Google Adds Licensing Server DRM To Android Market

eldavojohn writes "According to AfterDawn, Google has given app makers the option to use a license server as DRM to ensure the user has paid for an app before they can download it. Reportedly, the Market app will communicate with a Google license server using RSA encryption. It is important to note this is only available for non-free apps (built with SDK 1.5 and later), and it was instituted to provide a better solution to the old and widely criticized copy protection scheme that was susceptible to Android app piracy (like sideloading). For better or for worse, Android's Marketplace appears to now have an optional, phone-home form of DRM." Following news of the new licensing service, Hexage Ltd, makers of a popular Android game called Radiant, released the data they had collected on piracy of Radiant over a 10-month period beginning last October. A series of charts shows total users, paid users and the piracy rate, by region.

Comments

"Do no evil"

[betterunixthanunix]

Do no evil*

* Unless there is a significant financial interest to be evil.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

it's up to the developer. I didn't even RTFA. "Google has given app makers the option". not "Google forces ..." (Option, Force). Different things. and if the dev really doesn't like it - then they can play the iphone's gestapo slot machine.

Re:"Do no evil"

[poetmatt]

it has more to do with catering to legacy companies who think that they can somehow combat piracy. In reality, costs go down significantly over time for ongoing software development, so even if a small subset of the folks pirating slowly convert over time you're only going to continue to make more and more money.

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software (and associated benefits/gains).

Re:"Do no evil"

[Monkeedude1212]

You know its surprising how much significant financial interest there is in other pathways than the one Google has taken, yet you don't see them abusing it.

Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right and definately should be wary of what Google does being in the position Google is in. (Great power, Great responsibility, blah blah blah).

But giving developers the option to use a DRM server for their priced apps?

Where is the evil in that?

Re:"Do no evil"

[betterunixthanunix]

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Re:"Do no evil"

[bonch]

it has more to do with catering to legacy companies who think that they can somehow combat piracy. In reality, costs go down significantly over time for ongoing software development, so even if a small subset of the folks pirating slowly convert over time you're only going to continue to make more and more money.

[citation needed]

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software (and associated benefits/gains).

Those people would be ideologues. If ideology is that important to them, they shouldn't be using Android anyway because it's not an open platform.

Re:"Do no evil"

[abigor]

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software (and associated benefits/gains).

I can't believe people still confuse free as in beer and free as in freedom, despite how many times people point out the difference on here.

Free software types are not opposed to for-pay software, at all. The two concepts are not related.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhmmm, EXCUSE ME?

Maybe I'm just not 'free software' enough, but I have no problem paying for applications that are WORTH IT.

The problem here stems from applications/operating systems that have pretty well been beaten to death (Office, WinXP) being sold for the same cost as a new piece of software. Much like with Cars, software generally deprecates over time as the forefront of software technology advances. That's not to say all software will eventually be worth a 0 dollar cost, but just like cars it will eventually reach a price that may not make it worth creating an equivalent piece of software for-profit.

Free software is to a large degree changing where that bar starts and ends. And the majority of people who enjoy piracy AREN'T part of the Free Software movement, they're part of the Free Rider movement, meaning they'd prefer to not have to work in order to get ANYTHING. For another example, see 'NEET'.

Re:"Do no evil"

[LainTouko]

The potential evil is one of deceit, it's in colluding with someone who claims to be 'selling' an application, which in reality is programmed to disobey the person deceived into thinking they own it if it can't find this DRM server.

Using DRM, by itself, is not an issue. It's this refusal to be clear that, by doing so, you've changed 'selling' into a strange form of rental (with incompletely specified conditions) which is the evil bit. If you participate in an activity which looks like selling, but doesn't actually give the 'buyer' the freedoms they get when they buy a useful object normally, that looks like complicity in fraud to me.

Lots of others may be doing it, but in morality this is no excuse.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Monkeedude1212]

Except that Google is not the one implementing this decision. Google could offer this service and no developer could use it - and everything would go on as usual.

This is entirely a developers choice - Google is simply giving them the option to implement DRM should they choose.

Re:"Do no evil"

[SideshowBob]

Free software types are not opposed to for-pay software, at all. The two concepts are not related.

I think it's pretty clear that many are, possibly most.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true people get the concepts confused, but it's not entirely surprising. Even putting aside the ambiguousness of the word "free".

What is not true is that the concepts are not at all related.

The fact is, it's really, really hard to monetize a product and keep a competitive advantage when you have to give away pretty much all the resources required to reproduce it (source code) on request. Most people wouldn't pay anything unless they felt compelled to. Most people don't like to be compelled to pay anything, but it doesn't make in any less necessary.

This makes them, to some degree, related.

It means you either have to beg (for donations) or hope your product becomes big enough that businesses will pay for support. Small developers are the ones who generally can't monetize and get hurt. DRM, say what you like, has probably been the best thing to happen to small time, indie developers who actually would like to feed their families off their hard work and innovation.

Don't get me wrong. I've released plenty of open source, free-in-every-sense-of-the-word projects over the years. But I value my right and ability to also release something and get paid for it.

Re:"Do no evil"

[91degrees]

Google's informal motto is "don't be evil", not "do no evil".

There's a subtle difference there in that the former still allows a little leeway as long as the balance is ultimately non-evil whereas the latter does not.

Re:"Do no evil"

[voidptr]

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software (and associated benefits/gains).

If you want to disagree with paying for apps and agree with the concept of free software, you can use free software.

That doesn't give you the right to rip off developers who don't agree to put stuff under a free license and steal their work.

I agree with the concept of driving a Porsche around, but I'm not allowed to just drive one off the lot.

Re:"Do no evil"

[LWATCDR]

"Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software (and associated benefits/gains)."

No you are wrong. You are super wrong. You are full of it.
If you are talking about GNU/FSF/RMS meaning of the free software.

It goes against the purpose and concept of free software to us free software.
As betterunixthanunix points out GNU has no problem with charging for software at all.

So yes you can pay for free software all you want. To follow the purpose and concept of free software you would disagree with and refrain from using any software that you where not free to distribute and that did not give you the source or at least an offer of the source!

Not liking DRM is also okay.
But just taking the software is just being a rotten cheapskate that refuses to pay the developer what the developer thinks his product is worth. And you are violating his rights to license his software how he sees fit.
In other words your being a jerk when you pirate some $ 1.99 game for you cell phone and being anti free software at the same time.

Re:"Do no evil"

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

In reality, costs go down significantly over time for ongoing software development...

I dunno if you were being serious or not, but I would like to point out something: DRM creates on-going costs for software. EA, for example, will continue paying lots of people money to handle the servers and the customer service needed for their Spore customers to play their game for as long as they decide to support it. That means that for every product they sell, as they years go by, the actual profit they made from that sale will continue to decline.

I'm amazed that content industries are actually trying to use this model. It's great for rental, it's lousy for one-time sales.

Re:"Do no evil"

[unix1]

they shouldn't be using Android anyway because it's not an open platform.

So, a couple of Chinese companies with obscure products have not released their sources and that makes Android as a whole "closed?" Android is open source last time I checked. As in you can get the source, change it, compile it, get it to work with your own hardware, and redistribute it. In fact, those obscure companies and products are a testament to that.

The fact that some are trying to lock down their bootloaders, not disclose drivers, or trying to lock down root access, etc. does not make the underlying operating system closed in any way.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Any comments to the use of escrow keys, so that you CAN use software you've paid for if the company who maid it go away...? Then there is the ability to move an app from an old phone to a new phone, will it still be able to run?

Re:"Do no evil"

[KiloByte]

Except that this is not about proprietary software, it's about DRM. DRM lets a bastard take up a piece of otherwise free software and lock it up.

And the most important thing, for DRM to work at all, you must be unable to modify the operating system itself. This is the main problem here. I don't give a damn about your little closed source app, as long as it doesn't make it impossible for me to mess with the system.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

If/When developers opt to use this DRM server, will they be branded as Evil as in Apple?

I find it amusing watching the Google Fanboy's falling over themselves to defende the 'choice' to use DRM.

Re:"Do no evil"

[h4rr4r]

I think you're full of shit. I have paid for and will continue to spend my software dollars on FREE software as much as possible. Sure some kids want everything for free, they also pirate games, who cares.

Re:"Do no evil"

[h4rr4r]

If you could copy one without any impact on Ze Germans who built the one at the lot, I would think you might be able too.

I would advise you to instead replicate cars people intend to be FREE in that manner, but it would not be anything like stealing a physical car.

Re:"Do no evil"

[h4rr4r]

They will just discontinue support for the game rather soon. For a good example look at halo on the xbox, no more online multiplayer. Yet, many PC games from that era still have active multiplayer communities.

EA will not let you play spore forever, eventually they will say it is EOL and you can forget about playing it anymore.

Re:"Do no evil"

[h4rr4r]

As an android user and purchaser of apps I would hope they would mark DRMed apps in some way. I do not want to buy them, I do not care if they work I have a moral objection to the them period.

This is probably another one of those cases where I will be forced to buy less as the work of finding out what I would buy is more than the alternative of just going without or doing something else with my time.

Re:"Do no evil"

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

They will just discontinue support for the game rather soon.

Sure. But they've still spent a lot more than they would have on supporting the game during its run. It doesn't matter how short of period they use, they're still eating into their own profits when they use a system like this.

Re:"Do no evil"

[ScrewMaster]

As in you can get the source, change it, compile it, get it to work with your own hardware, and redistribute it.

Or even improve it.

Re:"Do no evil"

[ScrewMaster]

If/When developers opt to use this DRM server, will they be branded as Evil as in Apple?

