Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gamers, EFF Speak Out Against DRM

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the because-bullets-won't-kill-it dept.

Software 203

Last month, we discussed news that the FTC would be examining DRM to see if it needs regulation. They set up a town hall meeting for late March, and part of that effort involved requesting comments from potential panelists and the general public. Ars Technica reports that responses to the request have been overwhelmingly against DRM, and primarily from gamers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation also took the opportunity to speak out strongly against DRM, saying flat out that "DRM does not prevent piracy," and suggesting that its intended purpose is "giving some industry leaders unprecedented power to influence the pace and nature of innovation and upsetting the traditional balance between the interests of copyright owners and the interests of the public." Their full public comments (PDF) describe several past legal situations supporting that point, such as Sony's fight against mod chips, Blizzard's DMCA lawsuit against an alternative to battle.net, and Sony's XCP rootkit.

cancel ×

203 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wrong battle? (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863467)

Why bother to fight DRM? DRM is not the problem, the problem is that distributing DRM workarounds is illegal. Instead, why not go after the root problem, the DMCA?

Re:Wrong battle? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863523)

DRM is also the problem. Where does this idea come from that you can only fight on one front?

Re:Wrong battle? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863567)

That's not actually true, code itself is still protected under first amendment grounds, and the companies would be nuts to try and enforce it on foreign nationals or people that are downloading it. Well, providing that you're within the provisions set forth in section 1201 of the DMCA, that is, which shouldn't be that hard to demonstrate.

In pretty much any case where you'd want to remove the DRM for personal use you'd likely be covered.

RIGHT battle! (4, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863635)

Why bother to fight DRM? DRM is not the problem, the problem is that distributing DRM workarounds is illegal. Instead, why not go after the root problem, the DMCA?

I really wish people would stop the arrogant assumption that they can always work around whatever DRM manufacturers create, even when they all get together to work against the public. Breaking cryptography is HARD. Some crypto is UNBREAKABLE in any reasonable amount of time, using any known techniques. The UK's Sky TV, for instance, has been using the same crypto on their satellite broadcasts for years now, with no cracks available.

Re:RIGHT battle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863869)

On the topic of satellite, what IS the point of encrypting broadcasts that are Free To View anyway?

Re:RIGHT battle! (4, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864547)

When companies spend millions to implement a particular solution, it's fair to assume they have a goal. For broadcasts that are 'free' (usually with the price of watching commercials), we can rule out some goals.
      Copyright law is primarily economic - that is, the original goal was to prevent direct, measurable economic harm to the owner, not to prevent other kinds of harm. The exception, of course, is the European moral copyright model.
      If DRM isn't protecting from direct economic harm, then what it ends up doing is making an end run around the limitations built into US style copyright, limitations such as fair use, or first sale rights.
      All these end runs are wrong. It really doesn't matter if the goal is to protect against indirect economic harm from perfectly lawful competition, or to restrict consumer rights that the courts have long upheld, or to selectively enforce 'moral copyright' in countries where there's no actual law passed, and only for certain privileged entities. None of those is a good thing.
      It's like catching somebody sneaking into a woman's dorm with a roll of duct tape, a bowie knife, and six pairs of handcuffs at 2 AM. We're getting into an argument over whether the goal was rape, murder, or robbery, and ignoring that none of the options are good things. When it comes to public airwaves style channels, no one has seriously been able to suggest a reason for DRM backed by the DMCA that doesn't involve something bad, whether it's an unfair government granted monopoly, an effort to screw consumers, or an attempt to enforce laws that haven't actually been passed.

Re:RIGHT battle! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863899)

You're wrong.

DRM circumvention is a trusted-client-subversion problem, not a cryptanalytic problem (which is, indeed, much harder, though not typically impossible).

In DRM scenarios (which is what distinguishes them from securable encryption scenarios), the attacker has the ciphertext and the key, albeit possibly in an obfuscated or hard-to-access form. Given a sufficiently motivated attacker who has the key (in whatever form) under their control, the DRM scheme will always lose. (I've never seen any copy-protection scheme survive a serious attack, and I probably never will.)

The VideoGuard scheme used by Sky is broken in various ways, but the crackers are very secretive, and the breaks are almost unpublished (thanks mostly to heavy crackdowns). The presence of unencrypted transport stream rips of HDTV broadcasts proves the existence. You can't get the cracks easily; but clearly someone must indeed have them.

Maybe not (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864479)

"The presence of unencrypted transport stream rips of HDTV broadcasts proves the existence"

Not necessarily. I've noticed that almost every HD cable box has a component out that supports 1080i. There are boxes that will capture this stuff (for Myth as one possible use). The 1080p rips out there likely came from BluRay cracks.

In many ways, it's like WMP files from MS. The one genuine crack disappeared pretty quickly, and has not been repeated. However, I'm not convinced it's because WMP is "hard" to crack, rather it's because it's just easier to rip a CD or use MP3's already "in the wild".

I like to think of breaking DRM like water in a vessel. The water doesn't need lots of ways to get out, it only needs one. And when it comes to music, it's not worth breaking the DRM. For video, it's worth it, so it's broken.

Re:RIGHT battle! (5, Insightful)

phulshof (204513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863903)

Please do not confuse DRM with standard encryption techniques. Normally, encryption is used between two or more parties to keep one or more other parties from reading the encrypted material. DRM, or TPM to be more precise, is used to keep the recipient of the material from copying it, while at the same time allow them to read it (otherwise they would never buy it). As such, any DRM that people want cracked will be cracked. I think your example says more about Sky TV than about their encryption technology. :)

DRM is a failure in that it provides the would be attacker with the message, the cypher, and the key. They just try to hide those last two, which is no true basis for protecting material.

