Topic: Gamer's Bill of Rights

[Dracho]

The whole concept of restricting technology to prevent theft is legally flawed.  For instance, attempting to destroy the DVD rip software industry because someone might rent a movie and rip it, instead of purchasing and ripping under fair use.

I can obtain weapon technology and help myself to all sorts of things illegally, but instead of punishing me you cannot quash the knife or gun industry because I might commit a crime with their tool.

[knightstorm]

The whole concept of restricting technology to prevent theft is legally flawed.  For instance, attempting to destroy the DVD rip software industry because someone might rent a movie and rip it, instead of purchasing and ripping under fair use.

I can obtain weapon technology and help myself to all sorts of things illegally, but instead of punishing me you cannot quash the knife or gun industry because I might commit a crime with their tool.

On the other hand, if you're getting screwed out of millions of dollars restricting technology in an attempt to prevent piracy starts looking a lot more attractive.

[Dracho]

The whole concept of restricting technology to prevent theft is legally flawed.  For instance, attempting to destroy the DVD rip software industry because someone might rent a movie and rip it, instead of purchasing and ripping under fair use.

I can obtain weapon technology and help myself to all sorts of things illegally, but instead of punishing me you cannot quash the knife or gun industry because I might commit a crime with their tool.

On the other hand, if you're getting screwed out of millions of dollars restricting technology in an attempt to prevent piracy starts looking a lot more attractive.

Just as if I am not being paid by my employer due to mismanagement on his part, getting myself some cash from a bank vault may look more attractive.  The logic isn't legal in either case.

[knightstorm]

The whole concept of restricting technology to prevent theft is legally flawed.  For instance, attempting to destroy the DVD rip software industry because someone might rent a movie and rip it, instead of purchasing and ripping under fair use.

I can obtain weapon technology and help myself to all sorts of things illegally, but instead of punishing me you cannot quash the knife or gun industry because I might commit a crime with their tool.

On the other hand, if you're getting screwed out of millions of dollars restricting technology in an attempt to prevent piracy starts looking a lot more attractive.

Just as if I am not being paid by my employer due to mismanagement on his part, getting myself some cash from a bank vault may look more attractive.  The logic isn't legal in either case.

Your comparison isn't quite the same.  You were never entitled to the money in that bank vault.  Here the software company is entitled to receive payment from those who use its product, but it doesn't because of piracy.  I am not fond of the measures being taken, but I can't really complain unless I'm prepared to offer viable alternatives.

[Nemesis]

It's a "history" thing...

Back in the '80s, music/movies/cartridges all required that the delivery media (tape/CD/cartridge) all be physically present to enjoy the "product".  It was quickly realized that installable media (software) did not suffer from that limitation, in that once the software was installed from the delivery media said software could be executed without the original media present.

CD copying in the 1970s, no EULA.  MP3 copying now still no EULA.  Bootable floppy based games still had EULAs even though the game could only be played with the floppy in the drive.  Current games that require the CD to play have EULAs.  Versions of Windows that only install on the type of OEM hardware they were made for (DELL Windows for example) still have EULAs.

So, the EULA was devised to protect the manufacturer.  I remember a day when all an EULA really did was prevent (occasionally restrict) multiple installs and mandated the destruction / transfer of the original media, backups, and manuals/paperwork made when you were done with the software...

Heck, I remember a MS Office EULA that allowed it to be installed on all of an owner's machines (office comp, home comp and laptop), as long as only one machine was using it at a time (ie, if I was at work typing documents wifey couldn't be at home storing recipies...)

Also, remember that "back then", pirates had to copy to a blank media in order to create their pirate copies, it was only in the past couple of years that being able to rip/pirate movies over the net became common...

I remember game software designed for "Hot Seat" play but the EULA forbade it. 

The basic thing here is what makes software different so it can get away with EULAs when books (tried and failed a century ago) don't, music doesn't.

Myself I question the fundamental legality of the EULA and its enforceability. 

On the other hand, if you're getting screwed out of millions of dollars restricting technology in an attempt to prevent piracy starts looking a lot more attractive.

I have yet to see the evidence of that.  How many of those pirated versions are like the "pirated" copy of Sim Earth I had? I had a legitimate version but the installer wouldn't work (turned out I had too much free memory) but the pirated copy did.  The only people who are stopped by DRM are those who are legitimate customers who refuse to pirate it.  The pirates just download the cracked copy.

Have you ever seen how the BSA calculates the "cost of piracy"?  They estimate the number of computers in use, do a survey of the software in use and extrapolate from that the number of "pirated" copies at full retail price.  Sounds fairly decent until you consider the machine I'm on runs a free copy of LinuxMint but is assessed by that system as a "pirated" OS.  All my machines have OpenOffice (so does my mothers) more machines assesed as using "pirated office software".   