Yes. In no uncertain terms. I have no problem whatsoever paying for good software, but I do have a problem paying for software whose execute permissions can be remotely revoked. And, if I do find that I've bought an app from the Market that did not disclose its use of said DRM, it will be uninstalled moments later. So far as DRM is concerned, odds are that it will be performed competently (from a technical perspective) by Google. That doesn't make it right, or desirable from the user's perspective. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to even be considering this crap for apps whose average price is maybe five bucks. For that kind of money it's simply not worth the effort to copy the stuff illegally: that's a more powerful incentive to stay legit than any amount of Digital Restrictions Management.

I find it amusing watching the Google Fanboy's falling over themselves to defende the 'choice' to use DRM.

Huh? That doesn't actually make any sense. This is Slashdot, and I don't think you'll find too many people hereabouts defending DRM no matter who the vendor. The GP is correct in pointing out that this is not being shoved down users throats. Matter of fact, I doubt very much if Brin and Page give a damn about it either way ... it's not going to affect their bottom line in the least. That's in direct contrast to Apple, for whom DRM plays a major role in their business model (one of many reasons why I own no Apple products.)

Developers are complaining about "piracy" (and I use the term loosely, I seriously doubt there are many true pirates in the Android world) and the powers-that-be at the big G are trying to accommodate them. Still, having said that, you'd have to have some hellaceously well-written and useful software for me to buy into this bullshit, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. This is going to be an interesting test to see just how well such DRM will be accepted, especially on an otherwise relatively open platform.

Re:"Do no evil"

[mysidia]

In other words your being a jerk when you pirate some $ 1.99 game for you cell phone and being anti free software at the same time.

Either that or it's Civil disobedience. You're not going to provide source and let me change it? Then the software's not worth that much to me anyways.

No basis for paying, if not receiving access to the software code or ability to modify it.

Re:"Do no evil"

[zuperduperman]

Not an Open Platform?

If Richard Stallman recommends it then I think it's open enough to satisfy me.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

The software is still free, since you can take the source code and modify and recompile it. It's the hardware that's locked down.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Nyder]

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software (and associated benefits/gains).

I can't believe people still confuse free as in beer and free as in freedom, despite how many times people point out the difference on here.

Free software types are not opposed to for-pay software, at all. The two concepts are not related.

Well the term "Free as in beer, and Free as in Freedom" is pretty confusing.

Beer isn't free. No where you can go to get free beer, because it cost money to make, to grow the items, etc.
Freedom is an idea. ideas don't mean the same to everyone. ideas aren't tangible.

And honestly, the freedom isn't free either, it's going to cost lives, time, money, and pissing off others trying to spread your "freedom".
(um, edit here. Actually, Freedom is free, as in, you can imagine it, think about it. But if you act on it, it's going to cost.)

So, what your saying is, nothing (acted upon) is free, so shut up and quit complaining?

Why don't we figure a saying that actually makes sense to everyone.

Seriously, I can't figure if "free software" or "Open Source" is supposed to be the beer, or the freedom in that example, because both, imo, fail.

Here's why I can't grok it. writing software takes time. and honestly, thats about it. You can't compare it to beer, because beer requires stuff grown from the ground, then you have to cook it, and do a bunch of processs to actually real stuff.
You can't compare it to freedom, because freedom is an idea. Writing software isn't an idea, it's the doing action on an idea.

So, maybe you mean free as in freedom, for "free software", but really. Freedom is an idea. Software is the result of work. Someone took an idea and implemented it in software. That's not that same. Now, if they didn't bother to type the program down, then sure, it would be the same.

Maybe in this case, you should say, "Free as in fighting for freedom"?

Seriously, "Free as in beer, Free as in Freedom" sucks. come up with a better comparison if you want the masses to understand.

Re:"Do no evil"

[pandrijeczko]

It isn't deceit if the consumer can't be bothered to read the Terms & Conditions properly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally anti-DRM and if developers want to use it then they won't have me as a customer, it's that simple. But for every DRM-ed app or game out there, there are free alternatives, so it doesn't bother me.

And if an app or game uses DRM then it will be there in the Terms & Conditions somewhere - or just wait & week after it's release & check reviews or comments because it will be there.

Sorry, but I don't *NEED* to be protected from my own laziness or stupidity.

Re:"Do no evil"

[LWATCDR]

Civil disobedience is the act of breaking unfair civil laws.
Like sitting in a whites only section of a bus.
Or drinking from a whites only water fountain.
It is not violating the rights of others to control the product of their labor.
That is simply being a jerk. You can pretend it is some great act but it is in the end being just a jerk wad.

If you really wanted to act in the cause of Free software you would learn to code if you didn't already and write a better game and release it as FOSS.
Other wise back to being a jerk and actually hurting the cause of Free Software.
End of Story.

Re:"Do no evil"

[mysidia]

Civil disobedience is the act of breaking unfair civil laws.

Yep. And the copyright act happens to be one of the most unfair laws ever passed.

Re:"Do no evil"

[GooberToo]

If you could copy one without any impact on Ze Germans who built the one at the lot, I would think you might be able too.

Given that its impossible, what's your point? And I mean that in the most generic way.

Any time you make a copy of something of value, you dilute its value. This is as true for currency, stocks, bonds, art, and yes, even software. Every pirate who steals, have inflicted at least some degree of financial damage to the IP owner. That's just how markets and economies work.

If I make counterfeit money using my own paper and my own ink and my own time, has the economy been damaged? Yes! That's why counterfeiting is illegal in every country which supports the concept of currency. And yes, that's exactly, what pirates to do IP owners every day.

You can not pirate IP, assuming the IP still have market value, without harming the value of the IP in question. As a result, in all these situations, the IP owner is financially harmed.

Pirates who steal and believe they've done no harm are as nieve and misinformed as they come.

Re:"Do no evil"

[Anonymous Coward]

The GNU/RMS meaning of free software isn't againist finding a profit with software. It just againist the concept of "selling the software itself as a commercial product".

Re:"Do no evil"

[intheshelter]

Is your blind hatred of Apple clouding your judgement or is it your foolish Android fanboy viewpoint?

Re:"Do no evil"

[LWATCDR]

I really should have let this one just die but it has been eating at me for days.
" And the copyright act happens to be one of the most unfair laws ever passed."
You are out of your freaking tiny mind.
Really the copyright act is one of the most unfair laws ever passed?
What about the apartheid laws in South Africa?
What about the laws that prevent women from voting in Muslim countries?
What about the Jim Crow segregation laws in the US?
What about the laws that put Japanese American camps during WWII?
Most unfair laws ever passed? That is one of the all time STUPIDEST things I have ever heard of.
First of all some protection of copyrights is a good thing. And since we are talking about games even RMS feels that the while the logic code of a game should be FOSS he has no problem with the artwork and the graphics being copyrighted!
AKA the engine should be free but the data is not!
And NO it freaking isn't civil disobedience! Civil disobedience as a protest is public.
Here is a big pile of truth.
What you are doing is called justification.
You want free stuff. You feel entitled to free stuff. So you are going to take it.
And while you take it you justify it by abusing the term Free Software and then wrap yourself in the flag of Civil Disobedience. So you hurt both of those idea by abusing them just to be a cheap jerk that wants a game for free.
This is just disgusting in the extreme. Just vile.

Re:"Do no evil"

[mysidia]

Really the copyright act is one of the most unfair laws ever passed?

Yes. One of the most. I did not say single most; this is not an exclusive position. Of course there are other laws that are just as unfair.

The copyright acts are unfair because they deprive people of natural rights, regarding free speech. For example: Sing the Happy Birthday song, don't pay the fee, go to jail....

What about the apartheid laws in South Africa?

Note that you are referring to laws plural, and not any specific law that could be compared against the copyright act or the DMCA. Apartheid was not any single law, but an entire system of great complexity, involving many laws.

A mitigating factor in regards to Apartheid is it was recognized as such and only lasted a short time, only approximately 30 years.

What about the laws that prevent women from voting in Muslim countries?

If you want to talk about Sharia and laws in Muslim countries; I find it incredibly odd that you pick one of the least unfair aspects to use as the example.

Did you forget that they stone people to death over "blasphemy"?

In other words, they kill people for exercising certain natural rights. That is orders of magnitude more unfair than selectivity over who can vote.

Voting on the other hand, isn't really a human right, even in a representative democracy. A government doesn't have to be democratic to be fair, even the US denies various people (such as illegal immigrants, people ever convicted of a felony) voting rights; but, a government can be "fair" without allowing anyone to vote at all.

Unequal voting conditions can lead to unfair treatment under the law (taxation without representation), but without such an unfair condition having been the outcome of the voting system -- there is no tangible unfairness.

That is, inequality in voting, is not itself a significant unfairness.

What about the Jim Crow segregation laws in the US?

Why would you think Jim Crow laws would be the unfair ones, when they were preceded by a system of slavery, and laws that provided for that?

What about the laws that put Japanese American camps during WWII?

War sucks.

And NO it freaking isn't civil disobedience! Civil disobedience as a protest is public.

Civil disobedience does not have to be public, as long as it is an active refusal to obey a law, demand, or command of the government. There is a dictionary definition for that term, and what you are saying is both in disagreement with that, and what you are saying is also incorrect.

Re:"Do no evil"

[LWATCDR]

You used the term one of most unfair and it is not even close. Not even in the top one hundred or probably top one thousand. And the FSF doesn't have a problem with copyrights in general. They may think they are too long and maybe a little too broad but they do not think they should be banished. They just do not believe that they should apply to software. Data yes but software no.
The reason I picked the abuse of women under Muslim law is simple. The I just read an article about it on Time so it is fresh in my mind.
The rest of your arguments show just how clueless and out of touch you are.
Copyright does not imped freedom of speech. There are fair use exemptions for criticism and satire.

And you are somewhat correct as to the definition of civil disobedience. But I said civil disobedience as a form of protest.
Please read up on Gandhi and King a bit.