Re:RIGHT battle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863951)

I think the more important question is, do we need rules about this?

Don't like it? Don't pay for it.

Re:RIGHT battle! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863975)

I don't understand why this is modded insightful at all. The assumption not even arrogant--it's just simply the truth.

The underlying statement backing up your argument are far weaker than necessary (I assert you don't understand crypto)--and the argument is irrelevant to boot. Some crypto is provably unbreakable using all possible techniques, in any amount of time (or space). Nevermind reasonable or known techniques. Of course, like everything--you have to use it correctly for it to be unbreakable... and using such cryptography would require shipping a one time pad (securely). It's been done though--not with software that I've ever heard of though.

The real problem is--the cryptographic arguments regarding DRM ARE NOT RELEVANT. That's great that it's "unbreakable" (do you mean semantically secure?)--now by the way, where's my key to decode it to play the media? It has to exist somewhere--and if I'm going to play it, you have to give me something that lets me compute the preimage/plaintext/share in the middle/something. Even with secure multiparty computation, or shared keys--somebody somewhere has to get the plaintext/result.

Furthermore--even if you put the thing in an embedded chip--somebody is going to have equipment to strip it apart one layer at a time and reverse the chip. Since most places don't want to pay for hardware--they've been lazier/cheaper still and put it in software (game over there). Even with anti-blue pill technologies--it's possible to emulate an undetectable machine and extract 'the key' from virtualized memory--the premise of being able to simulate a computer is actually at the freaking core of how computational theory WORKS--it's what makes it possible!

Sky TV? They still haven't closed down the analog loophole. Yay, it's classic--and they can't stop it. If it's anything like successful satellite companies--they send their customer a new card with a new key every month which they put into a closed box that decodes a signal and don't change the cipher itself. It's not a bad model--but it's still subject to the same vulnerabilities--it just isn't cost effective in this case for anyone to reverse the chip to extract the key--and the technology involved probably makes fabbing them prohibitively expensive and slow. If there was enough interest to be worthwhile, you'd see someone fabbing them in asia and overnighting fake chips.

Re:RIGHT battle! (3, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864011)

Encryption is unbreakable. DRM is not because per definition you have the decryption key even if it's hidden very well. I'm quite sure I've seen SkyTV broadcast captures so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, maybe there's no hack to decrypt the live broadcast but the content gets around anyway. Amazon and iTunes is dropping DRM, CSS is broken, AACS is pretty much broken, BD+ still has cramps but is dying so from where I'm sitting it looks like most entertainment has no effective DRM and no practical way to put that cat back in the bag - if DVD was good then Blu-Ray must be good enough for the next century. Software and consoles get a lot uglier but unbreakable is hardly the first word that comes to mind. Ultimately, that's why TPB is so popular and why we're having this case, right? Because DRM does not work, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to share on TPB.

Re:RIGHT battle! (2, Informative)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864471)

Encryption is unbreakable.

No, encryption is not unbreakable. It's merely hard enough to break that it's rarely feasible to do so.

Re:RIGHT battle! (2, Insightful)

jonberling (1256136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864015)

DRM has a critical flaw when it comes to cryptography. The attacker and the person with permission to decrypt the content are the same. Because of this there can never be a strong DRM scheme. While I'm not familiar with UK's Sky TV, I bet that the wide variety of TV content already available on bit torrent networks has more to do with it not being cracked then the strength of its crypto algorithm.

Re:RIGHT battle! (5, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864369)

Not to mention that the DRM that is in these games is costing folks money and time right now. As a PC repairman I can't count the number of times I have had machines brought to me because "it is acting funny" with strange errors, all burns of CD/DVD would fail, drives are killing themselves, etc. And when I found there wasn't an infection I would immediately begin looking for a DRM "infection" and sure enough it would be infected. I have watched Safedisc and SecuROM throw drives into PIO mode(which will burn them up) Starforce cause all kinds of program failures and weird crashes, etc. These programs are often worse than many of the malware apps written today as far as causing trouble.

It has gotten bad enough that I now longer buy games at release date anymore. I wait until they have been out 6 months at least, then I buy the nice box and put it in the closet. Since I have bought the game I then go and download the "safe" version at one of the many sites available. Sad that the "pirate" version is actually better for the consumer than the "legitimate" one huh?

The point is while DMCA really needs to be throw in a fire, with the DRM used today it is costing good hard working folks money right at this very minute. It breaks their machines which are then brought to guys like me which have to be paid to have it repaired. And let us not forget that these DRM "programs" don't support each other, which means I can't count the number of times I have seen machines infected with SecuROM AND Safedisc AND Starforce. Can you say major conflicts boys and girls? I think you can. These programs can cause more damage(especially if you have two or more which seems to be begging for PIO mode) than most of the viruses and trojans out there. There certainly cause more weird and hard to track down errors in this repairman's NSHO. But magically when they are removed the problems just.....go away. Amazing, huh?

Oh, and in case some are wondering what is so bad about PIO mode, PIO mode is a leftover for seriously old legacy drives, like the old serial CD ROMs we used to have. The modern optical drive simply isn't made to operate at that low of a speed and gets too hot if it is left in PIO mode too long. Picture yourself driving down the freeway at 60MPH with the emergency brakes on. That is pretty much PIO mode to a 16x or above drive.

Re:RIGHT battle! (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864553)

More like going down the freeway at 60mph in first gear where you're right over the redline...

