Pirates Crack Microsoft’s UWP Protection, Five Layers of DRM Defeated

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

DRM will always introduce the possibility that you may one day not be able to use the product you legally bought.

That can and has happened for lots of other things too, like old video codecs (did prevent usage of game) games used to use or EAX (didn't prevent usage of game), or forward or backwards support of an API i.e. DirectX.

 

There's actually a lot of things that can break future functionality of software so I wouldn't exactly point to DRM as being a class leader in that regard.

 

This comment applies to any external library that a game developer decides to use.

 

DRM just needs better industry standards, accepted code of practice or some form of regulation. No DRM frankly I don't think will ever be a thing and there is nothing inherently wrong with deciding to put DRM in to a game, DRM isn't the issue it's the implementation of it. At some point the arms race will end and good enough will take precedence, when that happens I have no idea.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

That can and has happened for lots of other things too, like old video codecs (did prevent usage of game) games used to use or EAX (didn't prevent usage of game), or forward or backwards support of an API i.e. DirectX.

 

There's actually a lot of things that can break future functionality of software so I wouldn't exactly point to DRM as being a class leader in that regard.

 

This comment applies to any external library that a game developer decides to use.

 

DRM just needs better industry standards, accepted code of practice or some form of regulation. No DRM frankly I don't think will ever be a thing and there is nothing inherently wrong with deciding to put DRM in to a game, DRM isn't the issue it's the implementation of it. At some point the arms race will end and good enough will take precedence, when that happens I have no idea.

^^ This is all I am saying.

 

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't matter who developed the DRM, the company that implemented it and didn't support the product with it in is the problem.

Once again, no.

The problem is that DRM are preventing paying customers from accessing the content they have paid for.

The solution would be to fix the DRM.

 

The lack of a workaround can never be the core issue in and of itself.

Like I said before with the broken hard drive.

 

The problem is that the hard drive is broken.

The solution is to replace it.

The core problem is NOT that I can't replaced the hard drive yet.

 

 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Some old games become obsolete because they are on a cd's which many pc's don't have drives for,  because they are written in code that you have to manufacture third party emulation software for (dosbox, or any of the ROM emulators) in order to play them.  We are not talking about the art being obsolete, but the technology they use. 

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

That can and has happened for lots of other things too, like old video codecs (did prevent usage of game) games used to use or EAX (didn't prevent usage of game), or forward or backwards support of an API i.e. DirectX.

 

There's actually a lot of things that can break future functionality of software so I wouldn't exactly point to DRM as being a class leader in the regard.

 

This comment applies to any external library that a game developer decides to use.

I think you two are comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, things like future hardware might not be compatible with current or older software, but that's a sideffect.

The entire purpose of DRM is to prevent software from operating under certain scenarios. Nobody releases a new processor just to block compatibility with things.

 

There is a very big difference between accidentally breaking compatibility, and deliberately restricting the use of something someone paid for.

 

 

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Also, As I said right back at the start of this, why do people keep going back to decades old sofware when defending pirates cracking today's DRM? If that's not illogical then I don;t know what is.

Because it is mostly an issue with older software, and if we can solve future issues today I think it is worth doing.

Not to mention that there are issues with current implementations of DRM as well. For example the fact that I can not view 4K Netflix on my desktop because I have an AMD processor, but I can watch it on my TV. I am paying for the content, so why not let me view it on whichever device I want to? That is a big issue.

 

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not shifting the blame at all.  You think the DRM is the issue, I think it is the company that implements it.

Are you by any chance a person who opposes gun laws? You certainly sound like one.

 

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That doesn't even make sense as an analogy let alone explain anything.

How does it not make sense.

I am saying DRM is the root cause of the problem. If it didn't exist then we would not have these problems I have mentioned.

What you're saying is that a lack of support (and by support you mean updates which circumvents the currently implemented DRM) is the issue.

The lack of a fix for an issue (as in, the lack of support) can never be the root issue, because in order for updates to be needed something has to be broken to begin with. That thing, which is broken, is often DRM. Therefore, the DRM is the issue.

 

Not replacing the broken hard drive is not the issue. The issue is the broken hard drive.

 

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Actually, I'm just pointing out that if people buy their games and software legitimately then DRM is not an issue Especially with the latest stuff.  Cracking all the latest titles is little more than piracy, and for what ever reason the idea that that is wrong upsets people.

And I have posted objective facts which proves that statement wrong.

There are several instances where people who has bought games, and even other media like I said with Netflix, are unable to access it.

 

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

"Might", that sounds like a concrete reason to promote piracy, they "might" block it in the future.

I have not once in this thread promoted piracy, so stop implying it.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So does many facets of technology, like discs becoming obsolete and OS's becoming so far removed from the originals that software was written for, not too mention hardware dropping legacy features needed for older programs. But DRM itself doesn't have to, it can be written in order to not be the issue. It can even be totally made redundant by a company if they wanted by simply releasing the serial keys.   Again it is the way it is implemented, not what it is.

Again, the difference between hardware being incompatible with older software, and DRM is that DRM has the sole purpose of preventing the consumers from doing what they want with the product they paid for.

It's apples and oranges.

[jagdtigger]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

At some point the arms race will end and good enough will take precedence, when that happens I have no idea.

Probably never, all i see from the industry is more and more draconian DRM which in turn creates more so called "pirates"(in reality many of them are frustrated customers who had enough from all the arbitrary limitation BS).

