Federal Trade Commission To Scrutinize DRM

Ars Technica reports that the FTC is getting ready to take a hard look at gaming DRM, setting up a town hall meeting to be held on March 25th. They're currently recruiting panelists, and they say the meeting will, in part, "address the need to improve disclosures to consumers about DRM limitations." The controversy over DRM came to a head in 2008 with the release of Spore and the multiple subsequent class-action lawsuits focusing on the SecuROM software that came with the game. Ars Technica says the town hall meeting will also look at "legal issues surrounding DRM" and "the potential need for government involvement to protect consumers."

Comments

Woot!

[Notabadguy]

These kind of stories swing both ways, and we've had literally dozens of "Finally the pendulum swings the other way moments" that have amounted to nothing more than blips across the radar... But I can't help but optimistically wonder if this is the start of a trend fighting back against corporate abuse of us, the customer? For several years now, I (and probably you) have been inured to new stories about corporation X doing new thing Y to screw customer z, and the news story hasn't even batted an eyelash because we're not surprised. Now the RIAA is backpedaling, and DRM is getting an appropriate scrutinizing. =) Its a good start to 2009!

Re:Woot!

[Farmer Pete]

All that will come out of this is that the game manufacturers will be forced to put a tiny label on the box saying that it has DRM on it. You'll need a magnifying glass to read it, and you wont know what it means unless you are up on the subject.

Re:Woot!

[causality]

What does the MAFIAA have to do with gaming DRM?

Directly? Not very much. Indirectly? They're trying to pave the way for more DRM in general.

I think the problem is that we draw too many distinctions between this form of DRM and that form of DRM. The basic idea is that you either accept and agree with the philosophy of control underlying DRM or you see it as a threat to the freedom and assumption of good faith that most customers in most industries currently enjoy. If it's okay for media conglomerates to exert this kind of after-the-sale control of the market for music, it's also okay for software companies to exert this kind of after-the-sale control of the market for video games. It would be hypocritical to embrace one and resist the other.

The way I see it, this is not about DRM or SecuROM or gaming or the RIAA or the MPAA. This is about the acceptance or the rejection of an idea. Any successful DRM scheme in any industry is an argument for the acceptability of DRM in general. Taken to its conclusion, the acceptability of DRM and the legitimization of this kind of micromanaged control would eventually have DRM-like systems showing up in many industries, even those that do not depend on copyright law. What has the MAFIAA to do with gaming? You can bet that the gaming companies are looking at the lessons learned from systems like iTunes, such as why it was successful, and considering these things for their own DRM.

The part that bothers me is that you see this same pattern with most other systems of control. Remember the earlier PCs and the "Don't Copy That Floppy" campaigns and the severe antipiracy measures? They were not successful enough to become a widespread, enduring practice but the desire for control didn't just go away. The government is not the only large entity that is able to manipulate people and convince them that less freedom is somehow a good thing. So maybe people back then weren't prepared to accept it and here it comes rearing its ugly head once again. The pattern that bothers me is that this will keep coming up again and again, decade after decade, until it finally takes root, because the people pushing it know that once it is viewed as "just the way things are done" then it will be here to stay. Then the only "debate" will be about which forms of it are to be used and whether the FTC or anyone else will regulate it. If it ever becomes so legitimized, that would represent a significant victory for those who place short-term profits ahead of long-term freedoms.

Re:Woot!

[causality]

Again, you may find all forms of DRM to be abhorrent, but the more moderate forms are acceptable to many.

That's because, as I explained, I find it to be abhorrent in principle. It's the practical implementation that the many find so acceptable. I won't mince words here; compromising principles not even for short-term gain, but worse, for no gain at all, on the grounds of "well it isn't really so bad (yet)", are the actions of weak-minded people who deserve what this inevitably leads to. Do it once and you prove that you and your beliefs and interests are compromisable. Prove that these are compromisable and you invite more of the same. Whether you are talking about nations or corporations, It is always a tiny, gradual, bit-by-bit encroachment and any particular "bit" never seems so bad at the time. Waiting until this happens and becomes entrenched is probably the worst time to resist it. With all of the examples provided by history, I can't believe anyone still doubts the inevitability of this process. Yet every time this comes up you always have the apologists who excuse the encroachment; their failure is that they are only looking at the immediate short-term and are not taking the idea to its full expression or at least asking "what precedent does this establish?".