But in the end everything you are saying is and doing is.
1. Anti FOSS as set out by RMS and the FSF.
2. Justification of taking what you want and not paying for it.
As I said RMS would tell you that game engine should be FOSS but it is perfectly fine to charge and copyright the graphics and maps of any game. So the data even in RMS's perfect dream world could be copyrighted.
So no still clueless and trying justify getting what you want for free. AKA being a jerk and actually hurting the cause of FOSS.
It is simple and anyone with a brain and that understands what FOSS is all about can see right through your "arguments". Anyone acting the way you endorse is nothing more than a fraud. Simply put again they are simply using the FOSS movement as justification to get a game for free.
And they are even violating what FSF considers a legitimate copyright by distributing the artwork which the FSF considers to be be legitimate to copyright.
So keep pretending because at this point you are rebel without a cause or a clue.

Re:"Do no evil"

[mysidia]

You used the term one of most unfair and it is not even close. Not even in the top one hundred or probably top one thousand.

It is in the top 50 unfair laws the US ever passed.

Copyright does not imped freedom of speech. There are fair use exemptions for criticism and satire.

The so called "fair use" exemptions are not exemptions at all, and have eroded to the point where nobody can legally use them, thanks to DRM.

1. Anti FOSS as set out by RMS and the FSF.

As I said RMS would tell you that game engine should be FOSS but it is perfectly fine to charge and copyright the graphics and maps of any game.

RMS beliefs are anti-copyright, as he has written: All Software Should be Free:

I have shown how ownership of a program—the power to restrict changing or copying it—is obstructive. Its negative effects are widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have owners for programs.

The definition of the FOSS movement is set out by the Free Software Manifesto. It is inherently anti-copyright.

The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually

So no still clueless and trying justify getting what you want for free. AKA being a jerk and actually hurting the cause of FOSS.

No... but I think you are clueless in regards to the motives, objectives, and reasons for the FOSS movement existing.

Your need to resort to Ad Hominem argument proves your ceaselessness in this matter.

Looks like...

[clo1_2000]

the jig is up.

Re:Looks like...

[rotide]

For those that never wanted to pay for apps that the developers wanted to _sell_.

DRM isn't a requirement here. If two apps exist in an equally functional form and one has DRM while the other doesn't, I know what one I'm picking. If I don't like the DRM, I have a choice to not get DRM'd apps.

It's still consumer choice at this point. Google is just offering a way for developers to DRM their apps if they so choose to do so. If it ends up not being popular, the developers can choose to remove the DRM.

This is actually not a bad thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had to choose between an app checking to see if the user purchased this from the Android store, or DRM schemes using various encryption techniques, remotely pushed keys, daemons that would disable Google accounts if they detected a phone was rooted, I'll take the simple API calls.

Re:This is actually not a bad thing...

[GooberToo]

If anyone wants the the Google link, rather than ripped content to drive up page hits of someone else's website.

Paid apps are not available in many countries.

[sbrubblesman]

Maybe if paid apps for android market where available for everywhere, piracy rates would be much smaller. I'd rather google made paid apps available everywhere before they add DRM.

Re:Paid apps are not available in many countries.

[KlaymenDK]

Maybe if paid apps for android market where available for everywhere, piracy rates would be much smaller. I'd rather google made paid apps available everywhere before they add DRM.

...or just came out and said what the hell it is we're waiting for. As it is, it might take another month, or another decade -- we have no clue. :-(

Re:Paid apps are not available in many countries.

[hitmark]

that, and loosen up the device requirements.

sure, they dropped phone with 2.1, but there is still the 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis compass (huh?), 2mpix camera and GPS thats non-negotiable (with screen size and resolution being defined in groups, but with a "call us" for anything outside of that).

if they had dropped the phone focus properly, we would have had android powered devices that could go head to head with ipad by now. Instead we are left with some saber rattling and some chinese media players thats underpowered to say the least.

Re:Paid apps are not available in many countries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google finally makes good on a promise the gave years ago! This is desperately needed. In part because of Google's extremely poor pay market expansion and complete lack of support for foreign currency.

It seems that Apple users enjoy purchasing and supporting their developers. Android users, especially early adopters seem to have done so largely for idealogical reasons, which means lack of purchasing and piracy galore. Their behavior has significant hurt the platform.

Just based on the pirate downloads I've been able to confirm, well over 200,000 downloads with less than 600 purchases. Sadly my experience is far from the exception. And people wonder why Android has ongoing trouble attracting high end developers to the platform...

Because so many have stolen from me, I have been forced to abandon the platform.

Re:Paid apps are not available in many countries.

[Cereal Box]

It seems that Apple users enjoy purchasing and supporting their developers.

More like, they have no choice (for the most part -- piracy is significantly more difficult to engage in on the iPhone). This is the reason why so many developers like locked down, restrictive DRM and closed platforms -- because given the choice between free and even $0.99, free wins almost all of the time. When users essentially have no choice they actually pay for those apps that "they wouldn't have bought anyway".

Building up Android

[BassMan449]

I don't fault Google for adding this in. They are trying to build up Android and one part of doing that is by developing a strong development ecosystem around it. The problem is if there is huge piracy numbers it's hard to get money behind developing an app for Android. By giving some businesses a little more comfort, they can help to encourage adoption of the platform as a viable development platform for a business.

Re:Building up Android

[unix1]

This is generally a bad idea:

1. Much of the justification for paid apps when both free and paid are available, is to get rid of the ads and tracking in the free versions (admob, etc. at dev's option). Now, you'll be tracked by Google (again, at developer's option) even for paid apps.

2. There are 2 modes: strict and server managed. Strict mode will always verify license every time you start an app. This is useless when no network connection is available - e.g. on airplane, and gives maximum tracking to Google. Server managed can cache the server response and use the cached response when there's no network connection available. This has 2 problems: (1) from users' perspective: you'll have to pre-open such apps that you'd want to use on a plane before taking off (or going off-roading, camping, hiking, etc.) - for example, you don't usually play a certain game (but you will on a plane), so cached response could have expired - better remember to pre-open and re-cache everything before taking off! Users shouldn't have to deal with this crap. And (2) from developers' perspective: the cached response is stored "obfuscated" locally. The "obfuscation" is an encrypted file with a 20-byte salt. The salt is stored inside the application. This is not secure by design and once broken, useless.

There are better ways, none of which involve a lot of extra tracking by Google. For example, even in this licensing scheme, since the salt stays the same per apk, why not just validate the license at install time, and "cache" the encrypted license forever for that specific apk? Another option - why not encrypt the apk itself, decrypt when run or JIT compiled binaries only. In general, why not implement a generic encrypted storage container that could be used by users, developers, and the OS to securely store any information? This could even be encrypted via an optional user-settable password to an encryption key. This is not rocket science, it's been done everywhere else.

Re:Building up Android

[stoanhart]

You're right, this is a good thing.

Why is Steam so good? Because developers feel secure in the DRM, but it's not obtrusive so users don't mind it.

Re:Building up Android

[KamuZ]

It seems you are assuming the data collected by Google when an application checks against the DRM server is going to be used for other purposes. I haven't seen the privacy policy for this service yet so you may be true. Care to share more info?

Re:Building up Android

[SirRedTooth]

I agree, how can anybody possibly fault google for wanting to create a environment where app creators can be paid for their work.

Re:Building up Android

[1001011010110101]

If they had cared, they would have created a global market accesible to the whole word (infrastructure is there, they just dont want to). 90% of the world isn't able to buy paid apps from the store, only free.

Re:Building up Android

[AmiMoJo]

You can copy an installed app from your phone back into an .apk (installable package) if it is routed, so at the moment all someone needs to do to release a warez copy is buy it themselves.

That is why Google wants to add better protection for apps. Piracy is rife, although as many iPhone developers have discovered that isn't actually a bad thing most of the time.

I go abroad and rent a local SIM card, but due to the high cost of data I only allow access via wifi. It would really suck if I couldn't use an app I had paid for just because I have no data connection. I bought a Japanese-English dictionary app which only requires a code and one-time online activation which seems a lot more reasonable.

Re:Building up Android

[SirRedTooth]

90% of developers are not happy working for nothing. They want money to feed themselves and their families. Its ludicrous to expect a highly educated workforce to work for absolutely nothing. Why is it that you expect apps to be free and not food or electricity?

Re:Building up Android

[Anonymous Coward]

This is generally a bad idea:

You say that only because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

1. Much of the justification for paid apps when both free and paid are available, is to get rid of the ads and tracking in the free versions (admob, etc. at dev's option). Now, you'll be tracked by Google (again, at developer's option) even for paid apps.

There is no indication Google will be tracking - only validating. Validating is not the same as location tracking. Unless you have a link which proves otherwise, we can completely dismiss this as paranoia and pro-piracy bullshit.

As for your second point, it doesn't sound like you understand what you're talking about, which is largely predicated on the bullshit from the first point, and largely using it as an excuse to justify spreading FUD and general bullshit.

So to summarize your post - bullshit!

Re:Building up Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: 90% of the world isn't able to buy paid apps from Google's Android Market. They can however buy apps from alternative markets. If you're unhappy with Android Market not selling you paid apps in your country, then you are free to start your own business offering paid apps in your country. This isn't like Apple/AppStore where one company have a monopoly on selling apps!

Re:Building up Android

[rxan]

From the article:

one will use a cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available

Which doesn't sound like the train wreck that you make it out to be:

from users' perspective: you'll have to pre-open such apps that you'd want to use on a plane before taking off (or going off-roading, camping, hiking, etc.) - for example, you don't usually play a certain game (but you will on a plane), so cached response could have expired - better remember to pre-open and re-cache everything before taking off! Users shouldn't have to deal with this crap.

It doesn't sound to me like the cached responses expire. Where did you get that information from?

why not just validate the license at install time, and "cache" the encrypted license forever for that specific apk

If there ever was a problem with the DRM then it could never be fixed unless users reinstalled their apps. This method is more secure. The cached response from last run seems like the best solution possible.