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think you two are comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, things like future hardware might not be compatible with current or older software, but that's a sideffect.

The entire purpose of DRM is to prevent software from operating under certain scenarios. Nobody releases a new processor just to block compatibility with things.

 

There is a very big difference between accidentally breaking compatibility, and deliberately restricting the use of something someone paid for.

Unless there is a required online server check-in then it's the same, both side effects of operating systems and software moving forward. If you have a game with DRM that only works with XP and a software codec that only works with XP the end result is the same, product unusable in a later OS. Both would still work till the end of time on XP or until hardware support for XP ended, you're going to blame DRM for that?

[JoostinOnline]

I'm confused.  Are people really suggesting that DRM will go away entirely?  That's like saying locks will go away because it's easy to pick most of them.

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, leadeater said:

DRM just needs better industry standards, accepted code of practice or some form of regulation. No DRM frankly I don't think will ever be a thing and there is nothing inherently wrong with deciding to put DRM in to a game, DRM isn't the issue it's the implementation of it. At some point the arms race will end and good enough will take precedence, when that happens I have no idea.

I would be OK with DRM being heavily regulated to ensure that they do not harm consumers too much. For example making it a law that any DRM tied to online activation has to be, or can legally be, disabled if those servers are no longer functioning for whatever reason.

 

I disagree with the statement that "there is nothing inherently wrong with putting DRM in a game" though. I think all DRM is unethical because all it does is punish paying customers by putting limitations on what they can and can't do with the product they paid for.

Like I said earlier, I can think of a single instance where DRM has actually benefited the consumers, nor can I think of a single instance where the removal of DRM wouldn't have made a product better.

Something with the sole intention of making a product worse for consumers is bad in my eyes.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Unless there is a required online server check-in then it's the same, both side effects of operating systems and software moving forward. If you have a game with DRM that only works with XP and a software codec that only works with XP the end result is the same, product unusable in a later OS. Both would still work till the end of time on XP or until hardware support for XP ended, you're going to blame DRM for that?

If removing the DRM made the game work then yes, I would blame the DRM. I would also say that despite not being legally right, it would be in my eyes morally right to circumvent it and enjoy the content you paid for.

 

This whole debate reminds me a lot of pro-gun people saying that "knives are dangerous too so therefore guns aren't a problem".

The difference between compatibility issues and DRM is that of knives vs guns. In one case it's a side effect, while the other one is specifically designed with it in mind.

[leadeater]

Put it this way, my car won't start without the Key-Fob and one day I will not be able to get a replacement and if I brake said Key-Fob I'm fucked, but at least I know while it works it's harder to steal my car. Death to immobilizers in cars? We don't get to choose to have them, they are forced on us.

 

Yes I know it's not directly comparable but no DRM is a fantasy and unnecessary, we're all pointing at implementation problems as justification to some actually valid concerns with DRM itself. If you talk about DRM as what it is, not what has been done, there are but a few aspects of it that have a negative impact on the customer but we are going to make this a completely one sided affair and ignore the requirements that publishers have? The problem is you need to bring impact in to the discussion to judge the DRM's implementation but again that's an implementation issue not a DRM issue.

 

A good example of good enough with low customer impact is DVD regions and copy protection. It has little impact to customers and also does little to stop the persistent, but stops Joe public from just burning a copy and giving it to a friend or importing a DVD from another region before it's supposed to be released.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I disagree with the statement that "there is nothing inherently wrong with putting DRM in a game" though. I think all DRM is unethical because all it does is punish paying customers by putting limitations on what they can and can't do with the product they paid for.

Like I said earlier, I can think of a single instance where DRM has actually benefited the consumers, nor can I think of a single instance where the removal of DRM wouldn't have made a product better.

Something with the sole intention of making a product worse for consumers is bad in my eyes.

So basically consumer first and only, and damn every other party involved? How is this a good position to have?

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Put it this way, my car won't start without the Key-Fob and one day I will not be able to get a replacement and if I brake said Key-Fob I'm fucked, but at least I know while it works it's harder to steal my car. Death to immobilizers in cars? We don't get to choose to have them, they are forced on us.

Well like you said, you can't compare that to DRM.

Your car key fob is a security feature intended to protect you, the customer.

DRM is a technology intended to harm you, the customer, by limiting what you can do with the product you bought.

 

A better comparison would be if you had to get your fingerprint registered to that specific car, to ensure that you would not lend the car to someone else or resell it. I would be against that practice too.

 

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

no DRM is a fantasy and unnecessary,

Not true.

Source: GOG.com

Source: Any open source software project

 

23 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If you talk about DRM as what it is, not what has been done, there are but a few aspects of it that have a negative impact on the customer but we are going to make this a completely one sided affair and ignore the requirements that publishers have?

The thing is that DRM is, at best, a necessary evil. It's still evil though, which was designed with the sole purpose of restricting customers who obtained your product legally.

I am not going to say that we should ban all DRM or whatever it seems like you people think I am saying, but what I am saying is that DRM is a horrible thing. 

 

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The problem is you need to bring impact in to the discussion to judge the DRM's implementation but again that's an implementation issue not a DRM issue.

Totally agree that you need to bring impact in to the discussion. I have never said that all DRM is equally bad. What I have said is that all DRM is bad for consumers (which it is), but just how bad something is depends on the specific implementation.

