:At the bare minimum... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least, the FTC should make it illegal to advertise any product infected with DRM as a "sale" as opposed to a "rental" or "lease". As it's impossible to own them, that's false advertising.
At the very least, the FTC should make it illegal to sell software that hides itself and makes it difficult or impossible to remove when you are done with it.
Uninstalling the game should not leave your PC in a reduced functionality state.
The FTC should also require the game to isolate the game functions from the rest of the computer functions. Playing a game and exiting should never leave your CD burner inop.
Re:At the bare minimum... (Score:4, Interesting)
As it happens, I was browsing the laws for my state of residence (Indiana) last night, looking for something else entirely, and I came across this [in.gov]:
(The bit about "transmit computer software to the computer" is defined to include providing a DVD or other physical media.)
I'm not sure what legal recourse it provides, but it seems like a start anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the FTC should not allow me to purchase software that hides itself and makes it difficult or impossible to remove? What if I want this sort of software? What right does my government have keeping me from it. (Sure, I don't want it, but that doesn't mean my government should prevent me from buying it.)
It would seem more appropriate to me that the FTC requires the sellers of this sort of software to make it very clear that the software does these things.
Actually (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be fine if they'd just make retailers take returns. That's the problem right now is that you can't return games. So you buy a game, turns out the DRM doesn't work on your system, or maybe you simply don't approve of it. Well too bad, it's opened, so you can't take it back. That is bullshit. I'd be happy if the government just said "You are required to accept a return on any title that has DRM on it just as you would for any other merchandise." That way if the DRM screws you over, you can just take the g
Re: (Score:2)
A genuine question here - aren't there fit for purpose laws that already exist that could be applied to this? As in, I purchased this software, but it doesn't work satisfactorily (screws up my computer), so I get to return it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are in the UK. Dunno about the US.
When I hear - Govt Wants To Protect the Consumer (Score:4, Interesting)
Give the Democrats a chance. (Score:2)
I'm a Republican and I'm pretty cynical about Dems, obviously, but I think in this case you can expect them to improve things like consumer labelling and consumer rights. Usually where Dems screw up is to give consumers and workers so many rights that it is pointless to invest in a business in that sector because it is difficult and ultimately unprofitable. However, the IT sector has become so anti-consumer that it is hurting the business as a whole, it seems rather unlikely that a few years of some modes
Ooops - meant "likely", not "unlikely" (Score:2)
Should read. The IT sector has become so anti-consumer that it seems rather likely that some consumer protections by the federal government would restore public confidence in the sector and thus improve business as a whole. In other words, this could be a case where some prudent regulation by the Feds could make a playing field that the public trusts, and thus, buys stuff in.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the bet they decide that the best way to protect consumers is to have a common, reliable DRM system, rather than ad-hoc unreliable DRM. Then they can legally enforce everyone has to use it.
I bet that most of the attendees of any "Town Hall" meeting are paid lobbyists, and not many of them will represent consumers.
Add that to the fact that the lobbyists will understand the problem better than our elected representatives, and their (biased) ideas will probably be the best ones to reach the ears of the
Who are their consumers? (Score:2)
I can't help but think that given previous actions to "protect consumers" or "offer consumers choices" that this will mean greater penalties for circumventing DRM, more restrictive schemes, or limitations on online boycotts or protests, like the Amazon reviews for Spore.
Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
The Government is getting ready to "Take a hard look at DRM". Hey, you never know. If they look hard enough they might find that EA started a 50 billion dollar ponzi scheme! Oh man, wouldn't that be great.
Town Hall Meeting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. You can bet the RIAA, et. al., are already all over this, searching for suitable "grassroots" speakers.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah (Score:2)
So, they'll have free drinks, chit-chat for a while, and nothing will change.
"They're currently recruiting panelist" (Score:4, Interesting)
Lately that's meant that industry heavies are busy trying to stuff the panel with their own 'experts', doesn't it?
And then three months after this is all done with, we'll start seeing stories about how a quarter of the panelists have been discovered as previously employed by one of the RIAA's shadow groups, in addition to several other panelists receipt of airline tickets to hong kong (as well as an all-expenses paid week there for a meeting) as well as other weakly disguised "gifts" being scrutinized.
What amazes me is they continue to get away with this same old game, time and time again. This wouldn't be a problem if the followup had some teeth to it. What do you do when this all comes to light after the event? Remove them from the panel? Fat lot of good that does after they've "made their recommendations" etc.
Meanwhile, in Eastern Europe (Score:2, Informative)
I'm in Eastern Europe (Ukraine) right now on a trip. Walked into a DVD/PC games/PS2 game store. There were legal copies of a tiny number of games for sale at UAH 125 each (around $15, but this number is a bit warped due to the fact that the Ukraine currency has plummeted very recently) and a giant amount of games, dvds, etc for sale for around UAH 20 to 35 each, including all of the games that were for sale legally. curious, i went into another store, then another, and found that those dispensed with the
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you lost me on the significance of this.
Protect Consumers (Score:2)
My ass.
They are going to protect the interests of the mega corporations that funnel donation money in.