Re:Building up Android

[1001011010110101]

Not free, but available. For most of the world, the market doesn't show paid applications at all. The regions with higher piracy, are those not served by the paid portion of the Android market. Googles fault really.

Re:Building up Android

[unix1]

It doesn't sound to me like the cached responses expire. Where did you get that information from?

Right here.

If there ever was a problem with the DRM then it could never be fixed unless users reinstalled their apps. This method is more secure. The cached response from last run seems like the best solution possible.

In either case, local libraries and apps using those libraries would need to be updated - I'm not sure what else you mean. Besides, "secure" what? DRM is not there for anyone's "security."

Re:Building up Android

[dsouza42]

2. There are 2 modes: strict and server managed. Strict mode will always verify license every time you start an app. This is useless when no network connection is available - e.g. on airplane, and gives maximum tracking to Google. Server managed can cache the server response and use the cached response when there's no network connection available. This has 2 problems: (1) from users' perspective: you'll have to pre-open such apps that you'd want to use on a plane before taking off

Actually the developer has more choices than that... You can allow a user to use your app and delay check until an Internet connection is available (and many apps already require an Internet connection to be useful). Yes, that would mean taking a chance that some people might get to use your app for a while without paying, but it's still a reasonable compromise. This is absolutely not a piracy-proof idea (is there really any piracy-proof software?) and, as you said, there are better ways to do it. This is just so it becomes a bit harder to pirate apps. As a developer, I think investment in DRM or any other anti-piracy measures should only be enough so that the average user can't get around it easily. I also believe that, when in doubt, the app should act as if the user is a paying customer. There is really no point in implementing a very elaborate licensing/DRM system because it will only bother genuine paying customers. Those who are very tech-savvy and motivated enough to save a few bucks on an app will always find a way around it, and share it with others. Today I doubt that there is actually any popular and non-free software in any platform that also doesn't have a pirated no-drm/no-restrictions/cracked version going around in a torrent.

Steam vs. Assassin's Creed 2

[tepples]

Requiring a phone to be online in order to run an app, especially if it otherwise has no need to communicate with the Internet, will hurt users of non-phone Android devices such as the Archos 5 Internet Tablet. I hope any developer that feels the need to do this will use the Steam-style "cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available", as the article puts it, rather than the Assassin's Creed 2-style "only allow[ing] the app to start if the server is available to verify the license."

Re:Steam vs. Assassin's Creed 2

[TheGothicGuardian]

Exactly. They also need to specify before purchase whether or not the specified app includes DRM, so the user can determine if the app is viable for all of their required uses.

Re:Steam vs. Assassin's Creed 2

[Shoeler]

Requiring a phone to be online in order to run an app, especially if it otherwise has no need to communicate with the Internet, will hurt users of non-phone Android devices such as the Archos 5 Internet Tablet. I hope any developer that feels the need to do this will use the Steam-style "cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available", as the article puts it, rather than the Assassin's Creed 2-style "only allow[ing] the app to start if the server is available to verify the license."

You're misunderstanding what's in the API. All google has done is provide a facility for checking, should the app developer choose to. It's not required at boot time or any other time and proper checking by the app (think: try: is the network on; except: don't check for a license) will negate any issues that may arise from network problems.

number of users critical

[Anonymous Coward]

An apparent conclusion from these numbers is that the most important thing is to get a large number of users, since the larger number of users, the lower the piracy rate. :p

Good Riddance

[Zoidbot]

Good riddance to the freetards in life. Why should I pay more because THEY freeload.

I don't see the problem.

[DWMorse]

At the great risk to my karma, I guess I have to just pipe up and say that I don't see the problem here.

License-server based apps have been selling on various platforms for years. Decades. Android now supports this, adding a little attraction to developers to invest time and money making an application for use on Android. Given the lack of QA on a great many Android apps (can anyone offer an explanation how Facebook for Android is such pure garbage, all jokes about content aside?) I for one see this as a step in the right direction.

Android developers, you now have a piracy deterrent for your applications you would like monetary compensation for creating, and more importantly, maintaining. I fail to see how this is evil and how any of the wry 'do-no-evil-lol' quips are deserved.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[tepples]

License-server based apps have been selling on various platforms for years.

How well do license-server based apps work on laptops? And how well would they work on Android device without a cellular radio, something like an Archos 5?

Re:I don't see the problem.

[mlts]

I don't see the problem, provided the app doesn't pop a license check every time it runs. Instead, it should cache the result against the phone's IMEI and some random obfuscation that would take some disassembly of the .apk to yank. When the app runs, if the IMEI is different, it automatically polls the license server and rebuilds the cached value. If it gets back that the user doesn't have that app purchased, it should either work in a demo mode, or point the user to the store to purchase it proper. If it never gets back a value because of no connection, who cares. If someone is astute to forge a cached hash with the IMEI, they are astute enough to hack all the API references out completely.

All and all, this is a good thing. This beats funky DRM schemes, and it doesn't put as much pressure on device makers to put more eFuses, signed bootloaders, and other anti-modder things in place to ward off piracy. As a modder, I think this method is the best way one could protect apps against piracy. It isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than forcing Android phone makers to make it harder and harder to mod, much less even root their phones.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[nschubach]

That's really up to the developer. If I were to use such a service, I'd allow a certain number of executions without validation before validation was required again. For example, if the validation comes back, I save that date to my app database, maybe encrypt it, and run the same check each time it's run. If I don't get a reply for N days (or N runs) then disable the app. It would most likely be easily hacked (cause I'd have to store the value somewhere...) but it would most likely cut out the couch pirates. It could also be like "shareware" with an N day limit on play.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[tlhIngan]

How well do license-server based apps work on laptops? And how well would they work on Android device without a cellular radio, something like an Archos 5?

Sad to say, but Google doesn't care if your Android device isn't a phone. They don't care, they don't "With Google" you or anything. To Google, if it's not a phone, they're not interested.

As for the Archos 5, that thing is so locked down it's practically impossible to root it or customize it, so it's stuck with Android 1.6, which won't support this anyhow.

And OS-managed DRM is a good thing. It being in one place means rooting the phone means you can pirate apps again by stubbing out those APIs to use fake responses. Even if Google encrypts the binary, it has to be decrypted somehow, and you'll just be right where iOS piracy is. Yes, the executable inside the an iOS ipa is encrypted in spots (running it will crash the app) and the loader decrypts it based on your device key. The iOS piracy scripts basically run the app inside gdb and grab the memory image after it's been decrypted. Android apps probably won't be much different - unless Dalvik starts having special hooks where the code is encrypted in random spots and it automatically decrypts.

I'm surprised Android piracy is so high though - iOS has various pirate web sites, and of course on bittorrent and even an "alternative app store" where you can download and install pirated apps right on your device. I haven't heard of sites hosting pirated android apps exclusively, nor pirate app installers, etc. I've seen the torrents though, but those I expect.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Lifyre]

I agree completely with yourself and the GP. I love my rooted Eris and this is a great way for app makers to try to get paid for their work.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[nine-times]

Well it's not a problem per se, but every bit of DRM that's built into Android chips away at it's status as the "free" alternative to Apple's iOS. We can argue about whether or not that's fair, but it seems to be why people care about news like this.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. I would own an Android for one reason only. I hate fucking Apple.

I don't give a fuck if there is DRM on Android, the money is going to the developers who have made the choice of where, when, and how they will sell their app. Unlike apple that tells them where, when, and how to sell their app.

Nothing is more evil than Apple. Not even Microsoft. Apple fanbois just refuse to admit their company of choice is that evil. Actually, I think they are just to stupid to realize it.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that other people have been doing it for years doesn't make the entire concept any less flawed. It's a sound business decision for google, but DRM always ends up biting the paying customer.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As for the Archos 5, that thing is so locked down it's practically impossible to root it or customize it, so it's stuck with Android 1.6, which won't support this anyhow."

This licencing scheme is supported on all Android devices from 1.5 and up.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Rich0]

I don't see the problem either - it is just DRM. That means in two weeks there will be a hacked market app on your favorite site that validates anything as legit.

The only way to keep people from running apps you don't want them to run is to not hand them the code to the apps - source, binary, or otherwise. Write a web-based app and nobody will use it without buying an account or whatever.

If you want your app to run offline, then it can be run without buying it - full stop.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[mlts]

Of course, people can do that or just go decompile the Java in the .apk files and strip out the API calls. Frequent updates by app makers will make that a slow job, especially if the developer has a Java obfuscation tool.

I just don't want any more incentive for phone makers to having eFuses, signed kernels, read-only filesystems that stay that way even as root, and other stuff that has to be tediously gotten around by experts in order to mod an Android phone. If piracy is dealt with by a mechanism other than forbidding root access, I'm all for it, because it means that more models of phones (probably by HTC because they are the only company that really gives a crap enough to put out source code and images) are usable by modders and buyable. I'd like to see every Android model easily rooted with a fastboot and an OEM unlock command, as opposed to having to pick and choose the model carefully so one doesn't get a dud that can't be modded, or even rooted.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[ADRA]

Piracy is a big problem on Android in no small part due to the pathetically small number of supported payee countries in the world. China should be 100% piracy because you can't legitimately buy apps from China. Same with any other country not in this list:
        Australia
        Austria
        Canada
        France
        Germany
        Italy
        Japan
        Netherlands
        New Zealand
        Spain
        Switzerland
        United Kingdom
        United States

You want to sell apps legitimately through Google? They only allow paid developers from:

Austria
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
Spain
United Kingdom
United States

For a platform that Google want's to take over the world with, they're sure doing a piss poor job of doing it. Their marketplace is a sham that has to be addressed. No amount of DRM will fix the fundamental problem that even if you want to sell / pay for apps, most regions of the world can't do it anyways.