For example Spore at first only allowed for 3 installations, but was later changed to 5 installations. Clearly being able to reinstall the game 5 times is better for consumers than being limited to 3 times. There is nothing subjective about that. But there is nothing subjective about saying not having any limit would make the product even better for consumers.

 

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

A good example of good enough with low customer impact is DVD regions and copy protection. It has little impact to customers and also does little to stop the persistent, but stops Joe public from just burning a copy and giving it to a friend or importing a DVD from another region before it's supposed to be released.

Region locks actually has a massive impact on me.

For DVDs Europe and Japan share the same region so importing anime was not an issue.

With blurays Japan is in region A and Europe is in region B. So I am no longer able to legally obtain some shows I would like to own on bluray.

 

But I digress. I agree that some DRMs have a lower impact than others. never argued against that.

 

 

32 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So basically consumer first and only, and damn every other party involved? How is this a good position to have?

The thing is that DRM harms consumers, and it doesn't help companies either for things like games.

So if it harms the buyer, and doesn't help the seller, why do we still have it, and why do some people still defend it?

Most DRM today serves for the sole purpose of locking users into different walled gardens where they can be controlled, and I think that's wrong.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

DRM is a technology intended to harm you, the customer, by limiting what you can do with the product you bought.

Designed to protect a product. Pure opinion on designed to harm the customer, cause and intent issue.

 

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not true.

Source: GOG.com

Source: Any open source software project

Because that's completely applicable in all situations to all products forever? Pass the crystal ball?

 

Said it before GOG and 90%+ of the games on there are not comparable to the risk profile of the latest COD or Battlefield and most games on their are old titles well past their release date and expected return on investment period.

 

As for open source, yea that has it's place just like closed source software does, also shock horror what about open source DRM?

 

24 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The thing is that DRM harms consumers, and it doesn't help companies either for things like games.

Now you are going to accuse me of dismissing that report but I'm sorry that is not nearly enough research in to the matter and only addresses the now, if they think they can accurately predict the outcome of removing DRM over a significant period of time then I'd say their whole report is worthless and it shows they are not capable of making sane predictions of outcomes.

 

Also a key part in the assessment was both illegal downloading of games and streaming of game play. Sure 100% illegal streaming of game play is going to have a positive impact on game awareness and sales. In fact in the study more people admitted to illegal streaming of games than illegal downloading of them

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Designed to protect a product. Pure opinion on designed to harm the customer, cause and intent issue.

It is not an opinion that it is designed to limiting what you can do with the product you bought.

 

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because that's completely applicable in all situations to all products forever? Pass the crystal ball?

Why are you adding in "all products forever" to this? of course I can't know what the future has in store but as it stands right now I see no reason why any of the current categories we have would need more than very basic DRM.

The music industry gave up on DRM a long time ago (at least for music you buy). I don't see why the same couldn't happen for movies.

And the study shows that DRM doesn't help for games either, on top of examples like The Witcher 3 which was incredibly successful despite lacking DRM on PC.

 

Of course I can't prove that DRM would not have a major impact on the profitability of companies, but neither can you prove that it would.

So what we are stuck with are looking at facts. Facts like how a lot of DRM does cause major issues for legitimate customers.

 

You might not remember how I joined this conversation but let me remind you. I replied to mr moose when he claimed that the only people who have issues with DRM are those who are pirates. Then he also said that DRM is not a problem but a lack of support is, which is completely illogical like I have explained several times now. The root issue is the DRM. The DRM is what needs to be fixed. Support can fix the issues some DRM has, but that does not mean the DRM isn't the culprit.

 

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

As for open source, yea that has it's place just like closed source software does, also shock horror what about open source DRM?

I am not aware of any open source project using open source DRM.

I know that open source DRM exists but as far as I know it has only ever been implemented in closed source products.

 

You are missing my point though. My point was that it is entirely possible to make a product which does not have DRM.

 

The pro-DRM side always seem to believe that it is something that is absolutely necessary, but never has any facts to back that up with. The anti-DRM side however can come with example after example after example which are very successful without needing DRM.

I am not saying that the issue is that simple, but I think it is worth acknowledging that the pro-DRM side are arguing 100% from uncertainty and doubt, rather than facts. Not saying that's incorrect to do either, because nobody knows what impacts removing all DRM would have, but I don't think it is logical to defend something that is harmful (like I said, DRM makes a product worse 100% of the times) purely based on uncertainty.

[leadeater]

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is not an opinion that it is designed to limiting what you can do with the product you bought.

It's opinion that this is the design purpose and intent of the software, to harm the customers. You're still equating effect to intent, I'm fairly sure the design goals of companies marketing and designing DRM are looking to provide protection for their customers, game publishers. You won't find anything on the project scope along the lines of "insure harm to customers is achieved".

 

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And the study shows that DRM doesn't help for games either, on top of examples like The Witcher 3 which was incredibly successful despite lacking DRM on PC.

But more studies are required, taking one study and saying what it shows is the true and actual case is not how it works otherwise the anti-climate change studies are just as correct as the overwhelming majority of climate change studies. To actually get to a conclusive and accepted result you have to be able to reproduce it, respond to critiques and correlate with other studies on the subject.

 

Until we get past the one study issue and have multiple looking from different aspects we have no way to validate anything.

