Slashdot Mirror
GOG Launches FCKDRM To Promote DRM-Free Art and Media (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: GOG, the digital distribution platform for DRM-free video games and video, has launched a new initiative designed to promote content without embedded DRM. The platform aims to promote GOG and other companies with a similar ethos, including those offering DRM-free music, books, and video. "DRM-free approach in games has been at the heart of GOG.COM from day one. We strongly believe that if you buy a game, it should be yours, and you can play it the way it's convenient for you, and not how others want you to use it," GOG said in a statement. While Digital Rights Management is seen by many companies as necessary to prevent piracy, GOG believes that its restrictions are anti-consumer and run counter to freedoms that should exist alongside content ownership.
I'm afraid that's not true.
Though parts of them may be unenforcable, try copying Microsoft Office and distributing it and then telling Microsoft and see how far it gets you in court.
The EULA is the only way you have any rights to the software *at all*. Like the GPL is the only way you have any rights to GPL-d software *at all*. Without it, i.e. if you try to declare it invalid, you have *zero* rights to the software whatsoever.
That's not to say that everything in a contract is legal, the law has things called statutory rights and reasonableness, but the EULA is the only thing granting you *ANY* rights at all.
Invalidate it, and that "copy" of the software you have in your download folder is illegal. Just by existing.
> The value of a product is by definition what someone else is willing to pay for it. Not your asking price.
Value of a good doesn't necessarily equate to the end cost of the good. It's a factor, but I have the right to set whatever price I want on an item. Your only right as a consumer is to buy or not buy it. That's it.
> I treasure the wedding ring of my grandmother and wouldn't sell it for millions
This is a shit example. That diamond in that wedding ring (or any modern one) costs the De Beers company a handful of dollars. They sell it to you for vast sums more. They do this partially by artificially restricting the availability of natural diamonds, calling lab created diamonds less valuable, and telling women that your man doesn't love you if he doesn't give you a piece of a shiny rock - specifically the TYPE of rock that De Beers says is valuable.
> The argument many companies field for DRM is that without, their product becomes easy to copy and hence worthless because it can be multiplied at the whim of the one holding it. What they fail to understand is what they're competing with.
They understand it. They also understand anonymous VPNs, TOR, shared network connections, a lack of "internet identification", and the costs associated with finding and prosecuting pirates and the subsequent punishments that make the costs extremely high for low payout. What I see time and time again from anti-DRM people is how easy the competition makes it (although in today's streaming age, most of the biggest competitors use DRM). What I don't see is anti-DRM people coming up with solutions to prevent theft or make punishment worthwhile to pursue. It's a different class of product. You can only steal the ONE car I own, but you can take my music that I spent say $5000 making and give it to 1 billion people so that it's unlikely I can recoup my costs. But more importantly if I say I want to be paid for you to listen to my music then that's my inherent right. You don't have a right to listen to it.
> Steam, GOG and various other online distribution channels have proven that people are willing to pay for games delivered with convenience and hassle-free.
Yes and this is why a lot of game publishers are moving towards subscription models or models that require you to purchase in-game items (or play for a really long time) - because they're all making so much money. Steam and GOG may be popular, but the theft of games, music, movies, etc has increased over time (especially games). So while they've removed DRM, they've added a new class of barrier and that's where you either pay for content in the form of "loot boxes". It's so pervasive that it's now a meme, but it won't change. Published tried DRM and mostly that does end up failing. So now they're limiting content and making it something you have to pay for. They tried DLC and expansion packs - but those suffer from the same piracy woes. But "loot boxes" and in-game currencies make it so that your purchase gets tied to a database and you have to sign in. This makes simple piracy next to impossible and ensures an ongoing revenue stream.
> Add value to your products and people will buy them. Remove value and people will find other ways to get them in a more valuable version.
You're saying "do what I want or I'll steal it". The problem is that prior to DRMs, it was already being stolen. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Please tell me what rights anyone has to take content and not pay for it. Why is a content creator less deserving of pay than you are if I came to your house and take your TV? This is what businesses see. This is the kind of conversations they have behind those closed doors. They pay people to make the content you want. That cost has to be borne by someone and in every single other industry it's the consumer who bears that cost (and then some...for the whole profit margin thing). Bitching and moaning because of DRM's existence ignores the actual issue and you've done a piss poor job of highlighting the issue. And fucking retards like you are why loot boxes are a thing, why you now have to buy continual expansion packs. You've all fucked over gaming and you're too stupid to understand why.