Re:RIGHT battle! (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864511)

While cracking the crypto may not be possible, in order for a DRM scheme to function you have to give paying customers the keys...
Those customers can just copy the keys and give them to people who haven't paid.

Sky TV have been using the same algorithms, but they keep changing the keys because the keys frequently leak.

Re:Wrong battle? (2, Interesting)

skynexus (778600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863709)

The anti-circumvention provisions in the DMCA is based on the assumption that DRM works. It is much harder to defeat the DMCA if you ignore the fallacy of DRM because, then, legislators will keep believing it helps a large part of the US economy (that is, the media industry).

Re:Wrong battle? (0, Troll)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863727)

Why bother to fight DRM? DRM is not the problem, the problem is that distributing DRM workarounds is illegal. Instead, why not go after the root problem, the DMCA?

The DMCA wasn't, in itself, a bad idea. What happened was that there was no attempt made to stop companies misusing it, and this lack of early intervetion is a cause of many of the present problems.

They should have realised it wasn't working as planned as soon as companies started using DMCA takedown notices to disrupt the trading activities of other companies.

Re:Wrong battle? (4, Insightful)

M1rth (790840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863835)

The DMCA wasn't, in itself, a bad idea.

You're joking, right? The DMCA was a horrid idea, just like the eternal "copyright extensions" (which should have been unconstitutional as ex post facto law changes anyways) the content cartels have been buying constantly.

Think about it. Mickey Mouse - or at least Steamboat Willie, the cartoon - should have passed into the public domain DECADES ago. Meanwhile, Disney rapes and pillages the public domain with impunity; if you want to make an animated or live-action Snow White, or Beauty and the Beast, or anything else they've already done be prepared for their army of lawyers to start screaming "it's too similar, shut them down" even if you follow the original plotlines of the story/book in question.

What happened was that there was no attempt made to stop companies misusing it

Bullshit. DRM rapes the public domain AND tries to take away the fair-use rights of consumers at the same time.

Under fair use, I have the right to make a backup copy of something I purchased. There are MANY reasons to do this - fire/flood concerns, degradation of the original media (DVD's scratch, tapes wear out, etc), and of course the ever-present Small Children and My Dog That Likes To Chew On Things problems.

Under fair use, I also have the right to space-shift and time-shift content. Broadcast over the airwaves, but I'm out to dinner? No problem. Set a VCR up with a timer, watch it later. Archive it for posterity. Want to convert it for iPod, or PSP, or something else that's portable? I have the right to do so. The next round of "DRM" will be trying to push the so-called "broadcast flag" into the shortly-only-available-variety Digital TV broadcasts, which will require either (a) a recorder that ignores the flag or (b) the goodwill of the broadcaster. This is a fundamental shift that will wholly strip away people's ability to, say, record the sunday Packers game for later because they're busy volunteering as an adult chaperon for a church retreat.

With DRM, I am prevented from exercising my fair-use rights for perfectly legitimate reasons. Prior to the DMCA, if I could figure out a way around it (such as a Macrovision Stripper for VHS), I was able to get my rights back.

After the DMCA, no dice. I committed a "crime" doing what was necessary to exercise my legal right to safeguard what I had purchased.

The DMCA itself was a bad idea. Anyone who says differently needs to be slapped repeatedly.

Re:Wrong battle? (4, Informative)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864357)

The DMCA was a horrid idea, just like the eternal "copyright extensions" (which should have been unconstitutional as ex post facto law changes anyways) the content cartels have been buying constantly.

"Ex post facto" has a specific legal meaning, which is completely different than whatever you think it means. Copyright extensions do suck, but they don't have anything to do with "ex post facto".

Re:Wrong battle? (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864387)

For copyright extensions to qualify as "ex post facto", they would have needed to be implemented after the copyrights had expired. Otherwise, the material never entered the public domain, so there was never a retroactive change to the works' copyright status.

Re:Wrong battle? (3, Insightful)

wkk2 (808881) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864581)

An author that sold their rights might be able to make the case that they are due additional compensation for the extra time. They gave up their rights for the remainder of the copyright term which was extended. So congress took property without paying for the loss which might be due under the 5th amendment. Just an idea...

Re:Wrong battle? (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864701)

What does copyright extension have to do with the DMCA?

Re:Wrong battle? (1, Troll)

msormune (808119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864811)

Don't like DRM or DMCA? Don't use products that it applies to. It's that simple. There's you choice, as a consumer. The real error here is you may think you have to have a TV or you have to watch DVDs. You're wrong.

After a year without TV just reminds me how pathetic the whole thing is. People act like consuming entertainment media is air that you need to survive.

Re:Wrong battle? (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863769)

I don't think it's really the wrong battle. The big problem with DRM is that it arguably means that you're being sold a defective product. You're being sold something that's designed to break and ceases to serve its purpose under some circumstances.

I don't want to get into the particular argument here whether products with DRM are always defective, but it seems like a step in exactly the right direction for the government to recognize that DRM *can* constitute a defect in the product. Once there is some sense that DRM is not always valid, that it's possible for DRM to make a product so defective that they should be barred from selling it, then we can begin to talk about what, exactly, is "fair".

Personally, I don't think DRM is always awful. For example, companies putting DRM on movie rentals rather than movie sales seems fair. Although I didn't think I'd like Steam, once I tried it, it seemed to be a pretty reasonable use of DRM. In that particular situation, I view it this way: I've agreed to sign into a service before playing games, and in return, I have copies of my games hosted such that I have access to them wherever I want.