 

As for The Witcher 3, similar issue with one example doesn't show a lot. But you can add pretty much every Stardock game to your list of DRM free games, but those aren't exactly high sale volume games (and use the very basic steam DRM plus require a registered and confirmed account for online play).

 

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Why are you adding in "all products forever" to this? of course I can't know what the future has in store but as it stands right now I see no reason why any of the current categories we have would need more than very basic DRM.

Which is something I've said in a different thread. The problem is you, and many others are of the position that DRM is bad and can only be bad and have a consumer only focus. Consumer protection is great and should take precedence but mindfulness of keeping the industry and quality alive is also of high importance. This is why the option of product protection should always be there and resistance to it should be much more nuanced than "It's all bad, get rid of it all".

 

There's only so many crappy low budget Indy games I'm willing to play and if that is the unintended result of the no DRM stance then I'm against it. I have no evidence that this would happen but for my assessment of the risk, long term such actions could be highly damaging to the higher budget games.

 

51 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You might not remember how I joined this conversation but let me remind you. I replied to mr moose when he claimed that the only people who have issues with DRM are those who are pirates. Then he also said that DRM is not a problem but a lack of support is, which is completely illogical like I have explained several times now. The root issue is the DRM. The DRM is what needs to be fixed. Support can fix the issues some DRM has, but that does not mean the DRM isn't the culprit.

I do remember, I also agree DRM is not the issue. Like I said implementation is the problem, as above you've been saying DRM itself is bad and only has one purpose and that is to harm customers which is something I do not agree with nor is that likely as to the purpose of why it's being used.

[Thaldor]

I, for one, blame the whole game industry for DRM. Companies that make DRMs are just leeches, who sell unsustainable products to game companies who are asshats for using those unsustainable products and gamers are retards buying games and so supporting those game companies that use those unsustainable products.

 

As @leadeater I will use a lock as an example for why DRM is always unsustainable. Company A makes locks for safes that are quite popular because they are extremely hard to pick and indestructible. As it is company A has patent to those locks and no one else can legally make keys for them and people being people, keys get lost and need replacements and all is going fine, until one day. For some reason company A goes bankrupt and so can no longer make spare keys, so sooner or later every lock will be peranently locked. Good thing we have a thing called patents and quite soon the patent of the lock will be forfeit so chienese company B can start legally make blank keys for the locks and locksmiths around the world can legally turn those blanks into working keys for their customers who can continue using their safes. So, in locks it's sustainable because in the end the consumers don't need to rely on the original company to keep manufacturing the keys and in the future it's legal to anyone to make keys for those locks.

 

But in gaming industry and software industry also this is not the case. If support for a product stops and the lock is still engaged, no one can legally make a key for that lock, ever (and yes, in my opinion crack is another key to the lock known as DRM). As with monetization at the moment, I would love to see some jurisdiction placed on DRM in games, game industry has gone too long without legal guidance and while that would hurt it, it's totally caused by game industry not self regulating and letting some asshats roam free without shame. It wouldn't be that bad to force companies to patent their DRMs on version basis (like every major update to the DRM should be patented) and when that patent runs out it's source code would be public domain (even better if the companies were forced to release cracks by themselves) and anyone can make what ever they want with it including cracking it legally. Some probably think that this would make things unsecure, but patents last for years (in Finland I remember around 20 years max) and by that time the games using that DRM have made their profits and no one really cares about them anymore. And while we are at it, it would also be extremely good if companies were forced to release server packages at the end of the support time, so games that heavily rely on servers could survive as fan projects and those who still want to play them can, at their own expense, host their own servers to play the game.

 

Patent law probably would be the best case, but making something like a side to the copyright law for software in common being under special law that would force companies to register and maintain (as in yearly pays) that registering to have the priviledge of having DRM that is enforced by law. Few thousand euros to register and couple thousand per year to maintain it, can't hurt any company making DRMs while their main customers pour millions even tens of millions to market their game.

 

Not all companies are bad, but the truth is that few asshats ruin the fun for everyone.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

It wouldn't be that bad to force companies to patent their DRMs on version basis (like every major update to the DRM should be patented) and when that patent runs out it's source code would be public domain (even better if the companies were forced to release cracks by themselves) and anyone can make what ever they want with it including cracking it legally. Some probably think that this would make things unsecure, but patents last for years (in Finland I remember around 20 years max) and by that time the games using that DRM have made their profits and no one really cares about them anymore.

Could also put a nullification clause in, like once unsupported patent protection is removed.

 

Potentially doesn't fully address the compatibility issue though. Like what if the DRM doesn't work with Windows 11, it's not the current version of DRM in use on the game that does work on Windows 11 but the patent is still active for the older version.

 

Really need a way of updating DRM independent of the game developer to ensure you are able to run a supported version, a bit like Java Run Time and the actual Java application.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's opinion that this is the design purpose and intent of the software, to harm the customers. You're still equating effect to intent, I'm fairly sure the design goals of companies marketing and designing DRM are looking to provide protection for their customers, game publishers. You won't find in anything on the project scope along the lines of "insure harm to customers is achieved".

The intention is in fact to limit what customers can do with the product they have bought. The effect they hope to achieve by implementing these limitations is reduced piracy. Reducing piracy is the effect they hope to achieve, and the way they choose to do that is by limit what customers can do.

 

The intended effect is reducing piracy (and most likely locking consumers into walled gardens).

The way they go about achieving this is by designing technologies which restricts users.