I personally had to open US bank accounts just to sell through the marketplace (I live in Canada). This adds no end of annoyance and extra banking fees. Coming from a small independent developer, this is yet another obstacle for successfully working in the Android ecosystem.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Rich0]

Well, I'd be happy if they just released open source drivers for the phones, and source to all the good parts of the phone (sure, they can keep the parts of the market that support paid software closed).

Then I could just flash my phone with my favorite android distro, and I could care less what Google does with theirs. There are all of about 14 programs I can buy for my desktop, so why should I care if I can't buy any software for my phone either?

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Threni]

> For a platform that Google want's to take over the world with, they're sure doing a piss poor job of doing it. Their marketplace is a sham that has to be addressed. No amount of DRM will fix
> the fundamental problem that even if you want to sell / pay for apps, most regions of the world can't do it anyways.

You're confusing the marketplace with just selling apps on a webpage. You can do the latter from anywhere, and accept payment via paypal, google checkout etc. If you don't sell via the marketplace you have greater freedom in the way you can collect revenue from the user.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Android itself is free. However, that doesn't require every single application that can run on it to be free. Neither does it mean Android can't help those applications being unfree/restricted. Still, Android itself is free.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[ADRA]

1. Requiring users to pay though my site is an extra hurdle that should be unnecessary for users regardless of what merchant service I link in the back end. The marketplace makes purchases like 2 clicks.

If I wanted to charge through my site it would greatly complicate the process, though it would shave the 30% commission that Google collects. I opened up a PayPal merchant account just for this purpose before I jumped through the hoops in order to get Google Checkout working through the US.

2. Google Checkout is even more retarded outside of selling Android apps. They only support US/UK retailers.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Threni]

Sure, it's a pain. I just wanted to correct this idea that it's impossible to sell apps. It's exactly like selling apps for any other system anywhere else in the world, except for those countries where the market exists, where it's even easier.

Paying for apps

[tepples]

Also, a lot of people disagree with paying for apps as that goes against the purpose and concept of free software (and associated benefits/gains).

Except there are several genres of application that free software developers have so far failed to deliver. I've listed several other as-yet-uncloned apps in this comment.

Re:Paying for apps

[poetmatt]

almost everything on your list has DRM. However, lets take too it.

Netflix Watch Instantly
DRM and legal constraints enforced by Netflix. You know, silverlight? You can also thank MS for that one.

Adobe Photoshop, including those high-end features that distinguish it from GIMP mods such as GIMPshop
Adobe Flash CS3
Adobe products have equivalents on open source but not necessarily free software - I'd consider gimp equivalent for development, mostly. Don't sit and try to tell me professionals prefer photoshop over gimp or vice versa. It's an even split and up to personal preference.

TurboTax - you kidding me? there are free open source programs that do what turbotax does. Kmoney comes to mind.
Stone Edge Order Manager I don't know what this is. Sorry, skipping.
Sonic 3 & Knuckles
Diablo II
Starcraft
Street Fighter IV
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

These are all a: games which b: haven't been ported via opengl and c: depending on console, etc, have many forms of DRM with them. especially CODMW2. So you can play them, under wine, but you're really doing the same as running windows.

I wouldn't call that failing to deliver by anyone other than the companies who made the games. They'd have a bigger market if they made the games linux/free software compatible as that can equate to android as well as open source. All of these companies are very slowly moving towards free software friendly, but it's probably going to be a few more years.

I would also blame microsoft again for this, since DX11 and free software do not go together any more than silverlight or moonlight does.

Re:Paying for apps

[tepples]

there are free open source programs that do what turbotax does. Kmoney comes to mind.

KMyMoney can replace Quicken, but TurboTax comes with a translation of the latest United States tax code and the tax codes of the several states into executable code. It's unlikely that free software maintained by hobbyists can keep up with annual amendments to multiple jurisdictions' tax laws.

Stone Edge Order Manager

I don't know what this is. Sorry, skipping.

I explained it in this post, and it has a web site.

I wouldn't call [Linux's dearth of native games] failing to deliver by anyone other than the companies who made the games.

If most companies that make games fail to deliver, it is up to free software developers to deliver in their stead. No, NetHack and Dwarf Fortress aren't enough.

Re:Paying for apps

[LWATCDR]

Okay.
How about this.
Solidworks.
Autocad.
Pro/E
Sony Vegas
Adobe Premier

AND DRM DOES NOT STOP THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOSS EQUIVALENT!
Unless you intend to just take others code without permission.

There is no FOSS cad system as good as those listed or equivalent.

Re:Paying for apps

[h4rr4r]

Do FOSS developers want one?
Because if not that pretty much explains it. If you want one I suggest you pay for one to be created. Get this into your little brain, FREE software developers do not owe you anything.

Re:Paying for apps

[tepples]

AND DRM DOES NOT STOP THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOSS EQUIVALENT!

Unless it's DRM on the bootloader of the hardware on which the FOSS equivalent is supposed to run. For example, see Nintendo's successful lawsuit against a UK retailer of cards designed in part for running FOSS and other freeware on a DS.

Or unless it's DRM on the media that a FOSS media player is supposed to play. For example, see the DVD CSS cases.

Re:Paying for apps

[LWATCDR]

As a FOSS developer I do understand this. But until there are FOSS solutions for every problem their is a place for closes source software.

Re:Paying for apps

[Deadguy2322]

Drop the pretense, the main reason flashcards for the DS and Game Boy exist is for piracy, plain and simple. Nobody wants to play your crappy rip-offs of real games.

Re:Paying for apps

[tepples]

Nobody wants to play your crappy rip-offs of real games.

And until Linux, nobody wanted to use a crappy rip-off of Unix.

Re:Paying for apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it.

Explaining Piracy Figures

[acid06]

You can see in the charts something like 98% piracy in South America.
This happens because... there's no way to buy applications if you're in South America. So, anyone with a paid application here *has* to pirate it.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[mobby_6kl]

Those charts are completely useless as it's impossible to buy Android software in many parts (most?) of Europe as well. Not that I'd want to buy any if everyone starts using this phone-home DRM.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[AndrewNeo]

It doesn't make it any less illegal.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[tepples]

If you have to infringe because the legitimate publisher doesn't want to take your money, then copyright is failing "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[maxume]

Have you read the various treaties, or are you guessing?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[MBCook]

Why doesn't a publisher have a right to choose not to sell somewhere/to someone?

So it's OK to steal it, because you can't buy it? So what if the publisher sells it to one person in South America? It was available, so now it's not OK?

That argument doesn't seem to hold up.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[BobMcD]

If you have to infringe because the legitimate publisher doesn't want to take your money, then copyright is failing "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

True, but for better or worse, copyright is a property right, too. The publisher has the right to refuse sale to anyone, largely speaking. This wouldn't obviate their other rights, however.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[91degrees]

I don't follow.

Of course a publisher has the right not to sell his software. I just don't see that he is harmed if the people he chose not to sell it to pirate a copy. He hasn't lost anything. He still has his copy. He can't claim a lost sale since if the pirate hadn't pirated then there still wouldn't have been a sale.

Why does he have the right to disadvantage everyone else?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the owners reported their missing property?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Have the owners reported their missing property?

This happens every time a copyright owner files a DMCA takedown notice.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

While I see where you're coming from and I entirely sympathize with countries not able to get things because of arbitrary corporate boundaries (I used to live in one such nation), copyright doesn't mean just because you made it everyone has a right to have it.

If I come up with a new ice-cream recipe, I have a right not to give it to you even if you will happily pay me for it. I also have a right to give it to my friends exclusively while denying you access. You do not have the right to steal it from me.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Paradise Pete]

It doesn't make it any less illegal.

But obviously more understandable.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[msauve]

What does a phrase from the US Constitution have to do with selling copyrighted software in South America?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't.

The two things are unrelated.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Dhalka226]

While I agree that somebody not selling a product to willing customers is stupid, you're just wrong.

Promoting the progress of science and the useful arts is about getting things made, not getting things exposed.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[tepples]

In that case, a (distant) argument under a foreign counterpart to fair use law could be made. Please explain any substantial negative "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" in a region where authentic copies are not available. Or what does the corresponding statute in Brazil and Argentina say?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[MBCook]

Why is your right to acquire something more important than his right to control his creation?

While someone's right to their own creation is pretty well established (after all, that's the purpose of copyright), where does the idea that people should have to either sell you something or let you take it come from?

It seems like just because something isn't physical (has no marginal cost), people argue that a creator's rights don't apply.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[KingMotley]

That isn't from the US Constitution. It's from international copyright law.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

The right not to sell to someone? I'm not denying that right, I'm objecting to the WAY they're applying it. For example, let's apple same logic to a different situation: a store refusing to sell to a black person. I doubt even you would deny that a store doing that would be hauled before the courts for racial discrimination, because denying someone service for that reason is immoral. Discriminating against someone because of their nationality is no less immoral; the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of factors such as race, religion and nationality is unambiguously laid out in the declaration of human rights, and I wouldn't be surprised to the some more solid international legislation built around it over the next decade.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Rich0]

That depends on the local laws.

Unless something has changed, for example, it is completely legal to intercept DirecTV service in Canada (I know it used to be at least). Why? Simple - DirecTV refused to sell service to Canadians (licensing issues and all that), so Canada just said, well, we won't regard cloning of access cards/etc as theft of service. As a result you can sell cloned smartcards or whatever in your local walmart if you want.

Perhaps that has changed, but the bottom line is that if you refuse to actually provide a service in some country, don't expect that country's government to do much to protect your non-existent market.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Rich0]

While someone's right to their own creation is pretty well established (after all, that's the purpose of copyright), where does the idea that people should have to either sell you something or let you take it come from?