And I'm not sure where you draw the line on what's "fair" on DRM; I know plenty of people who just thing it's always bad. However, it would be a big win for consumers, for the government at least to recognize that it's not always acceptable. I would at least like to see a law that says that, if you're selling (not renting) products with DRM that checks against some server, then if you ever shut that server down, you are responsible for making available the means to permanently remove that DRM.

Re:Wrong battle? (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864385)

No. Stuff that's being sold for money should work out of the box, not just have a workaround that only the tech savvy know about. DRM is still a massive inconvenience either way and installing a rootkit on your system isn't magically reversed just by cracking the software. Plus often the workaround is to download a version off TPB which isn't permitted even without the DMCA.

Re:Wrong battle? (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864425)

In the mean time, you could just play games without any DRM, like Game! [wittyrpg.com]

Re:Wrong battle? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864825)

Why bother to fight DRM? DRM is not the problem, the problem is that distributing DRM workarounds is illegal. Instead, why not go after the root problem, the DMCA?

Because they already lost that battle when they failed to appeal 2600 v. MPAA.

Fuck Spore (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863485)

I was so excited for this title with all of the cool features and ideas.

Then I read all the stuff about the DRM and I totally passed on it.

Fuck Spore and fuck all the other games that force DRM onto our computers.

World of Warcraft does it right, imo. You have an account and you log in. They authorize you. Warden is non-intrusive.

Blizzard got Wow's auth system right, imo.

Re:Fuck Spore (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863573)

Would that be before or after the use the DMCA lawsuits claiming copyright circumvention of their silly Warden? Blizzard turn into a bunch of asshats post Vivendi. bnetd is another casualty of those clowns.

Re:Fuck Spore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863665)

The point is, WoW doesn't fuck up your computer with DRM crap.

The DMCA is another point entirely as it's only for USA citizens.

Emigration to avoid copyright abuse? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864069)

The DMCA is another point entirely as it's only for USA citizens.

Three problems with this line of reasoning:

  1. You're on CmdrTaco's blog, and CmdrTaco is a USA citizen. For this reason, comments to the effect "you're an American; sucks to be you" aren't germane.
  2. The DMCA implements the WIPO Copyright Treaty. But the United States is by far not the only country to implement this treaty in national legislation. France, for one, has DADVSI.
  3. Is your country taking immigrants?

Re:Fuck Spore (2, Insightful)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863703)

They're protecting their interests, of course. And like most firms guided by anal retentive lawyers, they don't know how to react decently, only "legally". But I think the concept of login / auth is fine. One might expound upon the idea by combining it with a shell of some sort - say, a VM - which contains only the game you want to play, and whatever security software it needs, and nothing else. That would prevent (or at least slow) hackers from cracking it up again.

But the root of all greevil is of course, humanity: hacking is too easy to learn, and the kids have the IQ far before they have the sense of responsibility. Try souping up education for a change. It's something that has to be relearned by EACH fewkin' generation! Our teachers should be well-paid and well-respected, instead they're downtrodden. And we think it's strange so many kids are so mentally fucked up? Unlimited corporate economics is at fault here, simple as that.

Re:Fuck Spore (-1, Troll)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863861)

Teachers would get more respect if they wouldn't cancel school at the drop of a hat due to a snow flake hitting the ground.

I don't envy anyone becoming a teacher but a lot of them do have a bit too much ego purely because they're the one with the answer book in the classroom.

Re:Fuck Spore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864225)

Teachers would get more respect if they wouldn't cancel school at the drop of a hat due to a snow flake hitting the ground.

I don't envy anyone becoming a teacher but a lot of them do have a bit too much ego purely because they're the one with the answer book in the classroom.

The teachers don't cancel, the school administration decides to cancel.

And ego because they have an answer book? Please. Maybe if you listened to them in class you'd learn a thing or two.

Re:Fuck Spore (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863925)

Just wanted to say, login/auth is just a silly form of DRM. It's how blizzard has made so much, really. If it wasn't authenticated that way it'd be, I don't know, BnetD? God forbid people play on other things, and all that. Not like that made their company big, or anything. (/sarcasm)

meanwhile, a VM would absolutely never work. There's a problem with VM's, and it's called adaptability. Also once there is a VM that can handle openGL in its entirety (better than wine), you just opened a new bag because nobody would use windows at all anymore, and then we have MS flexing their lawyers. This same VM would never be able to handle all existing and future hardware, even with effort. It just doesn't happen. The best you can do is a limited subset of compatibility, which then puts everyone in a blame game.

I completely agree unlimited corporate economics as at fault though.

Re:Fuck Spore (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864641)

Well, a VM adapts your native hardware into a single form that software can utilize...
Windows does exactly the same, the hardware may differ but the programming interface is largely the same. Both introduce performance losses relative to fully native code.

Re:Fuck Spore (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864219)

Suing your customers isn't exactly the best way to protect your interests. The problem is that the LAWYERS are protecting their interests. Megacorp launches lawsuit, lawyers get paid regardless of the survival and future business of megacorp. Hell, the lawyers can even win the case so they can add it to their resume for their next gig even as the company burns as a result of that win. Paying $x/month for the right to log in to their servers and play is fine. Kicking users off for violating the terms of service by manipulating how the computer handles data, fine by me. Using the DMCA to sue makers of the programs that allow you to twiddle the bits in your computers memory and being sent out on your computers network card, absolutely bullshit. Copyright is about redistrobution, I am supposed to be able to make all the copies and modifications I want to a copyrighted work that I purchased so long as I do not try to distribute it. Should we start suing highlighter companies for selling devices that allow the modification of a copyrighted work when students highlight their college textbooks to alter the formatting?

Their handling of these issues have been so horrible over the last few years that I will not be purchasing another Blizzard product until they can show the decision makers responsible for these DMCA abuses are bound and gagged and then sodomized by a jackhammer every time they try to speak. Further, they should put the video evidence under the creative commons license to atone for their past copyright abuses.

Re:Fuck Spore (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864813)

There's a real need for investor education.
Most market analysts will steer investors away from buying into a profitable business if the projected labor costs are rising. It's common for some industries to regard anything above 10% of costs being labor related as a sure sign of failure on the horizon.
      A law firm that takes on an IP lawsuit usually expects 33-35% of the projected profits or more if they succeed - sometimes 50% or more. That ought to be viewed as a labor situation. If you wouldn't buy stock in a company because a union threatened to raise general labor costs to 30% of total costs, you should avoid like the plague a company which expects to win an IP suit that is costing them 50% to a law firm.
          If anything, because lawsuits are mostly one shots that don't necessarily translate into more profits in subsequent quarters, and because the time-frame for actually receiving a profit is extremely variable, (if it even happens), an investor should be even more reluctant to buy stock in a firm in litigation than just about any other possible firm.
          Not realizing a hired law firm is still a hiring profitability issue is currently institutionalized dumbness. Not realizing the lawyers can often get what they want without giving you what you want results chiefly from a failure to teach Finance 101 properly to freshmen MBA's. Until US business schools start teaching right, SCO v IBM's will keep happening.

Re:Fuck Spore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863759)

That's all well and good for online games, but I shouldn't have to ask permission to play a single-player game that I paid for.

How do I do it right without multiplayer? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864021)

World of Warcraft does it right, imo. You have an account and you log in. They authorize you. Warden is non-intrusive.

So how would one "do it right" on a handheld gaming system that isn't a cell phone, or another single-player gaming environment?

Re:How do I do it right without multiplayer? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864617)

So how would one "do it right" on a handheld gaming system that isn't a cell phone, or another single-player gaming environment?

The same way they've been doing it forever, by using carts or other specialized media which raise the price of playing pirated games substantially above the cost of paying for the number of games necessary to pay for the product, at least for long enough to make enough money to justify the new design and to do a cost reduction.

Speaking strongly against DRM (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863489)

"DRM does not prevent piracy"

Which implies that piracy is an undesirable thing. Therefore we shouldn't be focused on DRM as the sole solution to the piracy problem, but as part of a larger set of steps to eliminate the problem.

Either piracy is a bad thing which ought to be dealt with, or it is a good thing which should be encouraged.

The EFF's point (as is typical for them) is full of rhetoric but fails to truly understand the issue. It's a shame they are on the right side because they aren't really helping.

Auth Systems (1)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863513)

Auth systems work. By keeping the bulk of the game functionality on the server side, and requiring a login, 99% of DRM issues are covered. You could argue that a company could provide the game engine for free as a method of enticing people to register and pay to play.

Re:Auth Systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863853)

99% of DRM issues are covered.

Then 1 out of every 100 customers will be banned from logging in with no provocation or be otherwise unable to access the auth server for reasons beyond their control and thus won't be able to play their games, not accounting for the mass nerd rage when the servers go down or the company maintaining them goes tits up. Auth systems work - just ask any MSN or Yahoo! music customer.

Re:Auth Systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864039)

Yeah, just like in WoW...wait, no, you're completely missing the parent's argument.

You left out E-rated games and handheld games (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864129)

Auth systems work. By keeping the bulk of the game functionality on the server side, and requiring a login, 99% of DRM issues are covered.

So I guess the remaining 1 percent is that you're now completely ignoring the following markets:

  1. Players under 13 years of age, in the United States and other countries with counterparts to COPPA.
  2. Laptops and handhelds without a mobile broadband plan, family parties in a rented hall, and other environments with no Internet access.

If what you said were true, there would be no E-rated games, no Nintendo DS games, and certainly no E-rated DS games.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863569)

Saying "DRM does not prevent piracy" isn't to imply that piracy is an undesirable thing. It's to attack the stated intent of DRM. Which is to prevent piracy. Saying that it doesn't work shows that if that's their stated purpose for it, then it's ineffectual. The fact that they continue to throw money at something that doesn't work implies that preventing piracy isn't their actual intent with DRM.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863625)

I realize it is 16 pages long, but please read the EFF's submission. It clearly explains that DRM isso completely effective in the restriction of piracy that the simple threat to shutdown DRM servers (Yahoo!, MSN, AOL) sent users scrambling for legal measures to prevent the shutdowns. The loss of the servers would make all the DRM-covered items useless - the exact opposite of ineffective piracy measures.

Now, they also argue that DRM prevents users from using their legally-acquired items in legal ways, and that has some weight. But as a piracy deterrent, DRM is actually quite effective, if you are to believe the EFF.

Maybe different people wrote the submission. That would explain the contradiction between the summary and the details.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863719)

Not necessarily. For piracy to happen, you only need a few people able to go around DRM and they can distribute the result then. However, majority of people can't circumvent it and they are screwed if the servers go down. Unless they pirate it, which is illegal.

Something can well be ineffective against piracy and hard to circumvent for Joe Sixpack.

But to article... EFF speaks against DRM. News at eleven.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863731)

From the EFF submission:

"DRM is touted as an effective means
to restrict copyright infringement, yet evidence continues to mount that DRM not only
does little to inhibit unauthorized copying, it may actually encourage it"

Sounds to me like they're not only calling it ineffective, but counterproductive.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863755)

That assumes either that legal users would not have the right to duplicate the software for backup purposes, or that illegal users would somehow be reduced if it were easier to make duplicates of the software.