Do you remember Lotus 123?  Wonder why they dropped their DRM?  It cost them more than creating and maintaining 123 itself. 

So what it amounts to is:

1/ DRM only stops those who were not pirates anyhow.

2/ It only harms those who are not pirates

3/ It costs money which makes the product more expensive and therefore more likely to be pirated as too expensive to buy.

[Dash Jones]

Actually, I see PC gaming dying in recent years.  MMORPGs aren't really in that same boat, with WoW taking off, but other than that, the hardcore PC games have been dying out.  I think a LOT of that has to do with the anti-piracy methods have worked better at killing the consumer and hence killing the industry (and they make all sorts of other excuses up...but in reality it's the makers themselves killing the industry in favor of consoles) rather than doing anything to the pirates.

[Nemesis]

I think a LOT of that has to do with the anti-piracy methods have worked better at killing the consumer and hence killing the industry (and they make all sorts of other excuses up...but in reality it's the makers themselves killing the industry in favor of consoles) rather than doing anything to the pirates.

I watch for reports on the DRM before I buy.  I have to really like a game to buy it if it has significant DRM, I've been burned too often one way or another.  There have been a fair number of sales lost to me due to DRM and through me to other people I didn't recommend the game to or buy it as a gift.

[Vipre]

The whole concept of restricting technology to prevent theft is legally flawed.  For instance, attempting to destroy the DVD rip software industry because someone might rent a movie and rip it, instead of purchasing and ripping under fair use.

I can obtain weapon technology and help myself to all sorts of things illegally, but instead of punishing me you cannot quash the knife or gun industry because I might commit a crime with their tool.

On the other hand, if you're getting screwed out of millions of dollars restricting technology in an attempt to prevent piracy starts looking a lot more attractive.

Isn't this the same thing companies attempted with VCRs when they first came out?

[Nemesis]

Isn't this the same thing companies attempted with VCRs when they first came out?

Not quite.  That was an 8 year long lawsuit in the U.S. taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Modern methods are saying "Screw the consumer" and ignoring the courts.  The modern copy protection seeks to both block your using what you bought by technological means AND payoff persuade lawmakers to change the laws to make their action legal and defeating them illegal (DMCA).  At least the copy protection on the standard VHS tape didn't mess with your ability to use the VCR when not playing the "Macrovision protected" tapes. 

The history of software copy protection is of blocking legitimate purchasers from using their purchase (with no refund most of the time), dropping support of remote authorization (causing blocking of continued use of said software/media) and totally hosing the purchasers system (POR had a bug which apparently deleted the C: if it was installed there when running the uninstall). 

Here is a link detailing some of the "fun" that people have had with software copyprotection starting in the Commodore days.

[Nemesis]

Earlier I posted the following:

Imagine a dual boot system.  The game OS and games installed on an SD card (or some future equivalent) running from there in an SD slot that has the ability to write to the SD card deleted and saving to another card in a standard SD slot.  To install a game you boot another OS (Windows. Mac, Linux or a specialist system) that reads a text file from the game media and follows standard rules to copy the game to the SD card (which is moved to the rewritable SD slot for this then moved back to the OS SD slot to boot from it and play the game).  (Alternately you could have a button that enables/disables the write feature on the drive and design the Game OS not to boot or operate with the rewrite function turned on).

You could have separate SD cards for each person using the system or for each game ($$ available of course).  As the cards get cheaper this becomes more practical.  You could even have the BIOS disable hard drives when the Game OS is booted from so the Game OS can't be used to attack the HD if it is breached.

Now someone is targeting the idea it seems.

Link to site

  Introduction

Sugar Labs offers ubiquitous access to Sugar in a USB (Universal Serial Bus) flash memory drive (stick). The Sugar on a Stick project (still in Beta) gives children access to their Sugar on any computer in their environment with just a USB memory stick. Taking advantage of the Fedora LiveUSB, it's possible to store everything you need to run Sugar on a single USB memory stick (minimum size 1GB). This small USB device can boot into the Sugar learning platform on different computers at home, at school, or at an after school program, bypassing the software on the those computers. In fact, Sugar on a Stick will work even if the computer does not have a hard-drive. With Sugar on a Stick, the learning experience is the same on any computer: at school, at home, at the library, or an after-school center.

[Panzergranate]

Any mention of "The right for software to actually function properly as promised by the originators" would have Microsoft sweating and sh*tting bricks.... 

Perhaps there should be a "Lemon Law" clause so that gamers can return and ask for a refund on any games that suck.... like Legacy.... 

I'd just like X-BOX Live to have age band groupings for online servers, so that all the "Squeakers" can happily run around not playing as a team, piss everyone off by team killing and leave the serious playing to the grown ups.

[FPF-Paladin]

I'm a big Stardock fan.. their products and the way they conduct themselves.

I can vouch that they strive to follow this Bill... the few times I had problems, it was cleared up by their support, same day.