Uh, nobody is taking anything from anybody - they're making a copy. The creator still has their creation, and they are completely unharmed.

I'm fine with the purpose of copyright - encouraging the creation of content by giving the creator a limited monopoly on their creation so that they can monetize it and finance the creation. The problem is that in this case no monetization is happening, which means the law has failed to achieve its purpose.

A copyright law that only protected works that were available for sale would be JUST as effective at promoting science and the arts. Indeed, it would be more effective as it would remove the extinction of orphan works. Ditto for a law that limits copyright to some sane duration.

For some reason everybody acts like copyright exists to protect the rights of content creators. It doesn't exist for this purpose at all. It exists to benefit society by creating a demand for content creators in the first place. Content creators who don't share their content at all have no benefit to society at all. Now, that's fine if you want to paint masterpieces in your basement - nobody is forcing you to sell it. However, you aren't harmed at all if your masterpiece can be purchased at the local walmart if you weren't ever going to sell it yourself.

Who is being harmed in this case, and how? And I don't hurt feelings either - I'm talking about loss of some kind that can be measured in things you can see and touch.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[the_womble]

Because there is no intrinsic right to control your creation.

It is a monopoly granted by the state because it is deemed to be for the public good by creating an incentive (see the US constitution) and to ensure that you can share profits others make on your work (one reason for the Statute of Queen Ann).

If neither of these apply (which it clearly does not in these circumstances) you have just subverted the reason it (copyright) exists in the first place.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Sun]

Why is your right to acquire something more important than his right to control his creation?

Because neither are rights. 91degrees has no "right to acquire", and Hexage has no right to control their creation.

Copyright was introduce in order to encourage people to create and publish, knowing that, for a limited amount of time, they get to make money from that creation. As such, copyright is not a right (the way free speech is), it is a compromise between free commerce and creating incentive to create, and one which there are people (not me) claiming unnecessary from the get go.

Once viewed like that, a publisher that creates, publishes but only sales selectively does not promote any of the copyright's core objectives.

In other fields, this compromise has been explicitly coded into the copyright law itself. Musicians, for example, have no right to prevent anyone from performing their songs. The only right they have is to get money for said performance.

IANAL

Shachar

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Late Adopter]

But by freely pirating unavailable works you make it difficult for the publisher to find it profitable to eventually bring his product there, creating a sort of death spiral for legitimate works. I'm not suggesting that society has an obligation to help him make money, but if we've agreed that domestically that's an ingredient that helps promote the creation of works, then surely that holds internationally too? Even if there's a delay in the release cycle (not something I'm happy about either)?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[91degrees]

He has no right to "control" his creation. Why should he? I don't have any inherent right to use it either but I don't see any moral reason why I shouldn't.

Copyright allows him a monopoly in order to encourage him to create it and publish it in the first place. Since he is not providing the societal benefit, why should I put myself out for him? Copyright is an artificial social construct. It is designed for the benefit of society. US copyright is even explicit in this as a justification. Society doesn't benefit from people hoarding their creations.

I'm not "taking" anything from anyone. That would imply loss. Even the usual argument about loss of a potential sale doesn't apply. It seems like just because something isn't physical (has no marginal cost), people argue that a creator's rights don't apply.

Sounds about right. I suspect the actual situation may be slightly more nuanced than that, but on the whole that's pretty much what I think.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

People argue, because if there is no marginal cost creators rights do not apply. This is imaginary property, not a real one. Why it is hard to grasp this idea?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Yvanhoe]

Why ? For greater good.
Let's be utilitarian on this one. What are the consequences of both options ? If you give priority to the right to acquire, you end up with widespread possession of something of value, with the possible drawback of making it more difficult to make a living out of providing this content (which is not proven IMHO and highly dubious)
If you give priority to control, you end up with the nightmarish tech market of incompatible DRM schemes, tracking of users, closed apps and obfuscated "standards".

I am ok with some right to control their creations by authors, but I don't want them to be exempted from facing the consequences of the exercise of said control. An author is free to not publish his works, but once it is published, it is public, and in the world of today, it means easily copyable. "Control" does not mean that you can order the way the society works. Otherwise, I'll gently ask that this very comment I am writing can only be read by people who accept to pay 10$ for reading it. 20$ if you are reading it while using an Apple or Microsoft OS (it damages the image of my work of art)

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[llZENll]

"The creator still has their creation, and they are completely unharmed."

False. When you copy a song, artwork, program, game, or porno you are destroying the very thing which you want. That art has to be made by someone, and it cost money to live, by not paying for art you are depriving the artists of the means to make their art. The problem people have today is in a digital world the fraction they are stealing is so small it seems trivial, but it adds up just the same.

"Who is being harmed in this case, and how?"

It doesn't matter if the creator is never selling their art, if you copy it, you are still hurting creators who are selling their art by displacing your need for that type of art from art that is for sale which would support someone, to art that isn't for sale that you stole. It can never be measured, its on a worldwide scale, happens every nanosecond of the day, and will billions of people.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar liar pants on fire!

Of course there are ways to legally buy Android applications in South America. It just happens that Google's Android Market isn't it.

For example they can use http://slideme.org or other alternatives. Developers can also sell their applications directly, not going through any application market/store.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Rich0]

That art has to be made by someone, and it cost money to live, by not paying for art you are depriving the artists of the means to make their art.

You're not paying them either way - because they aren't accepting payment.

It doesn't matter if the creator is never selling their art, if you copy it, you are still hurting creators who are selling their art by displacing your need for that type of art from art that is for sale which would support someone, to art that isn't for sale that you stole.

Now you're arguing that by copying one person's art (which cannot be obtained in any other way) I'm depriving some other artist of income, since I have some desperate need for art and if I couldn't get one for free I'd buy another.

That is like arguing that every time you download a copy of linux some kitten in Redmond dies.

Obviously free art reduces the market for paid art. Should we make it illegal to offer one's art for free?

I just don't see any of this as being a valid arguemnt. In any case, legally it is a simple matter. The artist isn't selling their work, so people pirate it. If the artist has a problem with it they can seek legal recourse in the country in which this is happening. When the artist explains to the court that they don't consider the country important enough to bother selling their work in in the first place, I'm sure that court will be quite eager to throw the book at the poor guy who just wanted some piece of software. Just ask the Canadians how that worked for DirecTV.

I don't see this as a moral issue at all.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm terribly sorry for bringing a fact to the table, please do forgive me for that, but considering that Hexage actually sells its games through SlideME - which absolutely is available in South America - this comment and most of the replies are rather, uhh, silly.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but this isn't discrimination against someone because of their nationality. This is about being able to, or not being able to, deliver a product or a service to a specific location due to logistics or legislation. I live in the UK. If I call East Village Pizzeria in N.Y. USA and try to order a pizza for delivery in London, would their refusal to take my order be discrimination against nationality? I don't think so. Obviously there's a difference between delivering pizza and software, but at the end of the day I'm pretty sure that Android Market not being available all over the world is due to logistics or legislation rather than discrimination and immorality. No-one at Google asked to see my passport when I set up my account with them. Also, please bear in mind, that in the case of the Hexage games they really are available to anyone regardless of nationality and/or location. Depending on your location you might not be able to buy them from Android Market, but you can buy them from SlideME instead. What's next? Complaints about not being able pay for the game(s) with happy thoughts and wishes of wellbeing?

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

where does the idea that people should have to either sell you something [...]

From copyright.

The only reason copyright exists is to encourage artists to create and share.
If the creators of content don't share it with anyone then there is no societal benefit to giving them copyright privileges.

[...] or let you take it come from?

In the case of copyright, nothing is taken. The creator retains access to the work and full use of it.

Re:Explaining Piracy Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't understand this:
Imagine that your basic salary is abour $2000 (think in dollars if you want).
A mid end computer case (like a athlon II x2 when core i7 is the best option) without monitor costs from $1800 to $2500, with monitor costs with a plus of $800. The crappiest (those very, VERY low end) router costs about $200. A tiny webcam costs about $150. A samsung Dvd-rw+- $100.
You think you will pay like $800 for a windoze?

South American pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 478 pirates in South America. I suspect these statistics are more about the quality of the game than the number of pirates in South America.

This one has got to be killing the Apple haters.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this same thing was happening anywhere else (UniSoft? Battle.Net?) there would be outrage, but since it seems the majority of /. readers are pro-Android *and* Apple haters, then we're going to see an awful lot of, "there's nothing wrong" or "this is great" apologists.

DeeAreEm! DeeAreEm! DeeAreEm!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yey, I did a DRM in my pants, Yay!

Call me paranoid

[MikeyVB]

With recent news about certain Android apps sending private information to whomever created it, I have recently installed DroidWall to filter access (e.g. - Battery meter apps!? Puh-leez!) to my phone's data connection.

If some app expects me to allow a data connection just to prove I am not a thief, sorry, I won't be buying it! And yes, I do purchase apps that I consider worthy.

And what happens if someone is abroad? Would they have to pay $20 in roaming charges to play some bubble bobble game for an hour while waiting in some airport?

Re:Call me paranoid

[yincrash]

I believe that this doesn't actually require the app to need the Internet permission. I believe it just requests the pay information from the Market app and the Market app uses the Internet, so you'd have to use droidwall to block market's internet access.

Re:Call me paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, the market app can cache the response after the initial request is made - when you install the app.

There's no reason to require an online connection while *using* the app.

Re:Call me paranoid

[ducomputergeek]

I'm just amazed at the fact you have to install a firewall on your PHONE. What's next, Antivirus and spybot scanners for Driod?

Re:Call me paranoid

[taniwha]

it's worse than that - he has to install a firewall in his phone to stop things from calling OUT

Re:Call me paranoid

[AaronW]

I actually have installed an antivirus program that also supports disabling or locating the phone if it's lost or stolen.

