DRM Thread

[Mamoulian War]

And what that means?

 

Developers/publishers should concentrate on adult audience, because teenagers will more likely pirate than adults, who have much different values... And they also do have much much more money to spend...

[alanschu]

And what that means?

 

Developers/publishers should concentrate on adult audience, because teenagers will more likely pirate than adults, who have much different values... And they also do have much much more money to spend...

 

There's already a huge focus on the adult audience. Having said that, there's still lots of money to be made by making games for kids and teenagers.

 

For the record, I wasn't a teenager when I was in University. The roommate of mine that hosted the FTP site, still hosts an FTP site, and he's 28 years old now.

 

 

I think you're dreaming if you feel that making games with a focus on the adult audience will affect piracy in any significant ways. Just because you're an adult doesn't mean that the idea of maximizing your return on investment goes away.

Edited April 17, 2009 by alanschu

[Mamoulian War]

For the record, I wasn't a teenager when I was in University. The roommate of mine that hosted the FTP site, still hosts an FTP site, and he's 28 years old now.

 

But he was at university, which means he was not very active in earning money am i correct? If it was not part time study...

 

When I was at university everybody pirated the hell out of internet... after they got proper jobs they started to buy the games, and lot of them which they played for free before...

[alanschu]

But he was at university, which means he was not very active in earning money am i correct? If it was not part time study...

 

When I was at university everybody pirated the hell out of internet... after they got proper jobs they started to buy the games, and lot of them which they played for free before...

 

No, you're not correct. Of the 4 of us living in residence, only I had issues with money. Ironically, I bought more games while in University than when I was out of University, and I'm not even the rich kid.

 

 

I keep bringing stuff like this up because anecdotal evidence doesn't mean very much. My roommate buys his games now because the private torrent site he used to go to went down and he doesn't like the hassle of using public torrent sites.

 

There was a lot of piracy when I went to University, because people liked getting stuff for free and living on campus gave them the bandwidth to actually do it. I know people that bought less games simply because it was so much easier to pirate after they moved to University and got access to high speed internet.

Edited April 17, 2009 by alanschu

[Magister Lajciak]

(snip)

 

/rant

 

(just a general rant, I wasn't challenging anything particular you said. I know what your stand is.)

 

I don't think anyone here has a problem with reasonable anti-DRM folks,

 

Well, I am 100% opposed to DRM measures that make me reliant on external sources (e.g. activation servers) to play a game. Beyond that point, however, I am not even anti-DRM as such and don't mind things like CD-keys, having to have the DVD inside the drive and so on. I am even fine with program blacklisters that some DRM schemes use. Heck, I don't even mind SecuROM as such, despite what my signature says, I only mind it because the latest version introduced online activation and install limits. But introduce online activation and install limits and the game becomes an automatic no-buy item.

 

However, the fact that the companies use a scheme that anti-DRM folks don't like does not give pirates a right to commit copyright infringement. [/i]

 

I don't think anybody is defending the right of pirates to infringe on the copyright of game companies. They obviously don't have such a right - I don't think that's really in question here.

[Magister Lajciak]

I know this because when I was younger, I did my share of pirating. I look back on that time with a ton of regret. Not only was I selfishly damaging the industry that I wanted to thrive, but I was trading short term enjoyment at the cost of my long term happiness. It was stupid.

 

I was a hardcore pirate too.

 

Heh, you guys remind me of former smokers! Like piracy, smoking is a bad thing and smokers who quit are often the most vehement anti-smoking crusaders, whereas non-smokers tend to be less agitated about others smoking.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

There have even been a few regular posters here who have admitted to piracy due to DRM

 

Yep, I remember a few instances when people came out and said they had downloaded something.

[Hurlshort]

Heh, you guys remind me of former smokers! Like piracy, smoking is a bad thing and smokers who quit are often the most vehement anti-smoking crusaders, whereas non-smokers tend to be less agitated about others smoking.

 

Huh, I've never smoked in my life, and I'm extremely agitated by anyone who smokes near me. My wife is the same way.

[alanschu]

I'm pretty anti-smoking too, as a non-smoker

 

 

Hurlshot and I are kindred spirits! Except when Oilers play the Sharks

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty anti-smoking too, as a non-smoker

 

 

Hurlshot and I are kindred spirits! Except when Oilers play the Sharks

 

We both probably have a strong dislike for Chris Pronger as well.

[neckthrough]

However, the fact that the companies use a scheme that anti-DRM folks don't like does not give pirates a right to commit copyright infringement. [/i]

 

I don't think anybody is defending the right of pirates to infringe on the copyright of game companies. They obviously don't have such a right - I don't think that's really in question here.

