DRM Tolerance

Sterf said:

Patches are as easily cracked as anything else, though.

Click to expand...

Well, cracking that "type" of DRM requires re-releasing the entire game as the newly patched package. Difficult? No. More time-consuming than releasing a "nocd" executable that will forever work with that version of the game? Slightly yes.

It's really just a matter of a few extra straws on the camel's back. The lower a game's popularity, the lesser the chance that someone will release a certain version of that game. An executable, however, can simply be uploading to one of 982749874 sites dedicated to that sort of thing, and be left there for the world to download at their leisure.

Let's say I have Civ 5. I download an executable for version 1.0. I'm all set. Let's say the game gets patched. I download the executable for version 1.1. I'm once again ready to rock. No hassles, no frustration (unless the executable hasn't been released in a timely fashion - unlikely considering the popularity of the game).

Let's say that the DRM method requires an "account" using a valid serial to download patches. Let's also say that said patches make major changes and additions to the game. At release, I have to get the base game, with version 1.0. No problem. One patch later, I would have to download a cracked version of 1.1. Meaning the ENTIRE game, all over again. Then you have various virus issues, corrupted files, etc.

Sure, someone -could- release a custom archive with the 1.1 patch ready to install "serial" free, but it's unlikely.

Other possibilities include things like Tages, FADE, etc. These are annoying, but ultimately futile. Someone will just nuke those protections the same as a CD check, it just takes more time and annoyance while the kinks in the bypass are being worked on.

I would say that the ultimate solution is to require a login EVERY time the game is launched, but this didn't work for several games over the past year, and it wouldn't work here. As long as DRM is based on code, someone will take apart that code, remove the offending obstacles, and re-release a defenseless piece of software.

Commander Bello said:

If such registration would restrict me from selling my copy of the game later, or would be needed for later services like patches, activation of add-ons and whatnotever, I wouldn't do so.

Click to expand...

And that's what Steam does (among many other things), violating the first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine). I assembled a new computer (all completely new parts, including a fresh from the store hard drive) for my brother a few months ago, and he's been reinstalling various games back on that he plays. One of the ones he *didn't* reinstall was Team Fortress 2. I'd never played it so I asked if he was planning to use it anymore, and he said no he was very done with that game. Therefore I asked if I could have it, and he tossed me the box. When I got home, I found I was unable to install because Steam says the code's already been registered.

INAL, but it seems to me that's a case law definition of first sale violation; original purchaser has transferred the item (without retaining a copy), and the new owner is unable to use the program.

From the 2K rep comments on this forum regarding Civ5, for this context accurately summarized as "Steam is an integral component of Civ5", this will also violate first sale rights. Your old copy of Civ5 will be nontransferable.

The most non-inflammatory quote I can think of here about this whole business attitude is "the more you tighten your grip the more ... will slip through your fingers". To be slightly more provocative, things like this make it easy to understand why people take to the back alleys of the internet to find workarounds and such. I'll always have a fond spot in me for Sid Meier but much of what I know about Civ5 at this point has basically confirmed to me I won't be buying a copy. Which is a shame, because I played Civ1 and Civ2, combined, for probably an easy several thousand hours and I always bring them up as top games of all time.

Kruniac said:

Well, cracking that "type" of DRM requires re-releasing the entire game as the newly patched package. Difficult? No. More time-consuming than releasing a "nocd" executable that will forever work with that version of the game? Slightly yes.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Pirates just release a cracked patch.

Well in some cases you just install game x, use real patch, then crack, so Ive heard.

Sterf said:

No, it doesn't. Pirates just release a cracked patch.

Click to expand...

Right, that's what I said a few lines below that.

Sure, someone -could- release a custom archive with the 1.1 patch ready to install "serial" free, but it's unlikely.

Click to expand...

I just know that from experience with GalCiv2, there is always the chance that the latest patch isn't available, it has poor availability, and so on. Also, since these are individuals (or groups) releasing the content, consider the mindset of the person releasing it. Perhaps he or she wants to release the "full" game (patched of course) rather than a cracked patch. That way a pirate merely has to download one package, and start playing.

It just seems to me that from the player's point of view (not the warez group's), login+serial DRM is more annoying than other forms. Of course, annoying isn't good enough to stop pirating of games, but we all know that.

And once again, I don't advocate piracy, it's for scum, etc, etc.

No DRM systems work for smaller companies with a limited audience, niche markets like the ones Paradox develops for are more likely to buy a game they enjoy, DRM or not. The mass Market on the other hand, will pirate a game no matter what DRM is involved. If you release a game with no DRM at all, better than 50% of the people playing that game are pirating it, garanteed.

CD checks are old school now, especially in the days of the netbook where there is no CD drive, I would much rather download my game and require a one-time activation than try to find a workaround to the CD check, which would be illegal BTW.

Welcome to civfanatics, DavesWorld334!

