Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Guild]

but it doesn't sound like this is such a case.

DING DING DING

Y.. yes.

[Thad]

Thanks, guys.  That could have gotten ugly.

[Guild]

The Liberal Task Force is always ready to, uh... have a polite conversation?

That's what I got out of it...

Do I just come across as shouting all the time?

[Thad]

While plugging your ears, yes.

[Guild]

Then I'm doing my duty.

[Thad]

Anyway.  I wouldn't frame it as a liberal issue per se.  Hang around the comments thread at GP and I think you'll see plenty of self-described conservatives pissed about the issue -- and Kazz isn't exactly right-wing but he's dismissing the whole thing with a shrug.

I suppose you can define it as liberal-versus-conservative if you define liberals as favoring consumer rights and conservatives as believing businesses should be able to do whatever they want and if there's a problem THE INVISIBLE HAND WILL SAVE US, but that's a pretty gross oversimplification IMO.  Clutch is about as Libertarian as they come and he favored net neutrality.  Hell, the NRA favors net neutrality.

[sei]

Produce an example of a copy protection scheme that actually works -- short, again, of MMO's which require an account to play -- and you have a point.

So, what exactly has to be accomplished for copy protection to "work"?  Is it just a bottom line thing, like having gained more (theoretical) money from averted piracy than what (actual) money the company invested in implementing copy protection?


Yes, things requiring an account to play at all will deter piracy for a while.  Even online-only games (MMOs/other shit requiring accounts) don't have perfect copy protection.  The client/server communication often (eventually!) gets intercepted and the server winds up getting reverse engineered, leading to the appearance of private/free servers.  It takes a while for that to happen and most consumers don't wait around for the pirated servers to show up.

Star-/Warcraft, and other games with significant, but not exclusively, online components also sometimes provide decent incentive for purchasing the game.  Some keygens' output will fool the installer, but not the online verification system.  Distributed serials can't all be used online at once (and typically get banned) in a remotely secure set-up.  In the case of mixed online/offline content games (e.g., most stuff using BNet) this obviously does fuck all against getting a free single-player experience, but most of the replay value comes from playing with/against other people.

Things like the BNet games, if they include LAN support, can can still be multiplayed over LAN (or the net, with IPX->IP programs) but it could still be argued that pirates miss out on non-trivial services that purchasing the game would offer (e.g., matching systems, larger online economy, official forums, skipping the IPX->IP software learning curve).

I'm not sure how things would have gone with Spore.  It's my understanding that the game is more fun if one can use the youtube features and download other players' creatures.  (Will Wright talked about social gaming during those old hype presentations.)  Unique accounts wouldn't wouldn't stop copies from being shared within a household.  The BNet thing probably wouldn't have worked for Spore, as one isn't constantly online with it, only hopping on to download.  I'm not really sure what would have worked for them.

[Detonator]

This is all we want, okay?

[Thad]

I know you're joking, but you actually raise a relevant point -- Bart won his lawsuit despite the box clearly advertising a jagged metal Krusty-O.

I have argued that, even if EA WERE upfront about SecuROM, mentioning it in the EULA would not necessarily make it legal.

Guild's analogy to pharma side effects is erroneous, because those side effects are part of the chemical function of the drug.  The pharmaceutical companies don't say, "Okay, this antidepressant works, now let's add another chemical that will kill the customer's sex drive."  The antidepressant kills the customer's sex drive.  That's what it DOES.  SecuROM is NOT necessary for Spore to run, it's something deliberately added to the product.

First of all, there are rights that can't be signed away; acknowledging a danger in your product does not inherently mean you're not liable for damages resulting from it.  And second, as I've said, EULA's are not traditional contracts, they're legally unconscionable: the vendor has all the rights and all the power, and the customer has no opportunity to negotiate, it's take-it-or-leave-it.  That's not how legal contracts work.

[Detonator]

I have argued that, even if EA WERE upfront about SecuROM, mentioning it in the EULA would not necessarily make it legal.

I never suggested that including it in the EULA would be all right.  I think I was suggesting that a warning on the front of the box might be more ideal.

First of all, there are rights that can't be signed away; acknowledging a danger in your product does not inherently mean you're not liable for damages resulting from it.

I think I'm a little confused as to whether you're arguing about SecuROM specifically or that type of practice altogether.  I agree with what you say, but in this case a clear warning label on the front of the box (like the Krusty-O's one) with the listed side-effects of SecuROM would be sufficient (if unrealistic).  If the program has the potential to permanently fuck up your system, then EA should be liable for that anyway, yes.

[Brentai]

So we're back to "SecuROM is inherently evil" which is a much harder sell to the people in charge.

Unfortunately in order to make a legal move in that direction it seems the thing would have to actually break something, at which point it's kind of already too late to do much handwringing about it.

(Note: it's probably already breaking tons of stuff, but it only runs on systems where that sort of thing is too common to be noticeable.)

[Thad]

I never suggested that including it in the EULA would be all right.  I think I was suggesting that a warning on the front of the box might be more ideal.

That's even LESS legally binding.

I think I'm a little confused as to whether you're arguing about SecuROM specifically or that type of practice altogether.  I agree with what you say, but in this case a clear warning label on the front of the box (like the Krusty-O's one) with the listed side-effects of SecuROM would be sufficient (if unrealistic).  If the program has the potential to permanently fuck up your system, then EA should be liable for that anyway, yes.

I don't think it would be sufficient, but I DO think it would be an improvement.

[Zaratustra]

Yeah, thanks for answering my question.

[Thad]

...Would it be better if I responded to every question I didn't know the answer to with "How the fuck should I know?"

[Thad]

...So it's just come to my attention that Spore is also available for the Mac.  As I own a Mac, and the Mac version does not contain SecuROM, this would seem to be a no-brainer; however, as the Mac and PC versions are the same product, this creates a conundrum.  If I buy the game, even if only to use the Mac version, the bean counters at EA don't know the difference; as far as they're concerned, the presence of SecuROM made no difference in my purchase.

I think the easiest solution to my dilemma is just to get Dragon Quest 4 instead.

[A²]

Wait, the Mac version has no SecuROM? Where's it say that?

[patito]

Presumably SecuROM is windows only malware.

[TA]

Looks like it's on Macs too, actually.  Has been for a while.

It's okay, Thad, you don't really need to be able to mount images or anything, right?

[Bongo Bill]

I think the easiest solution to my dilemma is just to get Dragon Quest 4 instead.

Coincidentally, that was my exact plan.

[Brentai]

So I guess at some point I must have unthinkingly thrown out the manual for Neverwinter Nights, figuring I probably wouldn't be playing it again and if I did I wouldn't need a damn manual.

Guess where this is going.