SOW - with new DRM model by UBI ?

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Actually, it was a terrible analogy, though ya get used to that sort of thing

Heh heh. I thought it was good, because he was only talking about smart business as far as selling copies went. The supermarket is much like the game developers in the sense that by having unguarded easily accessible collections of good scattered about, people in there can easily grab them. And some of it gets lost. They could do it in other ways to minimize theft, but they don't, because they earn more profit in the open way.

but there is something which is quite, quite misunderstand there as well, I think... a purchaser, in reality only buys a license to run the game/ sim. The inner workings/ code. etc. etc belongs to the author/ developer/ publisher.

Almost everyone that buys a game, considers it to be buying a product - it is theirs. Maybe not to reverse engineer and re-sell parts of the code for their own profit. But the unlimited use of it, and the ability to sell their copy of it to others. Technically you are absolutely right - there's all those 'you must agree' things popping up in order to be able to install it.

With copyright crimes... there is a hint in there... there are losers. They would be royalties, ownership, sales profit, etc.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is a potential loss, and I think there are people who definitely would buy it if they could not copy it elsewhere, if they could justify the expenditure, if they wanted it badly enough, if they had the money, if they liked the company enough, if there was not something else they would rather spend the money on, if they were willing to risk buying something that might be very shitty, and perhaps without being able to sell their copy. Knowing who would have done what in what circumstance is impossible, and is only speculation.

A copied work does not destroy the original, and a copy in itself is not considered a "rival good" legally, and as such, not lost income. Unless, of course, someone is literally selling unauthorized copies at large quantities, and passing it off as as the official, original product/seller etc.. Like trying to sell imitation apparell with the label of the original company to people.

Could you give some more detail on your hesitation at having to be online to perform an uninstall? (similar to online activation but for removal from the system... the uninstaller throws up a code for removal verification)

(Code as in you just have to enter a code to uninstall it that is on the case/manual/disc, or actually be online and connect to some server? It does not matter much though, as my specific objections are similar for both cases).

I am concerned about the potential problems it would cause if my install become non-functional due to any reason (hardware failiure the most common, but also me messing about with tweaks in my XP Home Edition, or by modding the game). This meaning that the install could dissappear off my drive (the drive itself could have died), or that some files are missing that do not permit the uninstaller to function, or internet to function in corellation. I then see the really significant pissed off expression I would have at the prospect of having a game I bought and not be able to install it, because it was not uninstalled, without messing around with begging for them to 'authorize' me to install my game on my hardware.

I'm also just not accepting the idea that the copy does not belong to me and that I would not be able to sell it to someone else. I'm not very firm with this principle though.. For example, I use Steam, and I bought several games there, including IL-2 1946. Steam does not require me to have neither a DVD in a drive nor to be online, which is as it should. But of course, I cannot sell the games to others. I have never once sold a game to anyone in my life though so it's probably why I'm letting it slide. But principally I want to be able to. :p

I am fine with some DRM/functionality limitation. But only in non-invasive ways and in ways that do not limit my freedom with 'my copy' beyond a minimum of hassle. I have 100mbit internet fiber optic connection which flies at 12 megabytes per second, yet it, as well as my router, just is not stable enough.

There was a court case down here in Australia featuring the movie and music houses versus ISP's. The issue was forcing ISP's to monitor and flick illegal downloaders. The plaintifs hired private investigators to join up to bittorrent, etc, and log IP addresses. The IP addresses were forwarded to the target ISP (IInet, which is the smaller of the big provider) at a volume of 3,000 per week/ over a few weeks and their refusal to honour their own ToS forced the legal action (the refusal was based on the sheer volume of complaint). The case went in favour of the ISP but is in appeal.... two weeks after that, a local got busted uploading the new super mario bros game, a week before release... his out of court settlement to nintendo was a ridiculous amount of money - AUD$1.5 million. The Federal Government here is battling to have installed a China type site/ keyword blocking service through the ISP's.

