This might be of interest to Objectivist gamers.

[starblade_enkai]

I've just opted to create a petition to protect gamers who like the creations of highly pro-DRM companies. The reasoning behind this is that when purchasing articles of intellectual property, any inability of the consumer to use the software legally is a form of fraud. Furthermore, the basic thing stopping the continuity of the contract between the

Comments

[madbard]

I'll let others deal with the philosophical problems here. One more immediate thing to consider is that games are already being driven from the PC market because of piracy. This is partly why so much development happens on consoles.

Preventing DRM would further decrease game revenue, and drive vendors to seek other markets. Plus, government can't (and shouldn't) stop usage licenses. Game companies can just shrink-wrap a game with a big notice that says "by buying this, you agree to our DRM terms". But more likely they'd just stop making PC games.

[starblade_enkai]

Did you read the post? I'm going to assume you didn't, otherwise you would've noticed that there's nothing in my petition that states that a producer must relinquish their rights to DRM. All it says is that those who use it must bear responsibility for the consequences of using it, which is simply to say that they need to let the people who paid for their product actually use it.

Bear in mind I'm being generous here in my accusation. I could've made the worse accusation that you HAD read it and somehow were confused by the very clear language I was using.

No offense or anything like that. I just wanted to make things clear.

[madbard]

Well, I read this:

>any inability of the consumer to use the software legally is a form of fraud

which I assumed meant you considered DRM to be such an inability. Is this not the case?

and I read this:

>in the event that consumers who bought products from said failing entities >had a perpetual, mutual obligation with consumers that involves said asset.

Which I assume implied you'd like to institute such a perpetual, mutual contract coercively, because no company will ever create such a contract voluntarily.

If all you're saying is that if EA goes belly-up and their Spore activation servers stop working, it shouldn't be illegal for Activision to buy them, then I agree... but is this an issue at all?

[starblade_enkai]

The issue here is the definition of ownership as it pertains to contract. While the consumers may not own the activation servers in the literal sense of the term, any standard purchase of products using this form of DRM is an implied right to use these activation servers.

What I could do is simply nullify the obligation of the consumers to not crack into the game, which nobody could object to anyway because if EA goes belly up there is no entity's rights being violated, since EA is no longer an entity in this case.

[rinku]

The inability to play a game you've bought because of DRM isn't fraud, because it's usually covered in the license agreement.

As an aside, I'm a game developer, and although I don't use DRM myself, I've nothing against it and feel that anti-DRM people are barking at imaginary dogs.

[starblade_enkai]

The license agreement typically only covers cases where if you abuse the DRM you won't be able to play it. They usually never cover cases where "if we go out of business you agree to be SOL".

There is also something to be said about contracts which are explained AFTER you've bought a program and taken it out of the package so that the product cannot be returned.

[rinku]

But you are usually not SOL if they go out of business. You're talking about a hypothetical that has never happened. Can you name one instance of it happening?

For your second point, most PC games today are bought via digital delivery (such as through Steam), so there's usually opportunity to read the contract before "opening the package".

[starblade_enkai]

I can name three.

http://www.drmwatch.com/ocr/article.php/3695791
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/07/25/yahoo-music-unlimited-shutdown-a-drm-mess
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/1131

Now granted this was not so much a failure of the business as a whole as it was a failure in part of the business, but it seems to me that, even though some of the issues were dealt with, at least as far as I know, it was dealt with as if it wasn't a matter of rights, but a matter of their decision to make good on contracts, as if we were asking for permission for what should have been ours.

Granted that there is going to be bias in terms of the philosophy through which the facts are presented, the facts themselves were presented as they truly existed.