Drm?

[Taalen]

And still you hang onto it. My statement never implied exclusivity to the Steam platform. By using some of that logic you refer to, that would mean the game would be in multiple-channel distribution. Therefore, my statement kinda only applies to the copies distributed on Steam.

I am sorry though, I should have realized I need to explain it as to a 1st grader from the get-go.

I will then explain it as to a 1st grader for you, then

Valve also has enough pull with its platform, Steam, that it can change what kind of DRM is used in a game.

"In a game". Not "in copies sold through Steam", which is a given and never under doubt. A simple clarification, or in fact stopping to consider what you were writing, would have saved both of us as well as the guy trolling my posts, a world of trouble.

I meant that if Civ 5 is sold on Steam, its possible it would only include Valve's DRM. It has been known to happen: Valve forces the publisher to remove all but Valve's own DRM as part of their agreement.

"If Civ 5 is sold on Steam, it's possible it (Civ 5) would only include Valve's DRM". By the famous logic, right here you said, thanks to not bothering to make sure you were writing what you meant to write, that you think if Civ 5 is available through Steam, it would only have Valve DRM.

I rest my case. There's no point in trying to argue even a valid point on the internet with people without the capacity to understand what's being said to them.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

"In a game". Not "in copies sold through Steam", which is a given and never under doubt. A simple clarification, or in fact stopping to consider what you were writing, would have saved both of us as well as the guy trolling my posts, a world of trouble.

Right, in a game.
Lets take a look at that whole post:

Valve wont disable your account without some significant justification. Enabling a game from a different region is not one of those things. In fact, most of the time you wont even be able to do that. (Which is one of my few gripes with Steam)

Valve also has enough pull with its platform, Steam, that it can change what kind of DRM is used in a game. Believe me, Steam's DRM is much less intrusive than a vast majority of the DRM out there.

Oops, I think I need my glasses. I do believe I did not mention Civ 5 anywhere there though. Can someone else confirm that there is in fact not a single mention of Civ 5 in that post?

"If Civ 5 is sold on Steam, it's possible it (Civ 5) would only include Valve's DRM". By the famous logic, right here you said, thanks to not bothering to make sure you were writing what you meant to write, that you think if Civ 5 is available through Steam, it would only have Valve DRM.

I believe you missed that 'if', or if you didn't, it doesnt mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean that Civ 5 will only be available on Steam, it means that for those copies that are.

I rest my case. There's no point in trying to argue even a valid point on the internet with people without the capacity to understand what's being said to them.

At least we agree on something.

 

[negZero]

"If Civ 5 is sold on Steam, it's possible it (Civ 5) would only include Valve's DRM". By the famous logic, right here you said, thanks to not bothering to make sure you were writing what you meant to write, that you think if Civ 5 is available through Steam, it would only have Valve DRM.

Why not put the whole quote up? Becuase what hes refering to are the times when Valve has stepped in personally to make deal where Steam is the DRM for a game (see Total War: Empire).

 

[Kissamies]

Wow, long argument about Steam. Personally, I tolerate Steam, but I don't really like it that much. I have bought a few discount games on it, but mostly I would prefer to play the games the old fashioned way without having to launch some client first. Still, Steam DRM is much less draconian that some arrangements out there.

Now DRM for Civ5. I think the Epic model would be sufficient. CD key and disc check at first and when the game is a year or two old, release a patch that removes the disk check. Usually some time after the last expansion pack is released.

 

[Quintillus]

2K is a big supporter of DRM, but Firaxis had enough pull with them to remove even the disc check from Civ 4 so I get the feeling Civ 5 will have a disc check, and a serial number.

Personally I think if it was integrated into Windows Live! that would solve the piracy problem, and a solution to multiplayer

Good point about Civ4. Can't say much about Windows Live! as I've never used it, except the messenger for a short time.

The two DRM components I have a major problem with are required Internet connections (unless it's multiplayer only - even then a non-Internet LAN mode would be nice), and machine install limits. The former because it's stupid to require an Internet connection for a single-player game, and when I like to play single-player games doesn't correlate with when I have Internet. The latter because I don't like the idea of not being able to play a game because of such an arbitrary restriction. If it's a really good game, I might want to still be playing it 6 years later (like, say Civ3), and I may well have installed it "too many" times. Either of these requirements are very likely to prevent me from buying a game.

More traditional means such as a CD check are okay. I'd rather the CD not be required, and have been known to bypass such requirements on my most-played games as a matter of convenience, but it's not going to prevent me from buying the game.