Its how the 'system' works.
The Spore issue isn't just DRM, it's malware (Score:3, Insightful)
A DVD or Bluray player, right out of the box, implements DRM. It doesn't need modification, because it comes pre-crippled. When the user buys a shiny disc and inserts it (and executes code from it, in the case of Bluray) nothing unexpectedly bad can happen. The player device is not damaged.
On personal computers, though, the situation is altogether different. DRM isn't already implemented out-of-the-box; installing malware is the only way to implement it. When you install Spore, your software environment is damaged, even when you're not playing Spore.
FTC shouldn't talk about this as a discussion of DRM itself, because DRM problems will still exist regardless of anything FTC does. They should instead call it a discussion about malware that implements the DRM.
This is ultimately about what labeling conventions imply consent on the part of the victim. If there isn't informed consent, then what Spore's publishers did is a crime, so there should be both criminal and civil sanctions, just like there would be if the author of some spam botnet worm were caught. If there is informed consent, then the victim isn't a victim of crime, they're just a victim of their own stupidity because they bought Spore when they should have known better.
Hopefully the outcome will be that the FTC will say that any software that is sold over state lines, will have to have a label on the outside of the box and in all advertisements: "this contains malware and will damage your operating system if installed" in situations where that happens to be the case.
Re: (Score:2)
A DVD or Bluray player, right out of the box, implements DRM. It doesn't need modification, because it comes pre-crippled. When the user buys a shiny disc and inserts it (and executes code from it, in the case of Bluray) nothing unexpectedly bad can happen. The player device is not damaged.
Not until they revoke your player's key. Then something bad happens.
WGA? (Score:2)
Will they even consider requiring notifications about more important DRM like Microsoft's trusted media path, tilt bits, and "windows genuine advantage"?
Oh, was that a rhetorical question?
The only thing that will work (Score:2)
The only thing that will work is to vote with our wallets.
Don't put up with any DRM at all in your life.
Just don't buy any media, software, operating system or even device that implements DRM.
I'm guessing EA are already suprised by a large difference in estimated and real profits of spore. In fact I hope they actually made a net loss on it after development costs. They need to get the clear message that people didn't buy it because of the DRM and not just blame their low sales on the game being crap or the
DRM Is just a last gasp (Score:3, Interesting)
When copyright is revoked and universal distribution of everything for free is the rule, there will be no more DRM.
Only free software will exist, because nobody will be able to charge anything for it anymore.
Of course, the quality might suffer a little and there might be a few less items out there, but it will all be free. Oh, and you might have to spend a week or so figuring out how to compile a game before you can play it.
Until some really smart people figure out how this can actually work it is going to be tough. People really want stuff for free and plenty of people are willing to buy things and post them for all to download. Of course, a lot of that is stuff bought with stolen credit cards... but the spirit is there. I don't see any turning back from the "it all should be for free" movement. At least until the last vestiges of decadent Western civiilization is wiped off the map.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When copyright is revoked and universal distribution of everything for free is the rule, there will be no more DRM.
Only free software will exist, because nobody will be able to charge anything for it anymore.
You are mistaken. It is perfectly possible to make good money charging for an item that can also be obtained for free. You just need to know your market and have a good idea of people's cutoff point between cost and convenience.
There's plenty of companies reaping huge profits from selling plain bottled water in towns and cities were you can get perfectly good water for free through your kitchen tap. It's just that stepping into that store over there and plonking down a buck for a bottle of water is /so much
Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Ars Technica reports that the FTC is getting ready to take a hard look at gaming DRM, setting up a town hall meeting to be held on March 25th. They're currently recruiting panelists, and they say the meeting will, in part, "address the need to improve disclosures to consumers about DRM limitations."
A longer legal notice will be included with each product (alongside the warnings about not sticking a fork in electric sockets or using the device as a parachute when jumping from an airplane) thus making it less likely to be read by comsumers, less likely to be understood if they do read it, and written in a smaller font so it can still fit on the same amount of paper.
The controversy over DRM came to a head in 2008 with the release of Spore and the multiple subsequent class-action lawsuits focusing on the SecuROM software that came with the game. Ars Technica says the town hall meeting will also look at "legal issues surrounding DRM"
New laws will be written to protect the makers of Spore, SecuROM and other DRM enabled or enabling technology from the evils of class action lawsuits that would otherwise result when consumers find they can't use the products they have paid for.
and "the potential need for government involvement to protect consumers."
Consumers will be protected from the higher prices that result when people are able to use a purchased product more than once. By making sure people can only use a product one time, people will need to keep repurchasing the same item over and over, allowing manufacturers to produce larger numbers of the same item and sell these items at a volume discount.
The phrase government involvement may scare some readers, but don't worry! Those generous manufacturers, who only want to keep our prices low after all, will be watching the FTC, providing donations to the right lawmakers, all to make sure that consumer interests are protected every step of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Torch Bearing Mob (Score:2)
Sounds like an apt description of MY neighbors. Add edentate.
Re:Here's a thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
But if I complain, and if they listen, and they release without DRM, we'll both be richer! Win, win!