DRM Petition

[ZzZGuy]

I disagree with chizow's proposed addition and would wish to have my vote removed if it is added.

 

[NoWhereM]

Agree not to knowingly spread or perpetuate misinformation or lies about DRM, and in cases where inaccurate statements were made, agree to retract or acknowledge any previous statements as incorrect or false, made unknowingly or not.

I just feel so confused and violated right now.

Edit to clarify, my comment above reflects only my feelings regarding where this comment originated.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
I disagree with chizow's proposed addition and would wish to have my vote removed if it is added.

It has been permanently removed, even in altered form, and will never appear on the original post in any shape or form. If someone has objections to the petition, they can state them, refrain from signing and move along their merry way. The text of the petition will not be altered or added to.

 

[JoshGuru7]

I think the current implementations of DRM are actively hurting the PC gaming industry - and more importantly to me, my satisfaction with the PC gaming industry.

That being said an internet petition is irrelevant as companies will (and should) adjust their policies based on what they feel is best for them. The real way to enact change is to convince the stakeholders of the company that DRM implementations are often driven by hype and are often more about risk mitigation for the developers and short term numbers then they are about maximizing long term profits.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: JoshGuru7
I think the current implementations of DRM are actively hurting the PC gaming industry - and more importantly to me, my satisfaction with the PC gaming industry.

That being said an internet petition is irrelevant as companies will (and should) adjust their policies based on what they feel is best for them. The real way to enact change is to convince the stakeholders of the company that DRM implementations are often driven by hype and are often more about risk mitigation for the developers and short term numbers then they are about maximizing long term profits.

I agree with everything you have said. Hope you still signed

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Signed.

 

[Red Irish]

Thanks to all 26 posters who signed on day 1.

 

[AVP]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Requests

1) Where games are sold online, in the manner of Valve?s Steam, all efforts should be taken to sell such games at a lower price, given that no physical copy exists and resale is prevented. In addition, methods to enable users to sell their rights of access to a given game to another user should be considered.

This is too vague. Lower price than what? Obviously a physical copy, but then again I do not agree. Selling things online is practically a service depending on where you live, and your means of transportation, and a whole other range of factors both consumer and producer side. I would also consider splitting this into two definitive points, they are completely different.


Going backwards (sorry!) your 2nd demand is likely to cause abuse by users and proving that the company made their product compatible in good faith is very difficult.

...and how is a company that is sold or shut down supposed to honor anything?

Sorry your intentions are good but I think there are some issues with it as yet.

 

[TC91]

signed

 

[lavaheadache]

signed...... drm is teh suxor

 

[PsharkJF]

Where exactly is anything "legally binding" for the end-user? Seems rather one-sided to me.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

In the future, please include more then one options in your polls.

 

[AVP]

I agree Phatose and Pshark and just want to add that "consider" is really a silly term in law. Either take a stand on reselling or not (is there precedent for resale law?) we are talking about profit seeking entities here...

Yes, "drm is the suxors" ...great. It seems to me that this same attitude was taken towards this petition with no regard for law or consequence and I think it is foolish to sign it. In fact, this type of selfish attitude is not working towards the ultimate goal of creating a strong gaming industry where the producers find it financially viable to create awesome games and the consumers pay and experience anti-piracy measures that are fair.

If the studios do not make money, we do not get good games. If we continue to pirate stuff, we do not get good games. However, if the studios do not provide sensible measures to restrict piracy we do not buy their games, we steal them. Therefore some consensus and compromise is necessary and this poorly worded petition does not represent a movement towards that goal.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: AVP

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Requests

1) Where games are sold online, in the manner of Valve?s Steam, all efforts should be taken to sell such games at a lower price, given that no physical copy exists and resale is prevented. In addition, methods to enable users to sell their rights of access to a given game to another user should be considered.

