I refuse to accept this. I have purchased the CDs/DVDs my games come on. I own those CDs/DVDs. I therefore own what is on said CDs/DVDs. Therefore, I own those copies of those games. I'll play my games how I want to, and nothing will stand in my way -- not DRM, not EULAs, not the law itself.

There's a reason I install no-CD cracks. It's not because (As one person claimed on the Escapist forums) I'm a pirate, it's because I want to play games on my laptop without dragging the discs around -- and I want to keep said discs in good condition.

If a company is going to treat me like a criminal, what incentive do I have to not become one? I've only recently been introduced to Stardock and GalCiv, but I like what I see.

Correct, in principle a program is sold just like a DVD or a book. Copyright law ensures the protection of intellectual property, it is an urban myth that licenses are needed for this.

An EULA is a legal trick invented by clever lawyers. If I sell you a television, you are allowed to do with it what you want. However, if I allow you to use my television, I can enforce a lot of restrictions to it. We could could for example agree that only you can watch it, you won't change the order of TV channels, etcera.

Some greedy software houses wanted more than copyright allows them. They wanted the user to require permission to use software. The trick is simple: Keep ownership of the physical copy. If I allow you to read my book, I can enforce restrictions. So software houses invented "licensed not sold". A software house makes copies of a program, and then licenses those copies.

Software is nothing special here. You can license a book, however, books are often sold, software is often licensed. At least, that is what software houses pretend to, because this construction is extremely atrificial and fragile. If you actually sell a copy of a program, you can no longer enforce your EULA. And actually it is very easy to buy a copy of a program: Just agree with someone to sell it to you: You have a sales agreement.

Wether you have bought a program or licensed it, depends on what both parties agreed in this sales agreement. An invoice is a good proof of such an agreement. If it says "program X", you have bought a program X. If it says "perpetual license to program X", you have not bought a program X.

Most of the above is valid world wide. However, European courts have been a lot more fanatic at rejecting EULA constructions than US courts. The reason is that the law systems of most European countries are based on Roman law, where an agreement has the same status as a signed contract, and is therefore protected by contract law. An European court can simply look at what the invoice states, if no EULA was agreed at the moment of sale, they declare the EULA invalid.

But anyway, EULA's are by definition a weak, fragile legal construction, world wide. They should however, not be confused copyright licenses rather than end-user licenses. Copyright licenses have a strong legal basis, because they give you permission for what you are not allowed to do otherwise. The GNU GPL is such a copyrigth license, read what its author, Eben Moglen has to say about EULA versus copyright license: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

In theory fear of fines and/or imprisonment. However with 10% of the pop of the US in prison now with that expected to increase another 3% - 5% by the end of the decade and tens of millions of Americans currently downloading stuff with that amount expected to increase in the double digits in about the same time frame, it seems to me people just dont respect the law or government anymore and why should we to be honest. We all pretty much know the vast majority of laws made in recent years do anything but serve the interests of citizens of the country. In short we are legion and maybe it is time for a second revolution...

@dmantione - I was going to post more on licenses and copyrights to try to clear some points up for people but you beat me to it and did a great job of it to boot. Anyway, I wanted to let you know I reposted on the BW forums.

stardock are using other drm called activation for entrenchment I believe.... similar to DRM but without any nasty side affects

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what the TSA is trying to do...

where i am u actually own nothing even if u purchase a house. In the end its all governement leases and that only extends a small way down into theearth on the land u brought.

I hope all forms of DRM, including Microsoft/Stardock GOO will die. From Techdirt:

Sleight Of Hand: If We Don't Call It DRM, We Can Pretend That DRM Is Gone

(...)

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1150494278.shtml

 

You don't seem to understand that progress must be gradual or it will not be made at all.

Yes, those are your two options.

I do understand.

I think paying for copies of software is wrong in principle. When I pay for games, I do so because there's currently no alternative way of supporting developers.

DRM=Dumb Reatarded Monkies.

Thus we come to the root of the problem. This issue is not unique to software, but just about any other product of technology. There is a high fixed cost associated with the initial research or creation of the technology/software/product, but there is little or no marginal cost. This sort of economics is new to the digital era, where an economy based on information is possible... However, we still do not know the rules of an information economy and so we will continue to end up with less than ideal results. Hopefully someone can come up with a new economic model for the selling of information which works.

As far as changing the name...

DRM by any other name would smell just as fishy.

You're going to need to clarify this, because it sounds like you want all your games/etc for free.

I think my post clarifies it a bit better... He has a problem with paying for something that costs a company no money to make his copy. Paying for something physical makes sense, because there are large material, refinement, and production costs. Paying for digital material is a bit more in the grey area, since the only cost is making the original copy from which all other copies are created at no extra charge to the company.

It makes sense to pay for something which cost money to produce, while something free should be free. I think he wants to pay money directly where the expenses come from (development costs) rather than paying money for something with 0 marginal cost.

I don't consider myself a DRM idealogue, but like a lot of people I've been burned by defective DRM schemes basically giving me a glorified rental, or worse yet an unplayable game.  Why buy it if I can't use it?  It seems anymore I have to do Internet research to find out if the game I'm interested in playing is something that I could, in fact, actually be able to play.

I do think there's a light at the end of the tunnel though.  At the risk of starting a political discussion, I'd say the DRM controversey is a lot like subprime mortgages.  It's fueled by terrible, shortsighted decision-making by clueless manage-by-numbers types, but nobody asks questions as long as the bucks are coming in.  Eventually something disrupts the flow of bucks, then heads start rolling once people realize the monumental stupidity that brought them there.

I don't see anything wrong in wanting stuff for free if it costs essentially nothing to replicate it. But alway summed up my motives better than I could.  Please refer to his last 2 posts.

https://forums.elementalgame.com/328078/page/2/#2117049

https://forums.elementalgame.com/328078/page/2/#2117089

 

Techdirt.com makes very interesting posts on new business models for software, economics of free, etc. They track various (especially successful) attempts to create new business models. Did you know you can subscribe to... bacon or socks, and get them delivered at intervals ? And the funny thing is, both companies are successful.

As for business models specifically for software, this article (Gamasutra) proposes two: ad-supported play (already used by many, mostly casual games, but also being tried by bigger games like Quake Live and Battlefield Heroes) and grant (customers declare willingness to pay for a game, and once there are enough declarations the developer collects the money and only then starts working on the game). In case of grant, it strongly dependent on developer's reputation, of course. Highly recommended read:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

The author goes so far as to say that the idea of copyright simply can't survive for long. And before you denounce him as a whining hippie loser or something...

Lead designer of Bullfrog. You know, the company that made the legendary and highly innovative games like Populous (influence of Elemental), Syndicate, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper.