Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stardock Evaluates DRM Complaints, Updates Gamer's Bill of Rights

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-sense-anger dept.

Earlier this year, we discussed the Gamer's Bill of Rights, a document put forth by Stardock CEO Brad Wardell to address what he felt were the unacceptable characteristics of the gaming industry. ShackNews reports that Wardell has taken feedback from gamers, developers, and publishers, and updated the document accordingly. One particular area on which he focused was DRM. Stardock also published a customer report that examines the issue in greater detail (PDF). MTV's Multiplayer Blog fans the flames of the debate by asking if anyone is embarrassed about pirating video games.

2 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Embarrassed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to admit I'd bought a copy of Spore considering the limitations of the DRM and the fact that it's installed malware like SecureRom. The people who have torrented DRM-free copies are already laughing at the people who have already hit their 5-install limit.

    Just like I'd be embarrassed if I had bought music from Microsoft or Yahoo a few years ago, then found out that they're shutting down the license servers so that I have no way of listening to copies of songs I've purchased. People who listen to copies of those same songs downloaded from Kazaa are laughing at them.

    Pay attention to the lesson here folks. If you buy something that comes with copy protection, you are being scammed just as surely as if you were to send your life savings to the nice man from Nigeria that sends you so many emails. If there is no legitimate method of buying it that doesn't include DRM, then don't buy it at all.

  2. How about a DRM Bill of Rights by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I want a DRM Bill of Rights, an agreement between Publishers and End-Users about what their DRM software can and cannot do. It needs to be palatable to both the Publishers -who want to protect their copyright and investment in the software- and to the users, who want to be able to use software they paid for not only today but in the future.

    1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.

    What it entails for the publisher:

    The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.

    How It Would Work:

    When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.

    2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.

    What it entails for the Publisher:

    The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.

    How It Would Work:

    Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)

    3) Right to P