This is too vague. Lower price than what? Obviously a physical copy, but then again I do not agree. Selling things online is practically a service depending on where you live, and your means of transportation, and a whole other range of factors both consumer and producer side. I would also consider splitting this into two definitive points, they are completely different.


Going backwards (sorry!) your 2nd demand is likely to cause abuse by users and proving that the company made their product compatible in good faith is very difficult.

...and how is a company that is sold or shut down supposed to honor anything?

Sorry your intentions are good but I think there are some issues with it as yet.

There are a lot of issues with it, it is by no means perfect.

The company could presumably ensure that their clients were protected before they shut down or were sold, but in any event, your suggestions are noted for future reference. I hope you signed.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: PsharkJF
Where exactly is anything "legally binding" for the end-user? Seems rather one-sided to me.

It is entirely one-sided as it represents a series of requests and demands addressed to the companies. I am sure that the companies are big enough and bad enough to ensure that their own interests are legally protected. However, point noted.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: PhatoseAlpha
In the future, please include more then one options in your polls.

Its not really a poll. You either sign or you don't. I think any further options would have confused the issue. However, you may have a point in drawing attention to the fact that your options for input are limited. Sorry, I didn't see any way around that.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: AVP
I agree Phatose and Pshark and just want to add that "consider" is really a silly term in law. Either take a stand on reselling or not (is there precedent for resale law?) we are talking about profit seeking entities here...

Yes, "drm is the suxors" ...great. It seems to me that this same attitude was taken towards this petition with no regard for law or consequence and I think it is foolish to sign it. In fact, this type of selfish attitude is not working towards the ultimate goal of creating a strong gaming industry where the producers find it financially viable to create awesome games and the consumers pay and experience anti-piracy measures that are fair.

If the studios do not make money, we do not get good games. If we continue to pirate stuff, we do not get good games. However, if the studios do not provide sensible measures to restrict piracy we do not buy their games, we steal them. Therefore some consensus and compromise is necessary and this poorly worded petition does not represent a movement towards that goal.

This is not a court of law, so I suppose we can still request that an issue be "considered" without appearing silly.

I feel that assenting to the use of DRM is a concession in and of itself, after all, as a gamer and paying customer, it does nothing to improve your experience of the game. However, your points, many of which are valid, are duly noted. We are not trying to do away with DRM, we are simply attempting to have some input into the manner in which it is used. I'm sorry you think the petition is poorly worded, I did my best. The goal of the petition is to envisage a situation wherein the companies continue to use DRM whilst appeasing the highest possible number of users, obviously the petition, the writing skills of the author and the manner in which it is presented are not going to please everyone.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: AVP
I agree Phatose and Pshark and just want to add that "consider" is really a silly term in law. Either take a stand on reselling or not (is there precedent for resale law?) we are talking about profit seeking entities here...

Yes, "drm is the suxors" ...great. It seems to me that this same attitude was taken towards this petition with no regard for law or consequence and I think it is foolish to sign it. In fact, this type of selfish attitude is not working towards the ultimate goal of creating a strong gaming industry where the producers find it financially viable to create awesome games and the consumers pay and experience anti-piracy measures that are fair.

If the studios do not make money, we do not get good games. If we continue to pirate stuff, we do not get good games. However, if the studios do not provide sensible measures to restrict piracy we do not buy their games, we steal them. Therefore some consensus and compromise is necessary and this poorly worded petition does not represent a movement towards that goal.

It's not a contract, it's a petition.

You hit the issue on the head. If the publishers would use "sensible measures," this petition would not exist.

It's the crappy DRM implementation by "selfish" publishers which brought about this petition. No real pirate cares about DRM. They just download a crack. Poorly implemented DRM only hurts honest customers. Why is asking companies to show some respect for customers considered selfish?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: AVP
I agree Phatose and Pshark and just want to add that "consider" is really a silly term in law. Either take a stand on reselling or not (is there precedent for resale law?) we are talking about profit seeking entities here...