Yes, absolutely. I don't even understand why we keep bringing up this question at all. I do remember a couple of pro-piracy posts, but by and large my impression has been that the discussion in this thread has been based on the fundamental notion that copyright infringement is illegal and unethical. Nobody's trying to challenge this.

 

If anyone feels the need for a discussion on the merits/demerits of intellectual property, copyright law, and personal ethics w.r.t. intellectual property, I think there should be a separate thread for it.

 

Nowadays, all companies disclose what sort of DRM scheme is used with their products.

They do have some generic vagueness in their EULAs about the potential use of some software to safeguard their intellectual property. It doesn't describe exactly what the software does to the average user. Which is why most regular users do not care. If they read on the box that the game installed a piece of software that could read their tax documents, personal pictures, videos, and every bit of data under the sun that they store on their personal computers, and that the software is able to contact the parent company and transfer any data that it wanted to without their knowledge or consent, and that it could take over and disable not only the operating system but also physical devices on their machine, I wonder how many users would be willing to put up with it.

 

It's like your television manufacturer asking for your home keys when you buy a TV from them. Sure, you can trust the manufacturer, after all, they're a big well-known corporation, why would they want anything from your home. But you still wouldn't give them your keys, would you? Yes, your PC isn't the same as your home, but MANY users have a lot of important personal data on their PCs today. If they knew the true extent to which SecuROM had access to your machine, I'm not sure they wouldn't think twice before purchasing the game.

 

I read recently that the FTC (or some other org) was trying to force publishers into explaining the nature of their copy protection in more detail, and on the retail box instead of a fscking EULA. I suspect it's still going to be vague though. Seriously, SecuROM ain't all that different from a trojan, it fits almost all of the definitions of a trojan. Sony tried this crap once with their copy-protected audio CDs, but thankfully they had a class-action slapped on them and they lost. Bastards.

[alanschu]

We both probably have a strong dislike for Chris Pronger as well.

 

 

As a matter of fact, yes

[alanschu]

So SecurROM could read my tax documents, personal pictures, videos, and every bit of data under the sun that I store on my personal computer?

[neckthrough]

So SecurROM could read my tax documents, personal pictures, videos, and every bit of data under the sun that I store on my personal computer?

You're a coder, you know the answer to that. It runs with root privileges. Unless you've encrypted your data it has access to your complete system. Of course, tens of services run with root privileges, but these are all visible and need to run as root to keep my system running. SecuROM makes every effort to hide itself both in the process space as well as the file system.

 

But you know all this. If you have a genuine criticism of my logic or paranoia, you could have asked me the question directly instead of posting a sarcastic remark.

[alanschu]

Question was genuine.

 

My experience on dealing with root privileged applications, and what their capabilities are, is quite limited actually (especially from the point of view of creating said applications).

Edited April 18, 2009 by alanschu

[alanschu]

Some looking into it, since I've seen people accuse SecuROM of being a rootkit. According to wikipedia, a rootkit does not grant user administrator access. Is it incorrect? Or am I not understanding something about SecuROM and rootkits?

Edited April 18, 2009 by alanschu

[neckthrough]

Question was genuine.

I'm sorry. I misread your tone.

 

Some looking into it, since I've seen people accuse SecuROM of being a rootkit. According to wikipedia, a rootkit does not grant user administrator access. Is it incorrect? Or am I not understanding something about SecuROM and rootkits?

The wikipedia article is trying to explain that despite being called a "root"-kit, its purpose is not to allow an unauthorized user process to hack into an uncompromised system and obtain root access. For example, I cannot walk up to a system I don't own and wrest admin privileges by using a rootkit on a USB drive. Unless I have root access on the target machine to begin with, I cannot install a rootkit on it.

 

A rootkit is usually installed unwittingly by a system user that already has admin privileges. For example, if I'm running IE as Administrator on a Windows system and manage to reach a malicious website, the website could potentially use some exploit in IE to install the rootkit on my machine. Another example is if I install a piece of software (which you almost always need to do as an Administrator on Windows), the software could maliciously install a rootkit without my knowledge. Once the rootkit is installed on my system, however, it owns me. A well-designed rootkit can be completely invisible to you and to any antivirus. Unlike a virus, the purpose of a rootkit is usually not to cause any immediate harm to your system, but to lie dormant and keep your system in a compromised state for future ease of access to a hacker, although there's probably some overlap in terminologies.

