5 ms·

The one example I have ever seen is Denuvo DRM for PC games, in certain games for (very) limited times. Denuvo has gained widespread adoption among AAA game pu

by Fej 9y ago

The one example I have ever seen is Denuvo DRM for PC games, in certain games for (very) limited times. Denuvo has gained widespread adoption among AAA game publishers because it tends to hold for the critical period when a game first goes on sale. The DRM is typically broken within weeks but that is good enough for the publisher, as the release period has generally passed by that point. They made their sales.

abecedarius 9y ago
I think we should distinguish interactive things like games from the sort of title that's copyable via the 'analog hole' -- for movies/songs/books, effective DRM is incompatible with human liberty, but I don't have that problem with DRMed games. (This isn't to argue in favor of DRM on the web. It ought to stay in its restricted-device ghetto.)
- kelnos 9y ago
  From a sales standpoint, I don't see the distinction. If DRM of movies is broken past the initial sale craze, and the content producers feel they've made their money before it gets broken, then they'll certainly feel that it's been a value-add for their business. If web-based DRM actually does remove the browser as an attack vector entirely, and the majority of copyright infringement occurs in other places (studio leaks, etc.), then the content producers might see that as acceptable. Regardless of all that, I think the distinction is more a philosophical one: you seem to believe that the creative output involved in a game is more reasonable to protect than the creative output involved in a movie, just because of the method of consumption. I think the "human liberty" aspect is a bit much, as well: why do you think you're entitled to the content (on "your terms") that someone else has labored to create? We can certainly argue (and probably agree) that things like copyright terms are effectively unlimited and that's wrong, and even if they were limited, DRM doesn't give you the ability to get at the content DRM-free after copyright has expired. But I don't see it as unreasonable that a content producer should be able to use technical means to protect their content for a period of time after initial distribution. I think the current implementations of DRM leave a ton to be desired, but I think the concept is sound. I think overall, though, it's a matter of market forces. People consume "pirated" content because either they can't get the content and consume it in a manner that they want to (and feel strongly enough about that to not settle for the "approved" channel), or people pirate things because they believe the price is too high for a legit copy (and then there are those who just won't pay anything at all, no matter what the price). DRM for music purchases has been largely dropped because people are happy enough with the distribution channels and price that they usually don't look for pirated copies, at least not to the extent that makes the content producers nervous. Will we eventually get to the same place with video? I don't know.
  - abecedarius 9y ago
    The distinction I'm drawing is that to consume a movie (etc.) you need the images to make it into your brain; OTOH a game can be played without its code ever leaving the device. To effectively stop people from saving the images means stopping freedom of thought; that's different from "I'll rent you this program only on this closed tamper-resistant platform" which doesn't claim a right to control what happens in your own brain. Maybe it's clearer if you think of a cochlear implant -- should it be against the law for me to run my own software on my own cochlear implant? Fuck no. Likewise for future cognitive prostheses. So DRM can't be more than a tiny speedbump to a person wanting to copy a movie, in a free society; but it might still work for things like games, if sellers can keep convincing people to accept good-enough DRM platforms. When it comes to suing someone for distributing a work they copied, like you I don't see a difference between a game and a movie. (added: I dunno why you were downvoted.)
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    > If DRM of movies is broken past the initial sale craze What you're missing is that this delay is fundamentally impossible. The day a movie is available, it will be ripped, no matter how good the DRM is. Game DRM can hold people off, because the game actually has to run once pirated. Game DRM has to be broken. Movie/audio DRM doesn't have to be broken; it can be ignored entirely by pirates.

by Fej 9y ago

abecedarius 9y ago

I think we should distinguish interactive things like games from the sort of title that's copyable via the 'analog hole' -- for movies/songs/books, effective DRM is incompatible with human liberty, but I don't have that problem with DRMed games. (This isn't to argue in favor of DRM on the web. It ought to stay in its restricted-device ghetto.)

kelnos 9y ago
From a sales standpoint, I don't see the distinction. If DRM of movies is broken past the initial sale craze, and the content producers feel they've made their money before it gets broken, then they'll certainly feel that it's been a value-add for their business. If web-based DRM actually does remove the browser as an attack vector entirely, and the majority of copyright infringement occurs in other places (studio leaks, etc.), then the content producers might see that as acceptable. Regardless of all that, I think the distinction is more a philosophical one: you seem to believe that the creative output involved in a game is more reasonable to protect than the creative output involved in a movie, just because of the method of consumption. I think the "human liberty" aspect is a bit much, as well: why do you think you're entitled to the content (on "your terms") that someone else has labored to create? We can certainly argue (and probably agree) that things like copyright terms are effectively unlimited and that's wrong, and even if they were limited, DRM doesn't give you the ability to get at the content DRM-free after copyright has expired. But I don't see it as unreasonable that a content producer should be able to use technical means to protect their content for a period of time after initial distribution. I think the current implementations of DRM leave a ton to be desired, but I think the concept is sound. I think overall, though, it's a matter of market forces. People consume "pirated" content because either they can't get the content and consume it in a manner that they want to (and feel strongly enough about that to not settle for the "approved" channel), or people pirate things because they believe the price is too high for a legit copy (and then there are those who just won't pay anything at all, no matter what the price). DRM for music purchases has been largely dropped because people are happy enough with the distribution channels and price that they usually don't look for pirated copies, at least not to the extent that makes the content producers nervous. Will we eventually get to the same place with video? I don't know.
- abecedarius 9y ago
  The distinction I'm drawing is that to consume a movie (etc.) you need the images to make it into your brain; OTOH a game can be played without its code ever leaving the device. To effectively stop people from saving the images means stopping freedom of thought; that's different from "I'll rent you this program only on this closed tamper-resistant platform" which doesn't claim a right to control what happens in your own brain. Maybe it's clearer if you think of a cochlear implant -- should it be against the law for me to run my own software on my own cochlear implant? Fuck no. Likewise for future cognitive prostheses. So DRM can't be more than a tiny speedbump to a person wanting to copy a movie, in a free society; but it might still work for things like games, if sellers can keep convincing people to accept good-enough DRM platforms. When it comes to suing someone for distributing a work they copied, like you I don't see a difference between a game and a movie. (added: I dunno why you were downvoted.)
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  > If DRM of movies is broken past the initial sale craze What you're missing is that this delay is fundamentally impossible. The day a movie is available, it will be ripped, no matter how good the DRM is. Game DRM can hold people off, because the game actually has to run once pirated. Game DRM has to be broken. Movie/audio DRM doesn't have to be broken; it can be ignored entirely by pirates.