DavesWorld334 said:

And that's what Steam does (among many other things), violating the first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine). I assembled a new computer (all completely new parts, including a fresh from the store hard drive) for my brother a few months ago, and he's been reinstalling various games back on that he plays. One of the ones he *didn't* reinstall was Team Fortress 2. I'd never played it so I asked if he was planning to use it anymore, and he said no he was very done with that game. Therefore I asked if I could have it, and he tossed me the box. When I got home, I found I was unable to install because Steam says the code's already been registered.

INAL, but it seems to me that's a case law definition of first sale violation; original purchaser has transferred the item (without retaining a copy), and the new owner is unable to use the program.

From the 2K rep comments on this forum regarding Civ5, for this context accurately summarized as "Steam is an integral component of Civ5", this will also violate first sale rights. Your old copy of Civ5 will be nontransferable.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that you know up front that you cannot resell your copy. Upon a glance I'd say that the first sale doctrine is a general rule that applies in principle, that is it is applicable unless the buyer and seller come to another agreement. If part of the deal is 'we get some DRM and then you can effectively not resell it' then I see not why that would be in violation of the law as applicable.

Of course the reselling of the product is allowed in general, but then there are the steam terms of service that state that you cannot transfer accounts and such, so that is not allowed either. This makes it so that while you can legally resell a copy of civ5, the copy will be worth less to the buyer. This makes any resale of the game a violation of the user agreements that are applicable, but not a violation of the law itself. That is, steam and 2k may scream murder and rape and do all the legal stuff that the user agreements provide in, but they cannot stop you from selling your copy.

So if I buy your copy of civ5, then I become the owner of your license, and then there is legally nothing that 2k or valve can do about me being the licence holder. Not even the user agreements can legally stop me or you from completing this transaction. The only thing that valve and 2k can do is executing the terms of the agreement, so that may include withdrawing the license and termintaing my steam account. Note that none of this makes the sale annulled or anything, it just makes my licence useless. Legally they can do absolutely nothing to stop any resale, so there is no violation of the law.

On another note, the copy of civ5 that you registered is actually useless since it cannot be registered again. So while you can legally resell your copy, it will not fuinction for another user so it becomes useless effectively. Making it useless for other users is not a violation of the first sale doctrine, it just makes it so that for another user, a used copy of civ5 is worth $0. He may legally buy it, but no user in his right mind would buy a used copy.

Note that none of this makes it so that any law is violated - or at least not the first sale doctrine. It just devaluates the copy of civ5 to others, so that the copy is effectively worth nothing. You can still sell your game, but no one will buy it. Coming to another conclusion just because at a glance the rule seems violated - and then making bold statements about that on these boards - is basically silly imo, and it displays a huge ignorance on how law actually works.

One final note then: this post is based on dutch law, and it is like this in many European countries. I would assume the system works somewhat similar in the US - that is, ther eis a law that states what can and cannot be done, and then there is the agreement that can provide either party with additional rights. These additional rights might make a sale less attractive - and thus devaluate a resale - while it cannot prevent it.

The only workaround I see is to create a new Steam-account for every single game. If you're done with the game, you can give it away without any problems

CivFanMUC said:

The only workaround I see is to create a new Steam-account for every single game. If you're done with the game, you can give it away without any problems as long as valve does not notice the violation of their user agreement, and as long as you accept that a used game liek this is worth next to nothing for the buyer since the buyer faces the risk of his account being terminated.

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

Moderator Action: If you are going to alter a quoted post to "fix it" you must make it evident what you have changed. I bolded the changed text for you.

thanks
but I think my right to sell the game once I don't want to use it any longer outhweights valves ToS (since Valve does not have (at least should not have) anything to do with me and my Civ-Experience^^)

CivFanMUC said:

thanks
but I think my right to sell the game once I don't want to use it any longer outhweights valves ToS (since Valve does not have (at least should not have) anything to do with me and my Civ-Experience^^)

Click to expand...

And it does. You can indeed sell the game from a legal point of view. The restriction lies not in the legal part of the story, but rather in the fact that the used product is not worth anything. You can sell your copy of the game, it is just that it is so worthless that people might not even want a used copy for free. Now that you know what a used copy is worth, you can use this info in your decision making to see if you still want a copy or not.

Moderator Action: We do not allow discussions that encourage piracy or other illegal gaming activities. Please do not bring such things into the discussions here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

<snip>

Anyway, it's pretty obvious to me that most forms of DRM don't do their job effectively. They are far from secure, and actually prevent me from fully enjoying the game. I have a real copy of Spore, but when my internet decided to blow up, I couldn't play it! It requires a log-in to play. And as alot of people have been pointing out, what about people who want to sell/give their copy away? When I purchase a game I assume it's my property, but DRM prevents me from doing things that (as an owner of that property) I should be able to do! Of course, by saying this, I'm going into the debate of whether software is physical property, so I'll stop there.