Scary stuff. The EU and Sweden (my home) is experiencing similar things. The movie/record industry and some of the game industry are lobbying like MAD in all the local governments and in the EU headquarters. They build networks and manage to even, in a couple of cases, appoint corrupted judges to judge in critical cases regarding copyright infringement interpretation (The pirate bay trial).

Over 90% of the Swedish population (and we have a representative democracy system - or so we thought) is completely against the idea of copyright extending to include copying media/software for private, non-commercial use. Yet the laws that are being altered represent the interests only of the industry special interest group.

The governments are also very keen on surveilance and wire-tapping + storing all communication through ISP's and mobile phone companies of EVERY citizen in the whole country irellevant of being suspected of a crime or not, which is being implemented too. I think the two are related. Need infrastructure to carry out either of them, and they are both mutually supportive of each others' cause, so..

[MikkOwl]

An employer friend bought an English designed winch control program which he runs on concerts to enhance lighting effects... an interesting feature of the program, was in having to be online to install it as well as having to be online to uninstall it. In between those two situations however, there was no necessity to be online to run the program.

Interesting arrangement. Being online to install it is not a big hassle. I don't think I would put up with the 'online to uninstall' part though. Once I pay for it, install and activate it, that's it - it is mine. Don't want any more hassles (including DVD checks, which are noisy, impractical and discs are not the most durable thing). I have hard drive errors and other things that can be random, and not being able to uninstall something we bought is a preposterous idea. Still, that system is mild enough to be tolerable as long as it is patched out later (else the software could be permanently broken if they stop supporting it and take down their authorization servers).

If it weren't for the pirates, there would be no need for protection methods eh?

True. Although there's a lot of things to be said about it.

(A copy here is defined as being a copy that functions).

The cost of manufacturing a copy of a medium that is digital is zero. The cost of distribution is also zero. In a market economy, this means supply is infinite. And that the market value of such a copy is zero.

Before the apperance of fast computers, large storage medium and the Internet, it was a good business model to offer the service of producing a copy and distributing the copy to consumers. But having a business model where one is selling the service of providing one digitally made copy (which costs nothing) and distributing it (again, does not have to cost anything) is maybe not the most innovative or well thought out anymore.

In order to try to keep the old business model of selling the copy and distribution, supply must be choked somehow. But one can also attempt to coerce people into choosing only their service. Two main methods:

1. Attempt to make it more difficult to produce a copy (what we are discussing mainly in this topic).
2. Threats of, and carrying out: violence, robbery or kidnapping in any combination (by a third party, nearly always the state) if people choose to handle the task of producing a copy and distribution themselves instead of choosing the offered service.

The second needs legislation in order to support it specifically. There are smaller things which are fairly innocent where the stake-holders of the business model run campaigns for the public that attempt to make people believe that copyright infringement of any kind is not copyright infringement, but theft (a different crime, where someone is robbed of something. Like stepping into a game/movie store and literally taking a DVD case with print and disc inside and walking out - the store then deprived of those items).

Personally I think (and many, many, many others) that if someone does something good for you (like a favor), you should return the favor. That means give back to the people who gave to you. Also, people can do it for purely selfish reasons - trying to secure 'more of the same' enjoyment in the future (gaming studio can go bankrupt or try making other less interesting games in order to profit more). I think these two are big reasons people choose to buy officially distributed copies even though they have plenty of alternatives. It is harder to always do so when the officially distributed version is less attractive/appealing (in the form of it just performing worse and being inferior to other versions).

Anti-copy schemes are morally completely OK. People are trying to sell something they made and are just trying to limit the supply through those means to raise the market value. It will usually not limit supply much but will make the product on offer (possibly) crappier if care is not taken. I.e. requiring a registration code and going online to check it once to enable the functionality is agreeable for nearly everyone, but being constantly online as a requirement when it is not technically required is nonsense for many. So it would be to have to enter a new reg key each time software is to be used or a movie watched.

Crap. Long, long post. Pardon everyone.