Re:Call me paranoid

[WillDraven]

Yes. Like it or not cycles are so cheap that now everybody is starting to carry around little general computing devices. The unfortunate side effect of this is that people will attempt to compromise them.

Re:Call me paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

With recent news about certain Android apps sending private information to whomever created it, I have recently installed DroidWall to filter access (e.g. - Battery meter apps!? Puh-leez!) to my phone's data connection.

First of all, 99.99% of everyone who has DroidWall are pointlessly slowing their phone down for absolutely no benefit. Based on your prescribed use, it absolutely sounds like this includes you. Unless you plan on firewalling the market, DroidWall does nothing as protected applications request the market to validate. Besides, unless you're stealing applications, you won't be affected.

In the licensing service, an application does not query the licensing server directly, but instead calls the Android Market client over remote IPC to initiate a license request. In the license request:

        * The application provides its package name and a nonce that is later used to validate any response from the server, as well as a callback over which the response can be returned asynchronously.
        * The Android Market client, which has greater permissions than the application, collects the necessary information about the user and the device, such as the device's primary Google account username, IMSI, and other information. It then sends the license check request to the server on behalf of the application.
        * The server evaluates the request using all available information, attempting to establish the user's identity to a sufficient level of confidence. The server then checks the user identity against purchase records for the application and returns a license response, which the Android Market client returns to the application over the IPC callback.

Notice that during a license check, the application does not manage any network connections or use any licensing related APIs in the Android platform.

And yes, I do purchase apps that I consider worthy.

Nice qualifier. In other words, you steal and use applications and only a select few developers receive compensation. This makes you a seriously, self righteous, dick. If you have the application on your phone and use it, you consider the application worthy. If this is the case with any applications which you have not paid for, you are not only a dick but a hypocrite.

Don't worry, you're not alone. That's the same self righteous, hypocritical bullshit most all thieves and pirates use to justify their illogical and highly emotional position. In other words, you, like so many other pirates, lie to yourselves so you don't have to come to terms with the fact your a real piece of shit.

And what happens if someone is abroad? Would they have to pay $20 in roaming charges to play some bubble bobble game for an hour while waiting in some airport?

And so address your irrational paranoia:

To help you get started with a Policy, the LVL provides two fully complete Policy implementations that you can use without modification or adapt to your needs:

        * ServerManagedPolicy is a flexible Policy that uses settings provided by the licensing server to manage response caching and access to the application while the device is offline (such as when the user is on an airplane). For most applications, the use of ServerManagedPolicy is highly recommended.
        * StrictPolicy is a restrictive Policy that does not cache any response data and allows the application access only when the server returns a licensed response.

You can turn it off by either disabling auto synchronization and/or by disabling background data. Both of those, plus roaming with data roaming disabled will place the phone into an "offline" mode. In other words, the only people who should be the least bit upset about this Android development are those who steal. Seems like you're upset.

Violent agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

any developer that feels the need to do this

should the app developer choose to

Steam-style "cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available"

try: is the network on; except: don't check for a license

It sounds like you two are in violent agreement.

It was coming

[Anonymous Coward]

What if artists/producers/companies doesn't want their cnntent freely ripped and distributed over the Internet?

I mean, if this DRM thing can't be solved within standards of HTML5/W3C, some people will wait for a very long time for standards based video over the web instead of Flash/Silverlight.

I am telling this slightly off topic video thing as Rob Glaser of Real Networks called Linux developers/users to come up with a DRM scheme. It was before this "Hulu" "iPlayer" things. Everyone laughed at him, used usual "real player is spyware" etc. karma whoring comments and now, everyone happily (!) boots into Windows to watch protected content.

Google, implements DRM on Linux now and it isn't against anyones ideological beliefs. If there is something to pick, it is that fact.

#irc.trooltalk.com

[Anonymous Coward]

for *BSD becAuse Cycle; take a and I probably continues in a

What if I lose my phone?

[denis-The-menace]

Do I have to buy all my apps over again like with an iPhone?

Re:What if I lose my phone?

[ceoyoyo]

Somebody with mod points mark this troll please.

Re:What if I lose my phone?

[pbhogan]

Only an idiot doesn't keep backups. Likewise, only an idiot doesn't sync his iPod/iPhone/iPad to a computer and blames Apple when he loses everything.

Re:What if I lose my phone?

[91degrees]

Yes.

Much like if you lose your phone you need to buy a new phone.

Re:What if I lose my phone?

[voidptr]

Even if you don't keep backups, iTunes keeps a permanent history of your purchases and will let you download any App* you already paid for free if you try to buy it again, on any device tied to the account.

Re:What if I lose my phone?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Only an idiot doesn't keep backups. Likewise, only an idiot doesn't sync his iPod/iPhone/iPad to a computer and blames Apple when he loses everything.

iTunes lets you re-download apps. You can also buy apps on your iPhone and install and run them on your iPod.

The guy you were replying to is talking out of his ass.

Re:What if I lose my phone?

[jo_ham]

Sync new phone with iTunes. All your old apps are copied to the phone. No need to buy them again.

Looking at piracy figures...

[SuperKendall]

... now I see why we have always been at war with Oceania - they are apparently stealing all our apps.

It's pretty amazing the North America piracy figure is so much lower. I wonder if that's the result of a far larger user base in NA? Or are Europeans (where I thought the figure would be similar) just have a more pirate-prone culture?

It would also be interesting to see beyond this static view, how many users they saw going from pirated to paid. That I think is the key figure to understand if piracy is a problem or a marketing tool.

Re:Looking at piracy figures...

[KlaymenDK]

As I'm sure you've read from the other comments by now, a simple yet huge factor is the non-availability of paid apps in so many countries.

Re:Looking at piracy figures...

[ToddlerArmyofOne]

Or are Europeans (where I thought the figure would be similar) just have a more pirate-prone culture?

I think you might be right. But the figures are impossible to analyse in any meaningful way as the android market has been rolled out in Europe during the period. Still, in swedish tech forums we would never see the amount of people that are in favour of copyright and creators rights as we can see here on slashdot for instance. We also have the Pirate Party that got 7%!!! of the votes in last years election. This year they only get 1% though.

Btw currently (13 July) Android market is available in: Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States.

Regional differences

[Anonymous Coward]

A knee-jerk reaction would be "The piracy rate is greater in Asia because they have less of a problem with stealing".

A more accurate reaction would probably be: "There are less paying customers because it is more complicated to transfer money to a North American store when you're in Asia, so the remaining users tend to be pirates."

Re:This one has got to be killing the Apple haters

[BobMcD]

I think the essential element you're missing is that Andriod's DRM is only an option. Otherwise you'd be right.

Universal Paid Apps

[erik.martino]

It is obvious that the piracy level is higher in regions where it is impossible to buy paid apps. For the sake of the application customers, application publishers and the Android ecosystem, please do something about it google. The ratio between paid versus free apps in the Android Market is extremely tilted towards free apps for this very reason. As long as there are countries where it is impossible to buy paid apps for Android there will be people who will pirate and crack the applications.

I'm going where it's safe!

[socz]

That's it! I'm going back to winmo, cause nothing like that ever happens on IT!

The CPS-2 solution

[tepples]

Even if Google encrypts the binary, it has to be decrypted somehow

Put cryptographic hardware in your CPU, and have it decrypt the binary inside the CPU at instruction cache miss time. The Capcom CPS-2 arcade board did something similar, coupling a crypto-processor and an MC68000 CPU.

OT: facebook app on iPhone

[hellfire]

(can anyone offer an explanation how Facebook for Android is such pure garbage, all jokes about content aside?)

Because the Facebook developers suck?

The iPhone Facebook app isn't much better. They finally got it stable, but that's after several versions and even then some people still have some crashing, and there are still plenty of missing features (I can filter the Newsfeed on the website to exclude those stupid facebook game posts people post every 5 seconds, but I can't seem to do the same on the phone? WTF??). If it wasn't for the narrow development approach apple takes, and that (I think) so many more iPhone users have Facebook installed than Android users** and were screaming at Facebook to get their act together, then it probably would have never gotten to the point it 's at now.

**PS: my hypothesis is that since Android users are more conscious about personal digital freedom, they are less likely to be Facebook users than iPhone users and there is less demand for the Android app than the iPhone app. It seems plausable but I have no proof to back this up. The point still stands that for a while the facebook app sucked very hard and I don't think it was primarily anything to do with any platform. Now it currently sucks a little.

In today's world, libre implies gratis

[Mandrel]

Free software types are not opposed to for-pay software, at all. The two concepts are not related.

This distinction was somewhat valid when one had to order software on tapes and disks. But in an era when the cost of distribution is just about zero, it's very difficult to charge for copyleft software.

What are the options to earn income from software that's entirely copyleft?

• Panhandling: But most won't pay if the only new thing they're getting is a warm feeling. It turns programmers into beggars and servants.
• Selling support: But many users don't need it, or can't afford it, and they need it less the higher the quality of the software.
• Embedded Advertisng: Users find this very valuable.
• Sell Documentation: Now we're introducing a proprietary component again, preventing open community involvement in its development.

Access to the source and build systems, and the ability to distribute modified versions, are the real strengths of open software. By removing the freedom-to-run requirement it becomes easier to charge for software that still gives users all the freedoms that motivated Richard Stallman to start GNU and the FSF.

Re:In today's world, libre implies gratis

[h4rr4r]

Sell binaries offer only sources as no cost. That will compel most to pay.

Re:In today's world, libre implies gratis

[Mandrel]

Sell binaries offer only sources as no cost. That will compel most to pay.

I think you're suggesting that most users aren't sufficiently savvy or time-rich to build it themselves, so will pay.

However I think that most end-users will easily discover the many no-charge builds that people will make available if the software's licence permits it, as would be the case for software under any FOSS license. And what about interpreted software where the source is the binary.