 

"Limiting what customers can do with their product" is just a nicer way of saying "Insure harm to customers is achieved".

 

 

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But more studies are required, taking one study and saying what it shows is the true and actual case is not how it works otherwise the anti-climate change studies are just as correct as the overwhelming majority of climate change studies. To actually get to a conclusive and accepted result you have to be able to reproduce it, respond to critiques and correlate with other studies on the subject.

 

Until we get past the one study issue and have multiple looking from different aspects we have no way to validate anything.

There have been several studies which all come to the same conclusions, piracy has no noticeable impact on sales.

Here is one about books, which concludes that if there is any effect at all, the positive and negative effects cancels each other out.

 

Here is one about music, which concludes that "our results suggest that Internet users do not view illegal downloads a substitute to legal digital music" and that "the majority of the music that is consumed illegal by the individuals in our sample would not have been purchased if illegal downloading websites were not available to them".

 

Here is another one about music which says people who pirate music also spends more money than the average person on music. Please note that this is not the same study as this other one who also found pirates to be more likely (10 times more likely) to buy music than those who don't pirate.

 

The EU one I linked earlier included games.

 

Here is one about movie piracy which concluded that "One consistent result is that file sharing arrivals shortly before the theatrical opening have a modest positive effect on box office revenue" and according to a comment from the author of the paper "My best guess estimate is that file sharing reduced the first month box office by $200 million over 2003-2009, which is only three tenths of a percent of what movies actually earned. I am unable to reject the hypothesis that there is no impact at all of file-sharing on revenues".

In fact, if those numbers are correct the MPAA actually spends more money trying to combat piracy, than piracy actually costs them. That is to say, there is a strong argument to be made that they would make MORE money if they stopped trying to prevent piracy. Because that's something to take into consideration too. DRM is by no means free. It costs money to implement.

 

I can keep going but I think you get the point. It's not just one study suggesting this. There are many. It is impossible to predict the future so we will probably never know what a DRM-free world will look like, but there is a large amount of evidence which suggests that it would not be that much different in terms of profit for companies that currently use it though.

[leadeater]

46 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The intention is in fact to limit what customers can do with the product they have bought. The effect they hope to achieve by implementing these limitations is reduced piracy. Reducing piracy is the effect they hope to achieve, and the way they choose to do that is by limit what customers can do.

 

The intended effect is reducing piracy (and most likely locking consumers into walled gardens).

The way they go about achieving this is by designing technologies which restricts users.

 

"Limiting what customers can do with their product" is just a nicer way of saying "Insure harm to customers is achieved".

Thing is like mine, your bias is influencing your reasoning on that.

 

The intention and the requirements set out by game publishers is to prevent people from illegally distributing and using illegally obtained software, that is different from restricting what users can do with the product to these set ways. It ends up having that effect, but it might not.

 

How and why they come up with DRM features and implement them is quite important to this. They aren't sitting around specifying in what ways they want end users to use the product (the DRM makers) but rather coming up with techniques to prevent analysis of the software and development of cracks.

 

Do I think people like Denuvo are wasting their time and money, yea sure of course they are. They aren't preventing the persistent people and they aren't doing any better of a job for the much more casual person not dead set on acquiring the game than a simple DRM like native Steam does.

 

Also I probably wouldn't use the music industry since the entire landscape changed, with the rise of pretty much all music legally available on youtube and the rise of internet connected devices pirating music just really isn't required which was pointed out in one of those studies. 90's music industry was a very different landscape. Movie industry would closer align, although I will say for early box office the only online copies of movies are horrible cam footage and there is no way in hell I'd watch that crap (people do though wtf).

 

Just going to need more studies on game piracy before I'll back the DRM is pointless bandwagon.

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'm confused.  Are people really suggesting that DRM will go away entirely?  That's like saying locks will go away because it's easy to pick most of them.

The difference being that locks are designed to keep people out of something that doesn't belong to them.  DRM is meant to restrict access to something you've already paid for.

 

Think of it like this:

You've just bought a car, which comes with a key to control access.  If the car had DRM on it, it would have to connect to a server before granting you access, just to make sure you're authorized to use the car.  It's not enough to have the key, you have to prove you're the owner before it will let you drive.  And if there's something wrong with the servers - even if you're the authorized owner - you can't drive the car that you've paid for.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This whole debate reminds me a lot of pro-gun people saying that "knives are dangerous too so therefore guns aren't a problem".

You really don't want to start this argument.  You will lose, and then the mods will delete the posts anyway and/or lock the thread.  Let it go.

[JoostinOnline]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

The difference being that locks are designed to keep people out of something that doesn't belong to them.  DRM is meant to restrict access to something you've already paid for.

That's not really true.  DRM doesn't necessarily affect a legitimate user in any way.  Some is overzealous and hurts performance, but a lot of it just involves one time activation via Internet or such.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Thing is like mine, your bias is influencing your reasoning on that.

Maybe I am blinded by my bias, but I really don't look at it that way.

The way I see it, I only look at what are objective facts. There is next to no evidence that DRM actually does anything, while there are several examples I have given in this thread where it is harmful to consumers, and studies I have linked (plus many more) suggests that piracy is not an issue at all and can in many cases actually be helpful for sales.