Internet registration is similar. If it's required to install, it's more of a problem than a CD check, as it means no more installs once the install-validation servers are closed. If it's only required to access multiplayer, for instance, it's probably not as bad as a CD check.

Steam requirements, I'm not sure if I trust or not. I buy games on Steam (and Impulse), but it's mostly because of the price advantage. I don't know if I like it being required for boxed games, though.

It's too bad some developers are turning to more drastic measure, though. AC2 looked like a fairly good game, but I know if I buy it, there will be times I'll want to play it without Internet. So rather than buy it and deal with those frustrations, it's better to not play it at all.

 

[zorven]

My thought on DRM is that I am tired of having to deal with DRM software installed on my computer and having to have discs in the drive to play a game I paid for. Honestly, anyone who wants to pirate the game will do so - the honest customer is treated like a criminal and inconvenienced while the crooks enjoy a DRM free game. I tend to not play games that have disc checks as often as others. For example, after Civ 4 took out the disc check I have been playing it more often now as I don't have to switch a disck in (I know, I am lazy).

Now, that said, I have bought some Stardock software through Impulse and do not mind that model at all. In fact I kind of like that I can log on any time and reinstall purchased software without looking for discs and install keys.

 

[Jeckel]

Disclaimer for those places that require one. I am not a lawyer, nor am I presenting myself as one.

EULAs are practically unenforceable. First they have to prove the license agreement was broken. After that they have to prove the person that broke the license terms actually clicked the agree button. If you didn't click "I Agree" then you are in no way bound by that license agreement. Personally, I like to ask a random stranger on the street come in and do the entire installation of my games while I go do some laundry or something else in another room.

In the end, it all comes do to copyright and the infringement of it. If you go read the US copyright laws, they are easy to find with google, it states that copyright infringement has not occurred if the total value of the infringed item(s) isn't $1,000+. That is why you don't ever hear of companies going after the individuals that pirate a copy of their game, the value doesn't reach the requirement to actually infringe the copyright. Instead they go after the distributors since those that offer the pirated products can be charged with distribution of many copies that total a value high enough to make it a crime.

Don't let the hype fool you, you own the cd and the game the same as you own the car, house, or cloths you bought. They can't come take the shirt off your back once you payed for it, and they can't stop you from using the game you bought. They only have the legal right to stop you from distributing copies of the product for a profit.

--------------------------------------------------------

On topic, the Gaming Industry is not special. Would you buy a toaster that would only work if connected to the internet? Would you buy a book you could only read 3 times? The more we let the industry get away with, the more they will want to take. Copyright law is meant to keep others from making money off the holders product, not to control how consumers use that product.

My answer is no, no I wouldn't. As an example, I bought every C&C game, but I will not buy the new one because there is no reason to require an internet connection for single player games. They may hype these things as efforts to stop pirates or offer new "features", but the bottom line is that they do it to limit that life time of the game. After they take down those servers, guess what, no more playing that game.

I have bought every Civ game and expansion since the first one, and not from the bargin bin either, I pay them the full price on release day because Civ has always been my favorite game. But, if they put anything more then standard cd check (easily fixed with a no-cd crack) and/or normal serial keys (which I will have because I would pay for it on release day), then I will add Civ5 to the list of games I won't spend my money on.

 

[Jeckel]

I would just like to say that I have much respect for Civ and Fraxis, but as was stated earlier in this thread, its the publishers, not the game makers, that decide what DRM is used, and I hope they can get the hint that excessive restrictions would hurt their profit margins.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Disclaimer for those places that require one. I am not a lawyer, nor am I presenting myself as one.

EULAs are practically unenforceable. First they have to prove the license agreement was broken. After that they have to prove the person that broke the license terms actually clicked the agree button. If you didn't click "I Agree" then you are in no way bound by that license agreement. Personally, I like to ask a random stranger on the street come in and do the entire installation of my games while I go do some laundry or something else in another room.

I agree with you, but you as well would have little proof that it was in fact not you that agreed. Additionally, if you did not read and agree to the EULA, you have no right to use the product.

In the end, it all comes do to copyright and the infringement of it. If you go read the US copyright laws, they are easy to find with google, it states that copyright infringement has not occurred if the total value of the infringed item(s) isn't $1,000+. That is why you don't ever hear of companies going after the individuals that pirate a copy of their game, the value doesn't reach the requirement to actually infringe the copyright. Instead they go after the distributors since those that offer the pirated products can be charged with distribution of many copies that total a value high enough to make it a crime.

