The End of Copyright

Gamasutra has an article from the ever-interesting Ernest Adams on the future of copyright as regards creative works. From the article: "If we're going to go on making video games, the publishers have to find a way to make them pay for themselves. One approach is an advertising model, although I'm reluctant to say it because I hate the idea of ads in games. Another is to treat games as a service rather than a product. With broadband distribution, I think this is increasingly likely: you won't ever have a durable copy of a game, you'll download it every time you play it. Each instantiation will be unique, personalized for a particular machine and Internet address; encrypted to discourage hacking; and expires after a few hours. After that you'll have to download a new copy."

Comments

I'm done

[hawkbug]

"Each instantiation will be unique, personalized for a particular machine and Internet address; encrypted to discourage hacking; and expires after a few hours. After that you'll have to download a new copy."

And that will be the official end of me every buying a game again as long as I live. Under no circumstances will I pay for software usuage with that type of model. I simply won't do it. That also goes for things like MS Office 12, Windows, whatever. If I can't purchase a disc/drive/etc that contains a copy of the software that I'm free to use OFFLINE, then I'm done with non-free, non-opensource software. Windows XP is hard enough to deal with, having to activate it over the net or phone - but if I had to do that everytime I used the damn thing...

FTFA

[deblau]

On June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court decided to hold companies that make file-sharing software responsible for copyright infringements perpetrated by the software's users. Everyone expected that they would rule as they did when Universal City Studios sued Sony over the Betamax in 1984: there were legitimate uses of the technology, and it shouldn't be held responsible simply because it can be used unlawfully. Instead, however, they ruled that file-sharing software actively encourages piracy and the makers should be held accountable.

This conclusion grossly misconstrues the opinion. Instead, they held that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties. MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2780 (2005). They never said the software itself was illegal. They went on to reiterate the Sony rule:

[M]ere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves. The inducement rule, instead, premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise. Id.

One small note: the liability attaches to those who distribute, not those who create. They didn't get Grokster for the coding work, only for distributing the software while advertising its illegal uses.

A small procedural note: they didn't actually reverse the lower court, they vacated (threw out) the lower court's opinion, and sent it back for further trial on inducement. Grokster capitulated before the trial continuation finished, probably because they knew they had a losing case.

The rest of the article goes on to troll some more, but I won't give it credence by rebutting it. I just thought I'd help clear up any confusion anyone has about the Grokster holding.

Real piracy is not stopped by stupid protections.

[WidescreenFreak]

Absolutely correct. One of the great things about having a disc, even one that has copy protection on it, is that when you want to play the game, you throw the disc in and let it start. Okay, it has to search for the copy protection, but at least it doesn't require a mandatory connection to the Internet to do it.

Looking at it from a legal perspective, if you buy the game and then are not allowed to play it, doesn't that constitute grounds for a lawsuit? Here in the States there are clauses in most state/commonwealth laws that make illegal any actions that constitute "services unrendered" when the purchaser has continually acted in good faith. So, you - for whatever reason - lose your Internet connection or you're somewhere (such as with a laptop on international travel) where Internet access is not easy to get. Ooops! Sorry! You have to download a new, encrypted version in order to play! You pay, but you don't play! Why would "services unrendered" not apply? Ah, yes, such terms could be hidden in an EULA. Well, as Sony recently found out EULAs are not necessarily enough to cover deceptive or nefarious practices.

I'm not a lawyer, so what I've said might be baseless. Even if it is, I really despise anyone who thinks that it's fair game to potentially deny someone the ability to use a piece of software that is legally purchased and legally used in good faith. This is as despicable as when UbiSoft required all "Ghost Recon 2" users to "phone home" for authentication even for a LAN game that had no Internet traffic whatsoever. No Internet connection, no LAN game. Sorry, you lose. Once again, only the legal users were punished because the hackers knew how to get around it.

encrypted to discourage hacking

Oh, puh-lease! Good hackers will have decrypted code available in no time with any copy protection completely stripped off and available on Usenet. What's sad is that the game companies still persist on thinking that copy protection works.

Why don't they do something more practical -- like include value add items like the old "Ultima" series used to do? I remember that some of the things that always made people want to buy the game besides loyalty and just about everything about the game* were the cloth map of Britannia and the trinket relative to that particular chapter of the game. Granted, we don't all want t-shirts, but certainly there could be more tangible incentives to make people want to buy the game.

My idyllic world, I suppose.

* This does not necessarily include "Ultima 8: The Arcade Game" or "Ultima: Ascension - The Bug Ridden Piece of Sh!t With The Pathetic Storyline And Even Worse Ending That Insults The Ultima Franchise".

Download limits will be a problem

[miaDWZ]

In many places, such as Australia - we do not have the luxury of downloading the same thing over and over again.

Your regular Internet plans down here are limited to somewhere between 3-10gb per month. The larger plans go up to about 40gb (20gb peek, 20gb off peek).

Now, if we are talking about a big game, say, HL2, we are talking like 2gb here. Whilst I am very lucky, and happen to be one of the few in Australia to have an ADSL2 connection - I'm still on a 20gb cap. So, I can download 2gb in seven minutes (assuming ideal conditions) - that's still 1/10th of my monthly download gone.

Play say, a couple of times a day and you've passed your download limit.

Now, remember, many people are charged money for going over their download limit. The largest ISP in Australia, Telstra Bigpond charge AUD$150/gb over your limit.

So, lets say you have a standard 3gb account, and play the game 5 times in a month - you pay:

[charges for going 7gb over limit] = 150 * 7 = 1050 + monthly fee

Now, I don't see many people willing to pay $1050 for a game.