Neither of those are correct. DRM may not deter piracy (an assumption no one has challenged with any facts), but it doesn't follow that it must then encourage it.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863819)

Actually it does.

Take Civilization 4 and Civilization 2. I purchased legitimate copies of both, for both of them, the cd broke/wore out.

So:
A) I can 'pirate' it, especially when those versions also include no-cd cracks (Technically, it's piracy, not to mention probably with a side of violating the DMCA.*)
B) Copy a CD (Oh look anti-copy crap on it. And if it breaks, same situation)
C) Try to get a replacement CD from the maker. (Uh huh. Just try that sometime. It used to be common, and relatively easy.)
D) Go buy another copy. (And reward them for having a DRM scheme)

Guess which option I chose?

Not to mention most games run FASTER with no-cd cracks because it's not randomly checking at random/obnoxious times.

*As per some courts.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863825)

The answer is A, but please provide information about courts ruling that you can't copy your game.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864423)

If all DRM did was blocking copies, sure. Modern DRM however introduces more and more retarded restrictions that have nothing to do with copying (can only be installed three times?) and also add new modes of failure, e.g. mandatory authentication with a server fails when the server or the internet connection fails.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863799)

"The loss of the servers would make all the DRM-covered items useless - the exact opposite of ineffective piracy measures."

People who attempted to pirate the product and were successful could care less if the DRM servers went down, which is kind of the point: the pirates aren't stopped or inconvenienced in the least, and the legitimate customers are. What kind of stupid scheme is that? Worse, one solution to DRM servers going down is for people to back up the data in such a way that DRM is stripped off -- a solution suggested by some companies. In other words, even they know it is ineffective.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863659)

It's a shame they are on the right side because they aren't really helping.

A bit like yourself then.

Re:Speaking strongly against DRM (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863693)

That's a big assumption, isn't it?

Hearing this, RockStar announced their new game (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863491)

DRM Killer, available later this fall featuring SecureROM.

the source of the problem (1)

mcfatboy93 (1363705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863495)

saying flat out that "DRM does not prevent piracy,"

I guess in the gaming and Hacking communities puting up a system that prevents you from doing something is like saying "look what i did now break it"

Gamers are losers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863561)

Gamers are losers
Gamers are losers
Gamers are losers
Gamers are losers

Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.

Will they Listen? (4, Interesting)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863777)

The problem is that I don't see the political establishment listening to "a bunch of gamers and the EFF."

I think it tying together the Sony Root Kit issue with farms of own machines used for SPAMing, scaming, or organized crime would get a little attention.

The biggest problem I have had with DRM is that I rented Ratatouille [amazon.com] last year and was unable to play it on a standard DVD player, unable to play it on two different computer DVD players, and of course unable to make a copy (which I only tried because I couldn't play it.) The disk cause me to have to unplug and plug back in my Toshiba DVD player to even get it to eject, it totally locked up the player.

Re:Will they Listen? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863949)

The politicians won't listen. Their ears will be plugged with earplugs made out of the lobbying money from the media conglomerates. They won't see a problem because consumers continue to buy and buy regardless of DRM in 90% of cases, and corporations continue to make money. There's nothing wrong with the situation, so far as they can see. That 10% that won't buy DRM'd media? Pirates. All of them. We just haven't caught and convicted them yet.

The only way to shut down the DRM monster is mass boycott. And I mean MASS. I mean you have to get your parents that don't know shit about DRM protesting. You have to get soccer moms, the 14 year old kids vulnerable to media hype and willing to buy anything, the exec with his iPod crammed with DRM'd tunes... get them ALL educated and more importantly angry enough to stop buying for a couple years.

It's difficult enough to appear very close to impossible.

I demonstrated it to my mother when she wanted to play a CD for me. At the time I had no CD player other than my PC. Her CD refused to play. I looked it up online, sure enough it had copy protection preventing us from listening to her CD she paid for. I showed her how to circumvent the protection (a little marker on the outside track), and she became incensed. She's not purchased music for about 5 or 6 years now. She was disgusted that people were treating her, one of the most honest people (to a fault) that I know, like a common criminal even though she gave them money for their product.

Find a way to make people feel that way BEFORE it bites them, and you'll have what we need to win. Until then, good luck. So long as the money flows, they won't hear a damn thing we say.

Re:Will they Listen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864139)

I mean you have to get your parents that don't know shit about DRM protesting. You have to get soccer moms, the 14 year old kids vulnerable to media hype and willing to buy anything, the exec with his iPod crammed with DRM'd tunes...

The only way to get these people to listen is to deprive them of what they've already bought. Such as your mum.

Break Steam for a weekend, or some other such DRM system where licenses need to be checked every time the product is used.

That'll highlight DRM.

"Oh No!! Not... not The EFF!!" (shudder) (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864053)

Sometimes I think Slashdot invented the EFF.

It certainly goes out of it's way to keep it alive. Certainly it's efforts in this area are way disproportionate to the EFF's actual credibility in legal circles, where they are the Britney Spears in a boardroom full of King Crimsons.

DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863817)

The whole copyright agreement is to allow exclusive distribution rights to specific material or content for a limited amount of time, after which the works would be released to the public domain.

So far, the industry has managed to have copyright duration extended to unreasonable durations increasing the likelihood that after the copyright term expires, it will no longer be available for access or distribution. But that isn't harmful enough. Now they want to keep the works locked up in an encryption scheme that will likely make copyrighted materials extinct long before the copyright term expires as no one will be able to access it after the term expires.

This is a complete and total breech of the copyright agreement with the people of any given nation that respects copyright under law.

Re:DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863939)

well said. If I could mod you up I would!