I'll tell you what I do miss, being able to install a game just by copying the files to another computer (I had several desktops and what not at the time). Now I'm limited to a certain amount of copies... *sigh*

paradigmx said:

No DRM systems work for smaller companies with a limited audience, niche markets like the ones Paradox develops for are more likely to buy a game they enjoy, DRM or not. The mass Market on the other hand, will pirate a game no matter what DRM is involved. If you release a game with no DRM at all, better than 50% of the people playing that game are pirating it, garanteed.

CD checks are old school now, especially in the days of the netbook where there is no CD drive, I would much rather download my game and require a one-time activation than try to find a workaround to the CD check, which would be illegal BTW.

Click to expand...

Civ is part of the same niche genre as Paradox games.

It's just the granddaddy and biggest seller in the genre.

CivFanMUC said:

thanks
but I think my right to sell the game once I don't want to use it any longer outhweights valves ToS (since Valve does not have (at least should not have) anything to do with me and my Civ-Experience^^)

Click to expand...

As with many things I'm not sure it is this black and white.

It would be a perfectly valid scenario to consider your purchase as being in the same category as an admission ticket.

For example you can buy a ticket, go to a museum and get your enjoyment out of the exhibits.
Can you then sell your ticket to someone else waiting outside the museum?
Well of course you can...but the museum is not obligated to let them in.
You paid to see the exhibits/play the game...you do not own anything.

Game companies have decided they want a share (preferably 100%) of the money being made off their games in the resale market. There are only a limited number of ways they can do this...and this approach of licensing access in order to prevent the resale of games has real benefits to them, including forcing anyone who wants to play the game legally to buy from them and the potential to keep the sale price of the game higher for longer as they will no longer be competing with cut-price used games.

We don't have to like this, but based on the original purchase being a license (actually with the introduction of Steam it is more like access to a service, which is even closer to an admission ticket) rather than a physical transfer of ownership it appears, to a non-lawyer like me, to have a pretty good chance of being legal.

arstal said:

Civ is part of the same niche genre as Paradox games.

It's just the granddaddy and biggest seller in the genre.

Click to expand...

As niche as Civ is, I would bet more than 75% of Civ players have never even heard of Paradox, considering that only a small amount of Civ players even go to the Civ forums(or fan forums) on more than a casual basis, if at all.

mjs0 said:

As with many things I'm not sure it is this black and white.

It would be a perfectly valid scenario to consider your purchase as being in the same category as an admission ticket.

For example you can buy a ticket, go to a museum and get your enjoyment out of the exhibits.
Can you then sell your ticket to someone else waiting outside the museum?
Well of course you can...but the museum is not obligated to let them in.
You paid to see the exhibits/play the game...you do not own anything.

Game companies have decided they want a share (preferably 100%) of the money being made off their games in the resale market. There are only a limited number of ways they can do this...and this approach of licensing access in order to prevent the resale of games has real benefits to them, including forcing anyone who wants to play the game legally to buy from them and the potential to keep the sale price of the game higher for longer as they will no longer be competing with cut-price used games.

We don't have to like this, but based on the original purchase being a license (actually with the introduction of Steam it is more like access to a service, which is even closer to an admission ticket) rather than a physical transfer of ownership it appears, to a non-lawyer like me, to have a pretty good chance of being legal.

Click to expand...

Except that it's completly different. For admission, you're buying the right to visit/see something at a particular time. With a game, you are buying a product, and you should get all the rights that go with buying a product.

deanej said:

Except that it's completly different. For admission, you're buying the right to visit/see something at a particular time. With a game, you are buying a product, and you should get all the rights that go with buying a product.

Click to expand...

No with a game these days you are not buying a product, that's the point. You are buying a license, a right to use, and if the license includes words that restrict you from selling on then that is part of your contract with the seller. Whether the EULA (End User License Agreement) that you can't see until you install the game is legally enforceable is another issue, but there is not much precedent in that area as I understand it.

You are of course at liberty to sell the physical items you received but the game company is under no obligation to let that buyer activate the game.

I'm not saying the admissions analogy is an exact comparison or that I like the place it leads to, but I think legally the argument could be made quite successfully.

Oh, and not all admissions are one time events, an annual pass for example is not transferable, even if you have seen all you want after a few months you cannot sell the remaining months to another person legally.

mjs0 said:

No with a game these days you are not buying a product, that's the point. You are buying a license, a right to use, and if the license includes words that restrict you from selling on then that is part of your contract with the seller. Whether the EULA (End User License Agreement) that you can't see until you install the game is legally enforceable is another issue, but there is not much precedent in that area as I understand it.

Click to expand...

Only because the industry has twisted the issue this way. There is nothing inherintly different with games compared to music and movies that requires this - the only reason it's this way is because the industry has taken advantage of the technological ignorance of the lawmakers. We need to take back the issue.