 

Since the only arguments for DRM are based on assumptions, while the arguments against DRM are based on facts, I can't help but lean towards the anti-DRM side.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

The intention and the requirements set out by game publishers is to prevent people from illegally distributing and using illegally obtained software, that is different from restricting what users can do with the product to these set ways. It ends up having that effect, but it might not.

I am not sure about game publishers, but that is 100% not true for other types of DRM protected media. For example DVD DRM's main purpose is not to protect the content from piracy, it is to impose restrictions on the DVD player makers. For example requiring them to not allow you to skip the ads.

I think I've already linked you this but I'll do it again so that others can see it.

This is from Ian Hickson. He is the author of the HTML 5 specifications, one of the deal developers of CSS, and many other achievements. He is currently employed by Google to work with organizations such as WHATWG to develop web standards.

Spoiler

Discussions about DRM often land on the fundamental problem with DRM: that it doesn't work, or worse, that it is in fact mathematically impossible to make it work. The argument goes as follows:

1. The purpose of DRM is to prevent people from copying content while allowing people to view that content,

2. You can't hide something from someone while showing it to them,

3. And in any case widespread copyright violations (e.g. movies on file sharing sites) often come from sources that aren't encrypted in the first place, e.g. leaks from studios.

It turns out that this argument is fundamentally flawed. Usually the arguments from pro-DRM people are that #2 and #3 are false. But no, those are true. The problem is #1 is false.

The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations.

The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.

Content providers have leverage against content distributors, because distributors can't legally distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage content producers had, what would happen is that users would obtain their content from those content distributors, and then use third-party content playback systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner they wanted.

Here are some examples:

A. Paramount make a movie. A DVD store buys the rights to distribute this movie from Paramount, and sells DVDs. You buy the DVD, and want to play it. Paramount want you to sit through some ads, so they tell the DVD store to put some ads on the DVD labeled as "unskippable".

Without DRM, you take the DVD and stick it into a DVD player that ignores "unskippable" labels, and jump straight to the movie.

With DRM, there is no licensed player that can do this, because to create the player you need to get permission from Paramount -- or rather, a licensing agent created and supported by content companies, DVD-CCA -- otherwise, you are violating some set of patents, anti-circumvention laws, or both.

B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie from Columbia, and sells access to the bits of the movie to users online. You get a Netflix subscription. Columbia want you to pay more if you want to watch it simultaneously on your TV and your phone, so they require that Netflix prevent you from doing this.

Now. You are watching the movie upstairs with your family, and you hear your cat meowing at the door downstairs.

Without DRM, you don't have to use Netflix's software, so maybe just pass the feed to some multiplexing software, which means that you can just pick up your phone, tell it to stream the same movie, continue watching it while you walk downstairs to open the door for the cat, come back upstairs, and turn your phone off, and nobody else has been inconvenienced and you haven't missed anything.

With DRM, you have to use Netflix's software, so you have to play by their rules. There is no licensed software that will let you multiplex the stream. You could watch it on your phone, but then your family misses out. They could keep watching, but then you miss out. Nobody is allowed to write software that does anything Columbia don't want you to do. Columbia want the option to charge you more when you go to let your cat in, even if they don't actually make it possible yet.

C. Fox make a movie. Apple buys the rights to sell it on iTunes. You buy it from iTunes. You want to watch it on your phone. Fox want you to buy the movie again if you use anything not made by Apple.

Without DRM, you just transfer it to your phone and watch it, since the player on any phone, whether made by Apple or anyone else, can read the video file.

With DRM, only Apple can provide a licensed player for the file. If you're using any phone other than an iPhone, you cannot watch it, because nobody else has been allowed to write software that decrypts the media files sold by Apple.

In all three cases, nobody has been stopped from violating a copyright. All three movies are probably available on file sharing sites. The only people who are stopped from doing anything are the player providers -- they are forced to provide a user experience that, rather than being optimised for the users, puts potential future revenues first (forcing people to play ads, keeping the door open to charging more for more features later, building artificial obsolescence into content so that if you change ecosystem, you have to purchase the content again).

Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM is working really well in the video and book space. Sure, the DRM systems have all been broken, but that doesn't matter to the DRM proponents. Licensed DVD players still enforce the restrictions. Mass market providers can't create unlicensed DVD players, so they remain a black or gray market curiosity. DRM failed in the music space not because DRM is doomed, but because the content providers sold their digital content without DRM, and thus enabled all kinds of players they didn't expect (such as "MP3" players). Had CDs been encrypted, iPods would not have been able to read their content, because the content providers would have been able to use their DRM contracts as leverage to prevent it.

DRM's purpose is to give content providers control over software and hardware providers, and it is satisfying that purpose well.

As a corollary to this, look at the companies who are pushing for DRM. Of the ones who would have to implement the DRM, they are all companies over which the content providers already, without DRM, have leverage: the companies that both license content from the content providers and create software or hardware players. Because they license content, the content providers already have leverage against them: they can essentially require them to be pro-DRM if they want the content. The people against the DRM are the users, and the player creators who don't license content. In other words, the people over whom the content producers have no leverage.

 

Like he said, the purpose of DRM is not to prevent piracy. At least not for non-game media such as music or video. It is about taking control away from others.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

How and why they come up with DRM features and implement them is quite important to this. They aren't sitting around specifying in what ways they want end users to use the product (the DRM makers) but rather coming up with techniques to prevent analysis of the software and development of cracks.

If you really think that then you must not have thought about this very much.