Re:DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863987)

This is a complete and total breech of the copyright agreement with the people of any given nation that respects copyright under law.

I didn't know that copyright agreements had a breech. I knew they had teeth, but part of a gun seems quite aggressive to me. Well you learn a new thing every day....

still, fantastic username for misspellings, erroneus... oh even the spelling of your name is erroneous - I give up.

Re:DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864181)

"Release to the public domain" is not an inherent aspect of copyright. It's a common part of modern copyright laws nationally and internationally, true. But the history of copyright is to control publication: this was especially important when Gutenberg started printing Bibles, and the Catholic church became very, very upset.

Re:DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (2, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864433)

Actually it's both. The laws were put on the books to allow competition, and to allow those holding the copyrights to get a return investment on their design/art/idea, etc.

The idea was that the inventer would gain profit for a set period of time, after which the idea could be adopted by others. This had the net affect of reducing the price through competition, increasing quality, and innovating new ideas based off of the original.

The laws have been twisted so far from their original intent it's just rediculous.

Disney [wikipedia.org] is a great example of copyright gone wrong.

Every time their copyrights are about to expire they pump millions into congress to get them extended for another 20 years or so.

Re:DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (1)

coats (1068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864601)

In the United States, it is a part of the part of the law of the land, the constitution.

And when Steven Breyer on the left and Clarence Thomas on the right agree that current US copyright law is unConstitutional, then it means that Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who wrote the opinion) and those in the middle who agreed with her are despicable oath-breaking liars.

Re:DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864761)

"Release to the public domain" is not an inherent aspect of copyright.

Actually it is (or rather was) a major part of copyright law. As evidenced by "copyright libraries" which were intended to hold a copy of every book published.

It's a common part of modern copyright laws nationally and internationally, true.

All copyright laws are "modern" the concept only came into being a few hundred years ago

Re:DRM is essentially illegal in spirit (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864625)

This is a complete and total breech of the copyright agreement with the people of any given nation that respects copyright under law.

Perhpas now you understand why some people, even reasonable people, realizing the power of the political forces and money arrayed against them, have taken to guerilla warfare tactics ala the Rebellion vs the Evil Empire because that is the only way that they can realistically fight back. Personally, I just refuse to buy OR use their games or content. My time is too valuable to spend on 99% of their junk anway. I don't need them to get by and I need them even less during an economic recession when resources are scarce and cash is king. Richard Stallman was right about these media companies, DRM, and their book readers (ala the Amazon Kindle Swindle). Vote with your dollars and buy nothing of what EA, Sony, and the MAFIAA produce AND don't pirate them either. Show them what comes of greedy, sociopathic, and unacceptable behavior.

Not always bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863885)

So is this about all DRM or just stupid shit like SecuROM and Starforce, which only harm customers?

I don't mind Steam and Impulse, which I've come to view as services instead of DRM schemes. They provide unlimited installations on any computer, auto updates, community features, great weekend and holiday sales, offline mode, etc.

What a timely story (4, Interesting)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863897)

How convenient. I just bought a copy of Left4Dead brought it home and tried to install it only to discover the CD key that came with the game was already in use (which is odd since the game was in a sealed package). So I went off to valve support to try and get the situation remedied. Their support is anything but efficient or helpful. So then I went back to the store where I bought the game to get an exchange. Wouldn't you know it they have a policy of not having anything to do with games that have been opened. So for the time being thanks to copy protection I'm out $50 for a legitimate copy of a game. Add this story to the big board. Next time I want a game I'll just download the cracked version.

Re:What a timely story (4, Informative)

wc_paladin (989918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864031)

Valve will reset the key to your account if you follow the instructions on this page [steampowered.com]

Also, you should go back to the store you bought the game from, ask to see the manager, and tell him one of his employees is stealing CD keys from the games.

Re:What a timely story (2, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864035)

I had that happen with The Orange Box (sealed package with in-use key). A email to Valve and a copy of receipt was all it took to get a legit key. Took about 2 days.

Re:What a timely story (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864065)

Well at least in some countries they can't use a "opened no return policy". If the product can't be used for its intended purpose then they have to replace with "new" one that does or give a full refund.

I have done this in NZ with a game where the policy was "due to piracy concerns". But I made a fuss and pointed out the law and threatened to take it to the consumer groups and got my money back.

Re:What a timely story (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864411)

You got lucky that they caved, since you have no proof that it's not fit for purpose. To prove that, you'd have to prove that the account the key is currently bound to isn't yours. Have fun with that.

Re:What a timely story (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864477)

don't your local/state/region's buyer's remorse laws override said company's return policies?

Piracy ? (0)

artg (24127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863927)

Did the FSF really say "DRM does not prevent piracy," ?

I can understand why copyright holders might like to demonise copyright violation by comparing it to violent theft, but why does the FSF have to fall for and even perpetuate this junk ? Leave the word Piracy for nautical robbers. Call this copyright violation, even the more emotive term IP theft if you like. But it's NOT piracy.

Re:Piracy ? (1)

artg (24127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26863969)

s/FSF/EFF/ But you knew that, right ?

Re:Piracy ? (1)

jamesmcm (1354379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864291)

I highly doubt the FSF said that given their list of words to avoid. [gnu.org]
It was probably just paraphrased.

Just spinning your wheels (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864359)

I can understand why copyright holders might like to demonise copyright violation by comparing it to violent theft, but why does the FSF have to fall for and even perpetuate this junk?

The use of the word "piracy" to describe copyright infringement is as old as the 1709 Statute of Anne

--- when the Black Flag still flew over the Caribbean.