That's why I think a different open-source licence is required that gives people free-reign to distribute binaries and/or source of both original and modified versions of the software, as long as they pay the original author any licence fee that the author has designated, which will require re-distributors to charge their customers at least this amount.

This is a good way to fund development, allowing more high-quality apps to be be open rather than closed. Without it, we're stuck with two different worlds.

Re:In today's world, libre implies gratis

[russotto]

That's why I think a different open-source licence is required that gives people free-reign to distribute binaries and/or source of both original and modified versions of the software, as long as they pay the original author any licence fee that the author has designated, which will require re-distributors to charge their customers at least this amount.

That's a different open-source license the way a camel is a different horse.

Re:In today's world, libre implies gratis

[Mandrel]

That's a different open-source license the way a camel is a different horse.

It depends what freedom users care most about — the freedom to tinker, or a freedom from paying — and what user freedoms don't substantially reduce the incentive for developers to develop solutions to a particular problem.

Re:In today's world, libre implies gratis

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, once you have written a piece of software, slapped on an open source header and released it to the wild, then yeah, charging money for it is very difficult. Therefore you have to charge money for it before you release it (or for customizing it ;)

I used to work for an open source ISP. What typically happened was the someone would come to us and say: "We like your software, but it doesn't have feature Foo and Bar and we really need that." Our response would be: "No problem, we'll implement that in the next version for $X" and guess what!? They would pay! And it didn't make us feel like beggars or servants, but as paid software developers (actually it didn't just make us *feel* like we were being paid, money did really change hands).

Quite a bit of open source development is driven this way.

Re:In today's world, libre implies gratis

[h4rr4r]

Your license is not free to tinker either, as any inability to pay you, lets say you die, ends all freedom.

Re:In today's world, libre implies gratis

[Mandrel]

Your license is not free to tinker either, as any inability to pay you, lets say you die, ends all freedom.

Good point. But there is a licence clause which states that any licence fee is waived during periods when the licensor is unable to provide a reasonable means of payment. So death of a copyright holder would be handled by normal inheritance, like any other licence, with a fee-free fallback.

THEY STEAL OUR MILLIONS!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the newcomers to digital distribution ever stop whining about piracy?

If only Google could actually get it *RIGHT*...

[Miamicanes]

There were (at least) two fundamental flaws with the original Android Market protection scheme, neither of which appears to have been rectified by this change (besides possibly to make matters worse for end users):

* As everyone has already noted, lots of people around the world with Android phones can't actually buy apps from Android Market, EVEN IF they have a Mastercard/Visa/AMEX card with dollar-denominated account. That's just plain fucked.

* You can't officially purchase and run protected Market apps if your phone is running an unblessed "Developer" kernel. Of course, there's not a single goddamn phone from HTC, Samsung, or Motorola with Google-blessed kernel that has BlueZ Bluetooth HID profile compiled into it, so it's impossible to build your own kernel with it enabled without being formally exiled from 99% of commercial Android apps. At least, unless you crack them. Any DRM scheme that forces legitimate users to crack apps they purchased in order to use them is fundamentally broken, especially when there are still gaping holes in Android phones that need a customer kernel to fix.

As for "developer's option" whether or not to cache, let's be honest... at least half the developers publishing commercial apps don't have the slightest clue in HELL how to implement a secure caching scheme, and they aren't going to purchase a proprietary one that demands more money up front than they're likely to earn from the app's sale. So, anybody care to guess what's going to happen? Most apps in Market are going to end up checking the server every goddamn time, because the alternatives are too hard/expensive for most Android publishers to deal with. IMHO, Google got THAT part EGREGIOUSLY wrong. They should have distributed the Android DRM module themselves, and made it free & easy for publishers to do cached checking, but left it difficult and minimally-documented how to bypass that caching and check the server every time.

I love Android. I really do. But it's so incredibly frustrating when Google turns around and fucks things up in ways that CAN'T be fixed by end users with access to Android's sourcecode... usually, mistakes that are almost incomprehensible given the amount of in-house talent and expertise Google has available to it. At times, Google actually manages to make even *Microsoft* look coherent and customer-focused.

Re:If only Google could actually get it *RIGHT*...

[KlaymenDK]

As for "developer's option" whether or not to cache, let's be honest... at least half the developers publishing commercial apps don't have the slightest clue in HELL how to implement a secure caching scheme, and they aren't going to purchase a proprietary one that demands more money up front than they're likely to earn from the app's sale. So, anybody care to guess what's going to happen? Most apps in Market are going to end up checking the server every goddamn time, because the alternatives are too hard/expensive for most Android publishers to deal with.

First of all, the devs don't have to implement very much else than an API call ("LicenseChecker.checkAccess()") and supplying code for the two callbacks "allow()" and "dontAllow()". See http://developer.android.com/guide/publishing/licensing.html (yeah, they call it a "licensing service" rather than DRM, no real surprise).

Second, it's very easy for devs to choose the best (from our point of view) option: you use an instance of either "ServerManagedPolicy" (uses cache fallback) or "StrictPolicy" (insists on connection).

Re:If only Google could actually get it *RIGHT*...

[Miamicanes]

My apologies. I'd read a few summaries earlier in the day, and was under the impression that it was up to the app itself to persistently keep track of the app's licensing state if it didn't want to check every single time.

Now, if only Google could either bully HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and the rest into leaving HID enabled when they build the kernel (so AOSP could implement the remainder at some later point without needing a new kernel), or come up with some good way to allow users with 100% compiled-from-the-ground-up (kernel and all) AOSP builds to run protected Market apps. Say, by distributing the DRM support as a loadable kernel module augmented by the DRM built (by definition, since that's what officially differentiates "SD" from "MMC") into every (micro)SD card ever sold.

Pacman for Android has a CRAP DRM!

[JackAxe]

It requires an internet connection in order to launch. I can't play this game when I'm on an airplane, because of this bullshit. I'm only interested in playing this game in situations where I'm bored and have no internet access, so this really pisses me off. I look forward to the day I can crack it and because Namco chose to use such an obtrusive DRM, I will NO longer buy their games.

Competition drives progress

[westlake]

If you have to infringe because the legitimate publisher doesn't want to take your money, then copyright is failing "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

You don't "have" to infringe.

You can do without - or make something better. That is what drives things forward.

The fan has been obsessed with recreating Star Trek: TOS. But the technology is there for the him to make on original space opera, action adventure, or whatever he chooses.

If he needs a starting point, there are classics in the genre that haven't been dramatized in the last half century or so and are accessible to anyone: Science Fiction (Bookshelf)

Re:Competition drives progress

[tepples]

You can do without - or make something better.

What should somebody who tries to make something better do about nuisance lawsuits from incumbents who claim that something better infringes the incumbent's exclusive rights? For example, Tetris v. Biosocia or Konami v. Roxor games or Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. For example, pretend it comes to my attention that I have accidentally used part of someone else's song in my own. What's my next step?

The only thing DRM is good for

[gearloos]

The only thing DRM is good for is using the white paper to wipe my ass. Nothing has EVER been made better by DRM, nor has the public ever been given much of a chance against it. This is reason enough to tell Android to join the club of unused junk in my closet. Sucks because I really like the (idea of an) open environment. Too bad it isn't really open to anyone but google and the phone companies they have gone to bed with. Remember, the choices you make today may be small, but they may lead to huge mistakes tomorrow. Choose wisely.

Re:The only thing DRM is good for

[pandrijeczko]

...because there's nothing like good old over-reaction!

How long have you been using a PC for and how long has DRM been around for PC games?

Here's a clue: As long as there are plenty of non-DRM alternatives, as there already are on Android phones & PCs, then *DON'T BUY DRM PRODUCTS* whilst still continuing to enjoy those platforms.

There is more than one market

[iamacat]

There is a need for more than one application market, book market, movie market... Who cares if a $1.99 cell phone game or a $4.95 e-book are DRMed? If you expect any of these to be a masterpiece to share with your grandchildren, you value them way more than their author apparently does. Conversely, a durable hardcover book or an application that handles your important data and guarantees it to be available decades later is worth a lot more. It may make some time, but consumer application developers will start to wonder how to provide value that sells for more than two bucks per copy.

FGH

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.flashgamehole.com/sk/Barbie-Hry.html
http://www.flashgamehole.com/en/Cooking-Games.html
http://www.flashgamehole.com/en/Dress-Up-Games.html
http://www.flashgamehole.com/en/Ben-10-Games.html
http://www.flashgamehole.com/id/Barbie-permainan.html

Numbers from Hexage

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm unable to find any evidence, that the charts from the announcement are actually from Hexage. It's not on their homepage and not in their Twitter feed...
Can anyone point me to the announcement?

Establishing a nexUS

[tepples]

What does a phrase from the US Constitution have to do with selling copyrighted software in South America?

For one thing, Google and many of these application publishers are in the United States. For another, the United States Trade Representative has been pushing "free trade agreements" with other countries, such as Australia and the countries of South America, that in essence require other parties in the treaty to implement copyright as the United States knows it.

Intellectual property tax

[tepples]

for better or worse, copyright is a property right

Counties, which have jurisdiction over real property, levy property taxes on real property. This way, the owner of unused land has an incentive to either use or sell the land. So why doesn't the federal government, which has jurisdiction over copyright, levy property taxes on copyright?

Re:This one has got to be killing the Apple haters

[intheshelter]

That was exactly my thought when I saw this story. "Cue the Android apologists!" (aka Apple haters). I've seen a bunch of posts justifying this, all using reasons that would also apply to Apple's App Store, but somehow it's okay when Android does it. I can see why both platforms might want some non-intrusive DRM, but it's amusing to watch people give a free pass to Android when they'd be screaming "walled garden!!" if it was Apple.

I guess hypocrisy has been open sourced because hypocrisy wants to be free!!