DRM was not the result of overwhelming customer demand. DRM amounts to the corporations telling their customers how the market will be. This is backwards. It is the customers who should be telling the corporations how the market will be, with bankruptcy as the corporations' only option. I'll make my priorities clear to you: I would rather see every last member of the RIAA and MPAA and every last video game company go completely out of business than see the widespread acceptance of unnecessary limitations on freedom. Freedom is easily that precious.

To concern yourself with whether this form of DRM is a little bad while that one over there is quite agreeable is to miss the point. That's exactly the kind of shortsighted tunnel-vision that is hoped for by the people who want more control over you. Take my definition from my first paragraph. It is compromising sound principles, not even for short-term gain but for no gain at all, on the grounds of "well at present it's not that bad". Does this sound like the behavior of sane, rational people who are looking after their own interests?

It's like that saying, when you call things what they are everything becomes so much simpler. This is drastically more clear-cut than issues that cause half the amount of controversy.

Re:Woot!

[hairyfeet]

And allow me to add another reality that many seem to forget. That ANY DRM eventually leads to screwed customers. That is just a fact. Hell that is pretty much the point, since the pirates get around that crap so fast they release before launch date nowadays. So who does that leave if it isn't slowing the pirates? That's right, the poor bastard that actually bought it. I just wish I had saved the emails I shot back and forth with Valve over Steam, because I can tell you that I got screwed. I was one of the idiots that bought HL: GOTY edition and ended up being told to go out and buy it again because some hacker group had come out with a keygen. Look it up, I am FAR from alone with that one. I gave the game away and said never again. I will stick with games that I can get a crack for after purchase and will NEVER deal with that online activation crap again. Fool me once...

But allow me to turn it over to someone who expresses how I fell about DRM now better than I do. While he is not talking about Steam, I think those of us that have been burnt enough(and frankly here who hasn't?) will relate to his story. And be sure to look behind him at the huge amount of money he has given the gaming companies only to be kicked in the nuts. And folks wonder why piracy just seems to be growing. Well how about not kicking the consumer in the nuts when you KNOW that DRM shit does absolutely NOTHING to slow down the pirates? How about that?

Re:Woot!

[hairyfeet]

Was it HL:GOTY edition? Because it sounds like the same thing that happened to me. I even offered to take a picture of the game with today's newspaper as well as faxing them the receipt. Like you they treated me like a criminal for actually giving them my money. Well I learned my lesson. It will be a cold day in hell before I give Valve another red cent.

And for all of you that talk about how wonderful Steam is, what do you think is going to happen when somebody figures out how to hack it? Do you think they won't treat you as a criminal like I was treated? Or what happens when you pick up the box version of a Valve game and some cracker group has released a keygen for it? I will tell you what will happen. Just like what I and this AC had happen. Your money will have been a free gift to Valve with nothing to show for it but rude emails telling you to give them MORE money you dirtbag you.

This is why we must always fight DRM in all its forms. Because as we all know it is NOT about piracy. DRM has done nothing in the past 20 years to even put a dent in piracy, and if it was to stop casual piracy, well that was easy enough with the old "bad sector" CD trick. No, this is about control. This is about turning everything you purchase digitally into nothing more than a rental that can be turned off at a whim. As long as you are supporting DRM like Steam, you are saying to the game companies that you are willing to pay full price for something that you have NO control or say over. They can kill the servers, they can use kill bits, or like I and this AC had happen they can simply say "I don't believe you paid for it despite your receipt. Pay for it again." And that is simply unacceptable.