The geek is NEVER going to win this argument.

DRM is a necessary evil (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26863985)

Even though people hate it, companies which spend billions of dollars to generate new IP need to protect their assets, the same way a physical store uses anti-shoplifting tags.

The economy is a mess, and piracy is commonplace. This is why countries are hammering out treaties like ACTA.

I have yet to see DRM that interferes with legit users. The biggest complainers are pirates.

Re:DRM is a necessary evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864061)

why don't you, I don't know, read the other comments?

or better yet, why don't you go over to that free candy van that goes around in your neighborhood and ask for some

Re:DRM is a necessary evil (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864083)

You mistaken. The pirates are not affected at all. Because the DRM has been removed.

Re:DRM is a necessary evil (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864645)

I paid for Mech IV vengeance and I am still affected by DRM. I need the CD to start the game even with the no-CD patch (not sure why that is...) which is damned annoying, especially on the road. I got a laptop with a powerful 3d card specifically so I could play games while out in the world, otherwise some intel integrated would be fine. But the point is that someone who copied the game and is using the same patch (seems to be the latest, I also tried making my own with unsafediscx in a win95 vm which will run it) will still be impacted by DRM. They won't actually be prevented from playing the game, though, so I as a paying customer am still being hassled while their stated goal goes unaccomplished as you can get the patch pretty trivially.

Writing your own laws (4, Insightful)

obi (118631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864019)

I think the fundamental issue is that the DMCA and DRM allows the "industry" to write their own laws.

With the DMCA and the anti-circumvention provisions, the restriction code has the power of law - circumventing it is illegal.

So they can ignore whatever fair use privilege we used to enjoy, because fair use privileges aren't guaranteed rights: if you can't make use of it for whatever reason - tough; they're not required to provide you with tools or systems to give you what you want, even if it could be legal.

So this all boils down to the fact that we've lost all fair use in copyright law (maybe not in theory, but definitely in practice), and as such, copyright has become completely unbalanced in favour of the copyright owners.

The tradeoff was: a temporary monopoly on distribution with some fair use exceptions, in return for a rich public domain later on.

Not only have we lost fair use, we've also lost the public domain part later on. Because the DRM on copyrighted works that end up in the public domain isn't going to magically disappear.

All we're left with is "a monopoly on distribution" - that's not what copyright was supposed to be.

Re:Writing your own laws (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864507)

If it was only fair use I wouldn't care as much (the only fair use I can imagine the average joe using is backing up which many proper DRM implementations do for you, e.g. by tying your software purchases to your account and letting you redownload it from a central server if anything happens) but in many cases the DRM even interferes with the plain operation of the software you purchased or the computer you installed it on.

DRM has become a bad sore for consumers (3, Interesting)

WeeBit (961530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864057)

I do know of a couple that bought a Sony entertainment system. The system has the DRM built in. Now logic would tell you that as long as the DVD's are compliant with US rules as to format etc, then that DVD you put in the player should work. This is not the case though. They never know if the DVD will work in the DVD player. So half of their DVD movie collection wont play in the Player. They bought a second DVD player, and use this for those DVD's that wont play in the Sony.

Sony may argue stating that the movies wont play because they are pirated. They are not. They were DVD's bought from reputable stores.

This is how bad DRM has become. Consumers are at the mercy of manufacturers of DRM laden products.

Re:DRM has become a bad sore for consumers (2, Interesting)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864151)

This may in fact not be the fault of the sony DVD player. A lot of modern DVDs are not compliant to the DVD standard in the hope that they "break" computer ripping programs. Bad sectors is the basic one, all Disney disks i have seen have this. Most DVD players will work. But higher end ones tend not too. They are too fancy and use more of the DVD spec. Ironic really. My code free dvd player that cost the price of a few beers works really well.

I know everyone likes to hack sony with the rootkit issue (there are other distributes still doing this in Germany). But really they are no worse and no better than the rest. Well there is one difference, they make players and are also a distributer.

Re:DRM has become a bad sore for consumers (1)

WeeBit (961530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864551)

So in essences, it is still DRM causing a DVD not to play in a DRM laden player. Slap in a few bad sectors in the DVD, and call it DRM.

This does happen to mainly their Disney collection. But it has happen to some of their non Disney collection too.

 

Gamers and the EFF? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864175)

Seriously? Gamers and the EFF? OK, I understand that perception != reality here, but in the media this could easily read, "criminals and hippies against DRM.". I mean, honestly - gamers don't have the best reputation in the media. Oh, those guys that get hopped up on caffeine and drugs after a round of GTA and go shoot people?" The EFF - wait, those are those commie hippies right?

Again the reality may be far different, but I would think those are the LAST groups you'd want being our main representatives in the fight against DRM.

Good, but is it enough? (1)

jamesmcm (1354379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864315)

It's good to see people speaking out against DRM, but I'm not sure if it's enough to stop the huge plans at work to push through stricter and stronger DRM.

Read this short story [gnu.org] about the future with DRM. We are becoming frighteningly close to making it a reality.

Sony and it's rootkit (2, Interesting)

prndll (1425091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864361)

It is specifically for this reason that I haven't purchased a single Sony product since then (for the only exception of blank disks).

They spoke out (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26864729)

But the people that make the decisions didn't listen.

I've already given up! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26864777)

I gave up on PC gaming years ago... The last commercial game I purchased came with a Starforce infection. I still play older games from the "90s (and games from Id Software). I also enjoy independant games. The rest of the commercial game industry deserves to crash again (like in the "80s) for not treating their customers with a shred of respect. Ubisoft, EA: you will not be missed!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>