Yes, "drm is the suxors" ...great. It seems to me that this same attitude was taken towards this petition with no regard for law or consequence and I think it is foolish to sign it. In fact, this type of selfish attitude is not working towards the ultimate goal of creating a strong gaming industry where the producers find it financially viable to create awesome games and the consumers pay and experience anti-piracy measures that are fair.

If the studios do not make money, we do not get good games. If we continue to pirate stuff, we do not get good games. However, if the studios do not provide sensible measures to restrict piracy we do not buy their games, we steal them. Therefore some consensus and compromise is necessary and this poorly worded petition does not represent a movement towards that goal.

It's not a contract, it's a petition.

You hit the issue on the head. If the publishers would use "sensible measures," this petition would not exist.

It's the crappy DRM implementation by "selfish" publishers which brought about this petition. No real pirate cares about DRM. They just download a crack. Poorly implemented DRM only hurts honest customers. Why is asking companies to show some respect for customers considered selfish?

Couldn't agree with you more.

37 signatures and climbing. Thanks for participating.

 

[Red Irish]

Given that the legal system finally appears to be turning its attention to piracy with some success:

(http://www.dailytech.com/Swedi...unty/article14892.htm)

we might begin to wonder why DRM is necessary.

http://www.escapistmagazine.co...930-The-Impossible-DRM

(courtesy of mindcycle on the "Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena. Now with no revoke tool?! Is it 2007?!" thread).

Please note that at no point does the petition recommend or demand that the companies refrain from using DRM. Thank you to the further 3 unidentified signatories.

 

[Modelworks]

Having worked with several developers here is how I think publishers will respond.

Demands
__________
1. Likely to happen since it isn't a major problem to do.
2. They are going to say it isn't their problem , its the software protection companies
3. very slight chance of them releasing such a statement. They don't know the future and are not going to lock themselves into anything.
4. Same as #3
5. Same as #2

Requests
____________

1. never happen that it sells cheaper online. Stores will complain to no end and threaten to stop selling if they did make it cheaper online. Online sales are still less than retail sales.
2. going to be up to the individual publisher
3. shouldn't be a problem for most publishers


I did sign it. Can't hurt to try.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Having worked with several developers here is how I think publishers will respond.

Demands
__________
1. Likely to happen since it isn't a major problem to do.
2. They are going to say it isn't their problem , its the software protection companies
3. very slight chance of them releasing such a statement. They don't know the future and are not going to lock themselves into anything.
4. Same as #3
5. Same as #2

Requests
____________

1. never happen that it sells cheaper online. Stores will complain to no end and threaten to stop selling if they did make it cheaper online. Online sales are still less than retail sales.
2. going to be up to the individual publisher
3. shouldn't be a problem for most publishers


I did sign it. Can't hurt to try.

I am not unduly optimistic either. Thanks for signing.

 

[Golgatha]

http://action.theeca.com/t/285...n.jsp?petition_KEY=562

Sign an officially backed petition and express your views on DRM at the above link if you'd like to.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
http://action.theeca.com/t/285...n.jsp?petition_KEY=562

Sign an officially backed petition and express your views on DRM at the above link if you'd like to.

Thanks for the link.

 

[erwos]

Some thoughts about your "demands":
1. Reasonable, might happen if the FTC gets complaints.
2. Reasonable, might take a lawsuit against a software publisher.
3. Never going to happen, and how would you enforce such a thing anyways? If they're in bankruptcy, the company is in the hands of the court. Pulling such a stunt might even be illegal.
4. Never going to happen. If they post info about a tool, but then it never comes out, they open themselves to legal liability.
5. Reasonable, might take a lawsuit against a software publisher.

The real problem you have, though, is that you've got all wants and no gives. What are you planning on offering up for your cheaper, DRM-lite games? Less piracy? Ask Stardock how it went for them - all they got was a heap of piracy on zero-day. That is to say, there is a fair bit of incentive to ramp up the DRM, not ramp it down.