Not quite true. From Chapter 5, § 506 of US copyright law:

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

It means that even if you did not distribute a copyrighted work worth more than 1000$, if you knew that it was meant for commercial distribution, as a game is, then you are still guilty of criminal infringement.

That's only for criminal infringement too.

If you violate any of the following rights granted to the copyright holder, you are also guilty of copyright infringement, although it may be a civil and not a criminal violation.

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

I've bolded the part that I think applies the most. When you pirate a copy of some work, you effectively deprive the copyright holder of the bolded right.

The reason that people who pirate one or two things are not sued is mainly to do with the economics of a lawsuit. Unless a company wants to specifically protect it's copyrighted work against each and every single infringement (and lose money in doing so) they will most of the time only go to court when they know they can turn a profit.
Even if you have some crazy high sum like 30,000$ (which I believe is the maximum) per work, when a person has only pirated a single work, the lawyer costs if the person does not settle will quite likely exceed that value greatly.

As you can see, most companies don't do it simply because it would cost them money. It's more economical to let the infringement slide than go after it.

Don't let the hype fool you, you own the cd and the game the same as you own the car, house, or cloths you bought. They can't come take the shirt off your back once you payed for it, and they can't stop you from using the game you bought. They only have the legal right to stop you from distributing copies of the product for a profit.

This is one of the big grey areas in copyright law. Do you specifically own the software or only a license to use the binary copy provided to you? I can't give you a concrete answer here so Ill just leave it at this: You might be right, you might be wrong. You'd need to ask a US Copyright lawyer though.

--------------------------------------------------------

On topic, the Gaming Industry is not special. Would you buy a toaster that would only work if connected to the internet? Would you buy a book you could only read 3 times? The more we let the industry get away with, the more they will want to take. Copyright law is meant to keep others from making money off the holders product, not to control how consumers use that product.

My answer is no, no I wouldn't. As an example, I bought every C&C game, but I will not buy the new one because there is no reason to require an internet connection for single player games. They may hype these things as efforts to stop pirates or offer new "features", but the bottom line is that they do it to limit that life time of the game. After they take down those servers, guess what, no more playing that game.

I have bought every Civ game and expansion since the first one, and not from the bargin bin either, I pay them the full price on release day because Civ has always been my favorite game. But, if they put anything more then standard cd check (easily fixed with a no-cd crack) and/or normal serial keys (which I will have because I would pay for it on release day), then I will add Civ5 to the list of games I won't spend my money on.

All excellent points. Its abhorrent how pretty much all industries are abusing the consumer. The worst part is that many people care so little that they allow it to continue.

Ill add the same disclaimer as you: I am not a lawyer and I do not present myself as one. Anything in this post should not be taken as legal advice.

 

[Jeckel]

I agree with you, but you as well would have little proof that it was in fact not you that agreed. Additionally, if you did not read and agree to the EULA, you have no right to use the product.

True, but speaking purely from the criminal aspect, the burden would be on them to prove that you had pressed the button. As for having no right to play without reading and agreeing to the EULA, this would mean that a person would have no right to play any game they did not personally install. I would hope that no such decision would hold up to appeal. More on point though, I would point to the (1) of the copyright law you posted, "(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under...", the key part being 'willfully infringes'. Again, it would be on the prosecution to prove that your infringement was "willful".

Not quite true. From Chapter 5, § 506 of US copyright law:

It means that even if you did not distribute a copyrighted work worth more than 1000$, if you knew that it was meant for commercial distribution, as a game is, then you are still guilty of criminal infringement.

My reading of clause C implies that it is referring to works that have not yet been released, but are intended to be and would not apply to works that have already been released, those falling instead under clause B. I would guess that clause C is aimed at insider dvds of movies that are released before the movie hits theaters, though the same would apply to games that are finished but not yet released.

That's only for criminal infringement too.

If you violate any of the following rights granted to the copyright holder, you are also guilty of copyright infringement, although it may be a civil and not a criminal violation.

I've bolded the part that I think applies the most. When you pirate a copy of some work, you effectively deprive the copyright holder of the bolded right.

First, on a side note, I just have to say that no matter how many times I've read these laws, I always get a chuckle out of the fact that they insist on still including "phonorecords" in all this stuff. Really, is phonorecord pirating a problem in this day and age...

