Stardock's Copyright Security Solution

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. If it means less stuff like SecuROM, it should be good for the consumers.

Also, you seem to be really on top of the news.

I find this... odd. Stardock has put their money where their mouth is: they don't put copy protection on their games. Their games have sold and sold well. If that isn't putting their money where their mouth is, then what would be? I just find it bizarre that publishers would say something like that to Brad when the solution is staring them in the face the whole time: don't use DRM/copy protection. That's what is more acceptable to users.

As to the lawsuit, I agree with Brad's statement:

But I don't agree it's going overboard. Sure, they can be stupid if they want, but they damned well need to be transparent about it and not install this DRM on your machine without any warning on the box of what they're using. That's a big part of what the lawsuit's all about. The avaerage Joe can't choose not to buy due to the DRM if he doesn't know it's on there in the first place.

There's a fine line there somewhere.. I do believe protection schemes/online activation requirements should be required to be displayed on the box, but it's gotta be up to the average Joe along the line to learn about the protections, because it works backwards - if EA explains on the box that SecuROM installs its own drivers/hidden stuff, the average person who's not educated enough in computers to know what that all means will probably think their computer will blow up or otherwise will get screwed up. It would be like if McDonalds started advertising that they put enough crap in their meat/buns that they get preserved almost perfectly for 20+ years. It's true, but unfortunately they are trying to sell this stuff

That's the double edged sword with describing protection on the box (on top of that having to take up the whole back cover). Those of us who know PC lingo and how stuff works can figure out what SecuROM really does, but that average Joe isn't going to have a clue.

So trying to make publishers describe it on the box is a very uphill battle.. just the name of the protection is probably much more attainable. It's sort of half-way there already, I'm pretty sure my Far Cry 2 box has "Online activation required" on it. Doesn't quite nail it, but better than nothing.

Agreed, Annatar. But I wasn't advocating they describe in detail on the box what the system does. What I meant was informing the customer what copy protection scheme is being used and a bit about its limitations. Something along the lines of:

"Contains SecuROM copy protection. On-line activation required and limited activations."

That's not too much to ask (and I daresay that may influence a number of consumers to do some research before committing their dollars to the product). Currently the statement of 'on-line' activation required' does not give the consumer enough information to make an informed decision.

Yeah, I definitely think that kind of notice should become standard on boxes. It sucks, but with protection schemes becoming increasingly less hassle-free and more "Wtf is this thing", a notice would be a good thing. At the very least, it might prevent lawsuits similar to SPORE's - I doubt it would have any legs to stand on if it plainly said on the box it's a SecurROM game.

And that is why they'll never (voluntarily) put it on the box. The one thing they absolutely DON'T want is Joe Smoe in the high street store taking an active interest in their business practices/"security" programs.

The Average user is NOT going to buy something that he knows has potentially damaging consequences to their interests. (however likely/unlikely the worst happening may be in the case in question) Joe in the street knows he can't fix his computer if something goes wrong, so he's not going to take the risk.

And this is, of course, precisely why it should be required and why I think a lawsuit is not going overboard.

I think the lawsuit is warranted since it is about the only thing that the big companies will listen to given the inherent costs and related publicity. Phone calls, emails and posts don’t seem to have any meaningful effect and as the story pointed out some of the big companies simply will not change unless forced and that is what the law is there for in the first place. After all they have no problem trying to use the law to protect their interests so why is it bad for use as citizens to do the same?

@Kitkun - yeah I'm in the information & educational business and I read thousands of pages everyday and in between client meetings and late at night when I cant sleep I read lots of things. Moreover I have about 25 game related info sites I check every day because a couple clients work in the industry or with related tech so it is a double bonus for me so to speak. I used to be able to post news stories here but my access went away several months ago with the forum update so my story posting dropped dramatically.

Well, it's the law that a pack of cigarettes MUST have a note on it which states that smoking is bad for you like:"Smoking makes your schlong shrivel."

So it's just a logical consequence that game publishers should be forced to put a note on their game boxes which reads something like:"Installing this game will also install SecuCrap DDRM (aka Sony's Rootkit) on your PC which causes severe security holes, renders some of your hardware useless and phones home about what other stuff you have on your rig."

Seriously though, I think that they really should be forced to make it crystal clear that the game also installs a DRM software and which one. Not just some footnote in Arial 6 like:"This game needs online activation, go to www.securom.com for details." or such.

Well, I'm interested for the long haul in Brad's reform project. I don't want to see any software-based "protection" on anything I buy, so I hope the effort doesn't lead to future Stardock games being polluted. But I do want to see the Big Guys struggle to defend their ludicrous hardware-focused license schemes--that's all clearly crap aimed at maximizing the profits on commodity PCs with as short a refresh cycle as possible; it does not have customers' best interests in mind.

If we must keep suffering under (c) regimes for software, we also must force those regimes to adopt simple, transparent models--things that make sense in plain English and do not require any technical knowledge about PCs. Things like "you registered this software with your e-mail address, so whenever you need to reinstall, we can send you what you need to get going."

you would think so but "knowlege is power" and EA doesnt want you to have power.

They need to get their heads on straight.

MUSIC is completely dominated by piracy.  There is no music anywhere that cannoted be pirated and put on torrent the day it's released.  If nothing else, you could just rerecord the track while playing it on a music device.  It CANNOT be protected.

And yet iTunes makes a killing on their store, featuring music they don't even make themselves.

It's really, really basic economics.  If you offer more value for the same money, you get the sale.  By virtue of legal ownership of the IP, you already have great advantages over any pirate - you can freely offer or do stuff they will have more difficulty matching, like continuous online development after release.  Furthermore, simply the virtue of being "legit" is itself something of a luxury tag - worth something in itself.

No DRM scheme is going to work, even if you hardcode it into the thing.  Heck, old Nintendo Famicom cartridges were hardwired software onto a chipset recognized only by a specialized machine and even that got pirated.

As I see it, it's my computer and I have a right to know exactly what I am installing on it. There is no half measure. They want to protect their own IP we have a right to protect our own. They wouild not pay for anything lost on my pc because of their software. From this point of view I think they owe us at that point.