I am not sure if you have noticed, but these days a lot of products tries to lock you into an ecosystem. Do you think it's a coincident that the DRM in Spotify doesn't allow you to store songs for offline listening unless you pay? Of course not, and that has absolutely nothing to do with preventing piracy.

Do you think it's a side effect that you need a Ubisoft account as well as UPlay to play something you have bought on Steam? Or do you think they designed it that way to increase the amount of people who are one click away from their store?

 

There are several DRMs these days which serve the sole purpose of locking people into their ecosystems. They are not there to combat piracy in many cases, just like the DVD protection isn't there to protect from piracy.

 

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Just going to need more studies on game piracy before I'll back the DRM is pointless bandwagon.

I think that's the wrong way of looking at things, because the burden of proof should be on the ones claiming that DRM is necessary, not the ones questioning its.

The problem is that there are very few good studies about this. As explained in this study, the amount of actual information regarding this issue is often extremely biased (because it comes from the developers themselves) or flawed (like only taking a sample just after release and using that peak number to estimate projected effects). What it did conclude however is that the piracy threat is overblown. A handful of games pirated in a handful of countries is the vast majority of gaming piracy.

 

That's why I have mostly posted studies about books, music and movies (since you dismissed one of the few legitimate game related studies).

 

Anyway, like I said earlier I hold the position I have because I have looked at the arguments from both sides, dismissed anything that's just speculation or subjective feelings, and looked at what's left. As it stands, there are next to no objective facts or studies which stats that piracy is an issue, or even that DRM helps prevent piracy.

If there is no evidence for it then I won't believe in it. It's as simple as that.

[Cole5]

Yay for DRM dying, Shame about UWP, all the steam bots trying to kill it when it runs quite nicely 

[Whiskers]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is from Ian Hickson. He is the author of the HTML 5 specifications, one of the deal developers of CSS, and many other achievements. He is currently employed by Google to work with organizations such as WHATWG to develop web standards.

  Reveal hidden contents

Discussions about DRM often land on the fundamental problem with DRM: that it doesn't work, or worse, that it is in fact mathematically impossible to make it work. The argument goes as follows:

1. The purpose of DRM is to prevent people from copying content while allowing people to view that content,

2. You can't hide something from someone while showing it to them,

3. And in any case widespread copyright violations (e.g. movies on file sharing sites) often come from sources that aren't encrypted in the first place, e.g. leaks from studios.

It turns out that this argument is fundamentally flawed. Usually the arguments from pro-DRM people are that #2 and #3 are false. But no, those are true. The problem is #1 is false.

The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations.

The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.

Content providers have leverage against content distributors, because distributors can't legally distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage content producers had, what would happen is that users would obtain their content from those content distributors, and then use third-party content playback systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner they wanted.

Here are some examples:

A. Paramount make a movie. A DVD store buys the rights to distribute this movie from Paramount, and sells DVDs. You buy the DVD, and want to play it. Paramount want you to sit through some ads, so they tell the DVD store to put some ads on the DVD labeled as "unskippable".

Without DRM, you take the DVD and stick it into a DVD player that ignores "unskippable" labels, and jump straight to the movie.

With DRM, there is no licensed player that can do this, because to create the player you need to get permission from Paramount -- or rather, a licensing agent created and supported by content companies, DVD-CCA -- otherwise, you are violating some set of patents, anti-circumvention laws, or both.

B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie from Columbia, and sells access to the bits of the movie to users online. You get a Netflix subscription. Columbia want you to pay more if you want to watch it simultaneously on your TV and your phone, so they require that Netflix prevent you from doing this.

Now. You are watching the movie upstairs with your family, and you hear your cat meowing at the door downstairs.

Without DRM, you don't have to use Netflix's software, so maybe just pass the feed to some multiplexing software, which means that you can just pick up your phone, tell it to stream the same movie, continue watching it while you walk downstairs to open the door for the cat, come back upstairs, and turn your phone off, and nobody else has been inconvenienced and you haven't missed anything.

With DRM, you have to use Netflix's software, so you have to play by their rules. There is no licensed software that will let you multiplex the stream. You could watch it on your phone, but then your family misses out. They could keep watching, but then you miss out. Nobody is allowed to write software that does anything Columbia don't want you to do. Columbia want the option to charge you more when you go to let your cat in, even if they don't actually make it possible yet.

C. Fox make a movie. Apple buys the rights to sell it on iTunes. You buy it from iTunes. You want to watch it on your phone. Fox want you to buy the movie again if you use anything not made by Apple.

Without DRM, you just transfer it to your phone and watch it, since the player on any phone, whether made by Apple or anyone else, can read the video file.

With DRM, only Apple can provide a licensed player for the file. If you're using any phone other than an iPhone, you cannot watch it, because nobody else has been allowed to write software that decrypts the media files sold by Apple.

In all three cases, nobody has been stopped from violating a copyright. All three movies are probably available on file sharing sites. The only people who are stopped from doing anything are the player providers -- they are forced to provide a user experience that, rather than being optimised for the users, puts potential future revenues first (forcing people to play ads, keeping the door open to charging more for more features later, building artificial obsolescence into content so that if you change ecosystem, you have to purchase the content again).

Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM is working really well in the video and book space. Sure, the DRM systems have all been broken, but that doesn't matter to the DRM proponents. Licensed DVD players still enforce the restrictions. Mass market providers can't create unlicensed DVD players, so they remain a black or gray market curiosity. DRM failed in the music space not because DRM is doomed, but because the content providers sold their digital content without DRM, and thus enabled all kinds of players they didn't expect (such as "MP3" players). Had CDs been encrypted, iPods would not have been able to read their content, because the content providers would have been able to use their DRM contracts as leverage to prevent it.

DRM's purpose is to give content providers control over software and hardware providers, and it is satisfying that purpose well.

As a corollary to this, look at the companies who are pushing for DRM. Of the ones who would have to implement the DRM, they are all companies over which the content providers already, without DRM, have leverage: the companies that both license content from the content providers and create software or hardware players. Because they license content, the content providers already have leverage against them: they can essentially require them to be pro-DRM if they want the content. The people against the DRM are the users, and the player creators who don't license content. In other words, the people over whom the content producers have no leverage.

 

That was a very interesting read, thanks for posting it. I fully agree with him.

 

I'd love to see a day where DRM dies entirely. Sure, some DRM implementations aren't particularly intrusive - but that's not the issue. The prevalence of DRM in general allows for the presence of DRM which is intrusive, as much of it is. And even if all DRM weren't intrusive, it's still unnecessary. As you've said before in this thread it doesn't benefit the content creators in terms of increasing the money they get, and it certainly doesn't improve the experience for consumers. It's just a hacky way of trying to retain control over the content, which I'm entirely opposed to. I'm someone who believes that if a person purchases something they should be free to use it as they see fit.

 

DHCP is a perfect example. It is conceptually broken, as it hasn't prevented the piracy of modern content to any extent - all it has achieved is preventing those who have legally purchased 4K media from being able to view it on the vast majority of devices out there. My computer was built in 2013 and is still a powerful machine which I feel no need to upgrade. It is easily capable of playing back high bitrate 4K video... yet I can't, because there's an arbitrary copyright protection mechanism preventing me from being able to do so.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Once again, no.

The problem is that DRM are preventing paying customers from accessing the content they have paid for.

The solution would be to fix the DRM.

How can you say it's the DRM and at the same time acknowledge that it could be fixed if the company did something about it?   DRM is not the problem, implementation is.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The lack of a workaround can never be the core issue in and of itself.

Like I said before with the broken hard drive.

It's not that lack of a work around is not the cause, the cause of the issue is the company that implemented it in such a way that there is no work around without cracking DRM.  So again it is the company, not the software.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The problem is that the hard drive is broken.

The solution is to replace it.

The core problem is NOT that I can't replaced the hard drive yet.

Still makes no sense as an analogy.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

I think you two are comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, things like future hardware might not be compatible with current or older software, but that's a sideffect.

The entire purpose of DRM is to prevent software from operating under certain scenarios. Nobody releases a new processor just to block compatibility with things.

No, it's definitely apples to apples.   We are not using terms like "might" or "future"  Only looking at current and past facts.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There is a very big difference between accidentally breaking compatibility, and deliberately restricting the use of something someone paid for.

You said it right their "deliberately", meaning it was a move made by someone or a group of someones.  The problem being implementation.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Because it is mostly an issue with older software, and if we can solve future issues today I think it is worth doing.

You don't know if it is going to be a future problem.  You are making assumptions about the future of current games and using that as an argument to break or remove DRM while a game isn't even hindered by it.  Most games today are digital downloads, we are not going to have the cd issue again.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not to mention that there are issues with current implementations of DRM as well. For example the fact that I can not view 4K Netflix on my desktop because I have an AMD processor, but I can watch it on my TV. I am paying for the content, so why not let me view it on whichever device I want to? That is a big issue.

Again, that is implementation not the DRM itself.  You don't like it petition.  Taking what someone won't sell you does not further your cause claiming it a moral

injustice.

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not replacing the broken hard drive is not the issue. The issue is the broken hard drive.

 

There you go again, your analogy would only make sense if the DRM was actually broken, but it's not, it's working exactly as intended and that is the problem. Your issue here seems blindingly aimed fair at DRM when the issue is the people using it.    There are plenty of ways DRM can be implemented so the product can still be used after servers are turned off or after CD drives become obsolete.  But they didn't.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I have not once in this thread promoted piracy, so stop implying it.

The problem here is circumventing DRM on new software is predominately for piracy,  if you support that you are by extension supporting piracy. You may not be promoting it but you are supporting it. Even giving reasons to justify it (not very good ones, but reasons all the same).

 

If you said "I support the removal of DRM from all software that can be shown to prevent a legitimate game from being played" you would have no argument from me. But when you try to claim that all DRM is the issue and must go from everything including current games and software, then you have to try a little harder than talking about broken hard drives and making assumptions about the future.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

That's not really true.  DRM doesn't necessarily affect a legitimate user in any way.  Some is overzealous and hurts performance, but a lot of it just involves one time activation via Internet or such.

Whether it's 1 time or 100 times, the end result is that it's restricting access to material you paid for until you prove you are who you say you are.  Whether you notice it or not doesn't make any of what I said false.  My analogy was simply to present an example of when it fails to work properly and interferes with the legitimate customer's experience.

 

I'm not one who rails against all forms of DRM.  I'm fine with Steam and some others, because they're virtually invisible to me.

 

Would I prefer they were unnecessary and/or went away?  Yes.  Do I demand they go away?  No, because I'm not in any position to make such demands.