Anyway, back on point, you make a good point though I would say "(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;" is a much stronger position.

The (3) contains the ambiguous words "distribute" and "to the public" which could be interpreted in the same vein as the warning at the beginning of dvds that says it isn't allowed to be shown for "public" viewing, it just means you can't compete with the holder by releasing the work in the holder's own venue. Your bolded line also contains the troubling words "sale", "transfer of ownership", "rental", "lease", and "lending", which would seem to indite the entire used cd industry as copyright infringers as they facilitate the "transfer of ownership" of copyrighted works and also anyone that ever "lent" a cd, dvd, or video game to a friend.

This is one of the big grey areas in copyright law. Do you specifically own the software or only a license to use the binary copy provided to you? I can't give you a concrete answer here so Ill just leave it at this: You might be right, you might be wrong. You'd need to ask a US Copyright lawyer though.

I agree, if any of this has a true impact on someones life, then they should consult a lawyer, or at the least do there own research and not trust some anonymous posters on a forum.

All excellent points. Its abhorrent how pretty much all industries are abusing the consumer. The worst part is that many people care so little that they allow it to continue.

I agree, but isn't that how it always is. They made my brother's game require online connection for SP games, and I said nothing. They made my friends game only installable 3 times, and I said nothing. Then they made my cousin's game verify with a server every time it was saved or loaded, and I said.. nothing. Then they made my game check my retinal print every time it started.. and there was no one left to say anything.

But seriously, from a gamer's perspective, I hate DRM, but from the perspective of an independent game developer, I think it's great. The more the industry squeezes the gamers, the more they push their gamers away and right into our arms.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

My reading of clause C implies that it is referring to works that have not yet been released, but are intended to be and would not apply to works that have already been released, those falling instead under clause B. I would guess that clause C is aimed at insider dvds of movies that are released before the movie hits theaters, though the same would apply to games that are finished but not yet released.

It would be up to interpretation, and it's not a far stretch to apply it to works that are being released commercially

Anyway, back on point, you make a good point though I would say "(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;" is a much stronger position.

The (3) contains the ambiguous words "distribute" and "to the public" which could be interpreted in the same vein as the warning at the beginning of dvds that says it isn't allowed to be shown for "public" viewing, it just means you can't compete with the holder by releasing the work in the holder's own venue. Your bolded line also contains the troubling words "sale", "transfer of ownership", "rental", "lease", and "lending", which would seem to indite the entire used cd industry as copyright infringers as they facilitate the "transfer of ownership" of copyrighted works and also anyone that ever "lent" a cd, dvd, or video game to a friend.

Ambiguous is good for them. They again have the chance for interpretation in their favor.
Either 1 or 3 make sense for piracy.

I agree, but isn't that how it always is. They made my brother's game require online connection for SP games, and I said nothing. They made my friends game only installable 3 times, and I said nothing. Then they made my cousin's game verify with a server every time it was saved or loaded, and I said.. nothing. Then they made my game check my retinal print every time it started.. and there was no one left to say anything.

But seriously, from a gamer's perspective, I hate DRM, but from the perspective of an independent game developer, I think it's great. The more the industry squeezes the gamers, the more they push their gamers away and right into our arms.

I see DRM as an unfortunately necessary evil. I hate it, and as an aspiring game developer, I hope to gods I never have to implement it. At the same time, I can see that sometimes it just makes sense. The problem is, publishers often take this and run with it, using draconian schemes. Most of us are willing to deal with a serial key and cd check. Those barriers alone keep away the casual pirates, the ones who wont bother to try to bypass any drm. For anyone else, any drm doesnt do squat. There are multitudes of examples where the more draconian the drm, the more the legitimate users have issues with it, while the pirates chuckle and continue to play their pirated copies.

I see your point with thinking its great, but even then, it may have some unfortunate consequences. As consumers get more accustomed to having to activate their games online, having limits and the like, they will come to associate these things with the big studios and AAA games. The independent developers like you who provide games free of all that fuss may be seen as perhaps not of the same quality or caliber as those studios that do use DRM. I hope it never happens, but I have already read some disturbing things that point in that direction. When people complain about a lack of DRM, its a sad world.

 

[NBAfan]

Firaxis should do what Paradox does, that is no DRM. They just have you type in your CD code at their website. Doing that gives you access to the patches, tech support and Modding fourms.

 

[Gamemaster77]

The way I see it, nowadays, drm is just a way for companies to get you to be their game twice because you installed it too many times or something along those lines.