Why Bother With DRM?

Brad Wardell of Stardock and Ron Carmel of 2D Boy recently spoke with Gamasutra about their efforts to move the games industry away from restrictive DRM. Despite the fact that both have had their own troubles with piracy, they contend that overall piracy rates aren't significantly affected by DRM — and that most companies know it. Instead, the two suggest that most DRM solutions are still around to hamper a few more specific situations. Quoting: "'Publishers aren't stupid. They know that DRM doesn't work against piracy,' Carmel explains. 'What they're trying to do is stop people from going to GameStop to buy $50 games for $35, none of which goes into the publishers' pockets. If DRM permits only a few installs, that minimizes the number of times a game can be resold.' ... 'I believe their argument is that while DRM doesn't work perfectly,' says Wardell, 'it does make it more difficult for someone to get the game for free in the first five or six days of its release. That's when a lot of the sales take place and that's when the royalties from the retailers are determined. Publishers would be very happy for a first week without "warez" copies circulating on the Web.'"

Comments

Everyone is looking for security against GNU `cp'

[Anonymous Coward]

...and to distinguish, tailor or make unique each original software package against its owner while depriving the owner to said security interest controlling the scope of its use. Anti-terrorism so-called "law" works in the same effect, by "military force" dictating what would be Civil while in effect is nothing more than a legal mode of maintenance rearing its ugly head. Is this property for sale you might ask? Obviously the right to use it is being mis-represented, and therefore the owner is not satisfied. If the company fails, the duty of maintenance would fall upon the owner if said reservation is not monetized into another company's profile, yet here we see a pattern of execution not to the disclosure of the owner. Non-disclosure is the same as a piece of tape advertising, not suggesting, implicit agreement to an alleged "End User License Agreement" through unreliable explicit means of free speech without any officers present to Secure those rights.

It's just one de-facto power against not the people but one single owner. Which is why Richard Stallman knows a steamroller when he sees one. Data is proprietary to the owner, the code to one's personam. What are we buying, code or data, and what impediments to this Grant of right do we have? Anyone can copy, as that is a privilege allowed by the bridge on a logical Bus and keyboard, yet at an administrative pervue there is nothing to distinguish each instance but a timestamp if any. There is your proof of right, no different the beloved chancellor of a Post: timestamp is certification to the passage of verification to the agency of master.