 

SecuROM gets into your system when you install the game as an Admin. If you didn't have admin privileges, you couldn't install either the game or SecuROM.

 

Edit: Here's the Wikipedia overview of a rootkit, verbatim. I've bolded the bits that I believe are applicable to SecuROM as well.

 

A rootkit is a software system that consists of a program, or combination of several programs, designed to hide or obscure the fact that a system has been compromised. Contrary to what its name may imply, a rootkit does not grant a user administrator access, as it requires prior access to execute and tamper with system files and processes. An attacker may use a rootkit to replace vital system executables, which may then be used to hide processes and files the attacker has installed, along with the presence of the rootkit. Access to the hardware, e.g., the reset switch, is rarely required, as a rootkit is intended to seize control of the operating system. Typically, rootkits act to obscure their presence on the system through subversion or evasion of standard operating system security mechanisms. Often, they are Trojans as well, thus fooling users into believing they are safe to run on their systems. Techniques used to accomplish this can include concealing running processes from monitoring programs, or hiding files or system data from the operating system.[1] Rootkits may also install a "back door" in a system by replacing the login mechanism (such as /bin/login) with an executable that accepts a secret login combination, which, in turn, allows an attacker to access the system, regardless of changes to the actual accounts on the system.

Edited April 18, 2009 by neckthrough

[alanschu]

I read the wikipedia page.

 

But just to be clear, if I were to make a user account that did not have administrator privileges, I would not be able to install Mass Effect for PC?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But just to be clear, if I were to make a user account that did not have administrator privileges, I would not be able to install Mass Effect for PC?

 

Yes, I am almost positive that would be the case. Hell, you have to be an Administrator to even run the game if you have the Steam version.

[neckthrough]

But just to be clear, if I were to make a user account that did not have administrator privileges, I would not be able to install Mass Effect for PC?

 

Yes, I am almost positive that would be the case. Hell, you have to be an Administrator to even run the game if you have the Steam version.

What he said.

 

You do need to use an Admin account to install the game. Once they're installed, though, most games will *run* happily with a regular user account. The SecuROM process continues to run as Administrator, because on installation SecuROM sets itself up as a system-level service that activates on startup. You never know that it's running because it hides itself from the Task Manager, the file system and Add/Remove programs, and IIRC it's very hard to get rid of its keys from the registry. It also doesn't get uninstalled even if you uninstall all SecuROM-based games on your system.

 

"I feel fantastic and I'm still alive".

[Mamoulian War]

Demigod sales thriumph over piracy.

 

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/04...over-piracy.ars

[neckthrough]

A quote from Stardock CEO about this (I added the italicized emphasis):

 

Yep. Demigod is heavily pirated. And make no mistake, piracy pisses me off. If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days, then you should either buy it or accept that you're a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way. The reality that most PC game publishers ignore is that there are people who buy games and people who don't buy games. The focus of a business is to increase its sales. My job, as CEO of Stardock, is not to fight worldwide piracy no matter how much it aggravates me personally. My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary

[Kjarista]

A quote from Stardock CEO about this (I added the italicized emphasis):

 

Yep. Demigod is heavily pirated. And make no mistake, piracy pisses me off. If you're playing a pirated copy right now, if you're one of those people on Hamachi or GameRanger playing a pirated copy and have been for more than a few days, then you should either buy it or accept that you're a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way. The reality that most PC game publishers ignore is that there are people who buy games and people who don't buy games. The focus of a business is to increase its sales. My job, as CEO of Stardock, is not to fight worldwide piracy no matter how much it aggravates me personally. My job is to maximize the sales of my product and service and I do that by focusing on the people who pay my salary

[skuld1]

So, the issue boils down to how many folks would buy the game if they couldn't steal it. There is really no way to tell.

 

Not enough studies have been done/released... but I did find this one from Reflexive interesting. Apparently they had a rather large boost in sales after implementing some anti-keygen/crack measures.

 

...I think I hear footsteps... probably the anti-drm folks coming to dismiss or discredit this article

[Mamoulian War]

So, the issue boils down to how many folks would buy the game if they couldn't steal it. There is really no way to tell.

 

Not enough studies have been done/released... but I did find this one from Reflexive interesting. Apparently they had a rather large boost in sales after implementing some anti-keygen/crack measures.

 

...I think I hear footsteps... probably the anti-drm folks coming to dismiss or discredit this article

 

Lot of such articles was released about sales of music gone high when DRM was drop down, lot of small music groups got up to 400% boost of sales after they album was torrented etc...