Linking to a previous news item

[fgaliegue]

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/178259

Go read it. Seriously. The author has many good point, and this panel only highlights the points he makes.

The /. comments on this article are spot on, in the sense that most of them are knee-jerk reactions predicted all along the article. Sad.

Re:Linking to a previous news item

[plasmacutter]

I think the guy's "good points" were rendered null and void when he slammed everyone who engages in civil disobedience against unjust, anti-consumer, and economically crushing copyright over-reach.

Apparently he wasn't paying attention when the elephant walked into the room and crushed the fledgling digital age, crib and all.

Re:At the bare minimum...

[Technician]

At the very least, the FTC should make it illegal to advertise any product infected with DRM as a "sale" as opposed to a "rental" or "lease". As it's impossible to own them, that's false advertising.

At the very least, the FTC should make it illegal to sell software that hides itself and makes it difficult or impossible to remove when you are done with it.

Uninstalling the game should not leave your PC in a reduced functionality state.

The FTC should also require the game to isolate the game functions from the rest of the computer functions. Playing a game and exiting should never leave your CD burner inop.

Re:Video Games a Bad Candidate,this doesn't bode w

[itsdapead]

There is very little case law protecting consumer fair use with video games, as compared with audio and video.

I'd have thought that was an argument in favour of starting with video games.

OK, so all DRM is bad, but the real horror stories (malware, limited installs, mandatory internet connections) have been with games.

The Spore case is a particularly clear example of DRM pissing off legitimate consumers while failing to deter (and possibly encouraging) large-scale illicit copying.

Also, whereas issues with Audio/Video DRM are normally to do with caselaw-based "fair use" rights such as format-shifting, the problems with video game DRM have been more fundamental "fitness for purpose" variety. I'm not defending audio/video DRM, but pragmatically speaking, audio DRM seems to be dying off by itself and "your lousy game broke my perfectly standard PC" is going to get more public sympathy than "why can't I watch HD content on Linux?".

Re:Consumers are in the driver's seat now.

[powerlord]

Windows 98 wasn't bad. XP is near the edge between good and bad.

(editing and emphasis mine)

Reinstall 98 and you need a key. Sure its easy to bypass, but a legitimate user never experiences a diminishment in functionality from reinstalling and using the product they purchased.

Reinstall XP and you need a key. That key may or may not authorize. To even find out, you either need an internet connection (not too hard in this day and age), or a telephone connection and you have to sit on the phone and wait. If the system doesn't automatically reauthorize (I had this happen the third time I upgraded my system when the motherboard had blown and it meant I had to replace the Motherboard, CPU and memory), then you have to call and explain to them why you should be allowed to use the product you purchased, even though you are installing a legitimate key.

The line that MS crossed was deciding that legitimate keys could only be used "so many times" some where in an algorithm.
This is a diminution of services, and is about the only major erk with XP I currently have. Fortunately they carried it forward to Vista which made my upgrade path more of a migration issue to another OS.

Re:Governments are smart

[mcgrew]

Not me.

I'd like to see a new Digital Millineum Copyright Act that actually made sense. My DMCA would state that any work protected by technological means automatically loses its copyright on the grounds that it needs no legal protection.

You have copyright? You don't need DRM. You have DRM? You don't need copyright.

I'd also like to see copyrights expire after 20 years. Jimi Hendrix' music, JRR Tolkein's books, DOS 2.0, Disney's Fantasia, all should be in the public domain. That is, after all, why the US Constutution grants Congress the privelege of making copyright in the first place.

Re:Video Games a Bad Candidate,this doesn't bode w

[harl]

FAIL.

I bought Game X. I installed Game X. I consented to Game X I never knew that I was also installing SecureROM. It never tells you on the package nor in the EULA nor in the installer. That's unauthorized computer usage. That's completely criminal.

Consenting to something does not mean I'm consenting to everything.

Re:Consumers are in the driver's seat now.

[DarthJohn]

The problem is that you have to ask at all.