EFF Asks FTC To Demand 'Truth In Labeling' For DRM

from the that's-a-strategy dept

Interesting move by Cory Doctorow and the EFF in sending some letters to the FTC making a strong case that DRM requires some "truth in labeling" details in order to make sure people know what they're buying. We've been pointing out for years, that DRM often means that you don't really own what you think you bought. The argument is pretty straightforward:

The legal force behind DRM makes the issue of advance notice especially pressing. It’s bad enough to when a product is designed to prevent its owner from engaging in lawful, legitimate, desirable conduct -- but when the owner is legally prohibited from reconfiguring the product to enable that conduct, it’s vital that they be informed of this restriction before they make a purchase, so that they might make an informed decision.

Though many companies sell products with DRM encumbrances, few provide notice of these encumbrances. Of those that do, fewer still enumerate the restrictions in plain, prominent language. Of the few who do so, none mention the ability of the manufacturer to change the rules of the game after the fact, by updating the DRM through non-negotiable updates that remove functionality that was present at the time of purchase.

The letter also includes numerous examples of people being stymied from actually using products they had purchased, thanks to unclear DRM restrictions. Here's an example from the music world:

Adam J installed Microsoft’s Groove and it automatically imported his iTunes and Amazon libraries, and automatically -- and erroneously -- flagged 30% of his collection as being DRMencumbered. It then added Groove’s own DRM to these tracks, and they will no longer play unless he buys a premium connection and even then, only when he is connected to the Internet.

And here's one from the hardware world:

John F bought a 27” Sony Wega HD flat-screen TV from a Best Buy store in 2004, believing that the set’s HDMI port would accommodate his PC, allowing him to use it as both a TV and a computer monitor. However, Sony had deployed DRM code to prevent this use, significantly reducing the value of his $2,100 purchase. There was no notice of this DRM, and store personnel were not aware of it.

There are a lot more like that. In a separate letter from EFF, along with a number of other consumer interest groups, but also content creators like Baen Books, Humble Bundle and McSweeney's, they suggest some ways that a labeling notice might work.

This is an interesting approach to dealing with DRM. I'm always a little wary of the need to go running to the government for help without other alternatives being exhausted first, but the letters do make a strong case that this is a longstanding problem that has not been solved through the marketplace. Of course, it might be nice if retailers simply adopted this directly first, rather than it getting to the point where the FTC needs to step in.

Filed Under: drm, ftc, truth in advertising, truth in labeling

Xbox Fitness Users Shelled Out Big Bucks For Workout Programs They'll Soon Be Totally Unable To Use

from the just-renting dept

In late 2013, Microsoft launched Xbox Fitness for the then-new Xbox One. The fitness program leaned heavily on the Kinect motion sensor you'll recall Microsoft initially and ingeniously forced everybody to buy -- even though many users had no interest in the accessory. Xbox Fitness included 30 free training sessions, but also allowed users to pay significantly more for additional workouts, including shelling out $60 for P90X routines, to individual Jillian Michaels videos that cost users $12 each. These users likely assumed that once they bought these workouts, they'd be able to use them indefinitely.

Those users apparently didn't get the memo that we no longer own the things we buy.

Microsoft this week announced a "sunset plan" for Xbox Fitness users, informing them that in time, none of the content they bought will be usable. The 30 free core workouts included with the program? They'll no longer work after December 15. All of that content sold to consumers just a few years ago? It too will no longer work as of July 1, 2017:

"As a service, Xbox Fitness has continually evolved since it launched on Xbox One, with new content and ongoing updates. Given the service relies on providing you with new and exciting content regularly, Microsoft has given much consideration to the reality updating the service regularly in order to sustain it. Therefore, the decision has been made to scale back our support for Xbox Fitness over the next year."

Read: we made our money off of you, and now are refusing to put any more of it back into the platform we sold you. And by "scale back," we mean make the service and the content you thought you owned completely unusable.

Microsoft informs annoyed customers it too is "saddened" by the news, as if this is some unavoidable natural tragedy like a death of the family goldfish we all have to weather in solidarity (sniff):

"While our team is saddened by this news, we couldn’t be more proud of what we’ve accomplished in the past two and a half years. We released Xbox Fitness as a service with Xbox One on Day One and have since added custom content from well-respected trainers and have added new features such as Leaderboards, the option to download purchased workouts, and the option for users to play with or without Kinect."

Needless to say, customers who shelled out potentially hundreds of dollars for a workout system they thought they could use indefinitely aren't consoled by Microsoft's "pride" and "sadness." Petitions have sprung up over at the Xbox feedback website urging Microsoft to rethink the announcement, or at least convert all of the content into a standalone app before shutdown. Except if previous issues of this type are any indication, Microsoft won't be willing to eat the costs required to make that happen. Instead, users will get a few platitudes and a pat on the butt before Microsoft marketing redirects their attention to something new.

Filed Under: drm, ownership, xbox, xbox fitness
Companies: microsoft

Oculus Reverses DRM Course After Public Backlash

from the power-to-the-vr-people dept

Weeks back, Karl Bode wrote about the curious position Oculus Rift had taken in updating its software to include system-checking DRM. VR headset technology and game development, experiencing the first serious attempt at maturity in years, needs an open ecosystem in which to develop. What this DRM essentially did was remove the ability for games designed to run on the Rift from running on any other VR headset, with a specific targeting of community-built workarounds like Revive, which allowed HTC Vive owners to get Rift games running on that headset. Oculus, it should be noted, didn't announce the DRM aspect of the update; it just spit out the update and the public suddenly learned that programs like Revive no longer worked.

The backlash, to put it mildly, was swift and severe. Oculus having been acquired by Facebook likely didn't help what were already negative perceptions, supercharging the outcry with allegations of the kind of protectionism and the lack of care for the public that Facebook has enjoyed for roughly ever. Still, many saw the whole thing as peons screaming at a feudal lord: Oculus would simply ignore the whole thing. Just weeks ago, in fact, Oculus was working journalists at E3 in defense of the DRM.

The problem, [Oculus Head of Content Jason] Rubin said, comes with the wholesale distribution of a hack like Revive to the whole community, rather than to a few individuals. "[A personal hack] is a far cry difference from an institutional tool made and distributed to a mass number of people to [support other headsets], strip out DRM, strip out platform features and the like. For an individual to do that for themselves, that would be all right. Mass distribution is an entirely different situation."

No explanation on why the level of access to the workaround makes all the difference appears to have been offered, but it seems likely that the company didn't want to appear to be going after gamers and tinkerers, only larger development outfits. If so, the attempt didn't work, because software like Revive was in high demand. This is to be expected, as VR is just now starting to sprout from the seeds laid long ago, with impressive but limited options for both hardware and games to run on that hardware. Those limitations mean that any attempt at exclusivity being tied to hardware that is relatively expensive walls off each of the gardens and limits access and interest. For a technology still in its early stages, this would only stifle growth. Hence, the anger from the public.

Anger which appears to have worked, contrary to what some had thought. As silently as Oculus rolled out the DRM, it has now spit out an update which rolls it back. The world found out about it not from Oculus itself, which curiously didn't want to capitalize on some good press for once, but from Revive's development team.

The Oculus team has reversed course on one of its most unpopular decisions since launching the Rift VR headset in April: headset-specific DRM. After weeks of playing cat-and-mouse to block the "Revive" workaround, which translated the VR calls of Oculus games to work smoothly and seamlessly inside of the rival HTC Vive, Oculus quietly updated its hardware-specific runtime on Friday and removed all traces of that controversial DRM.

What's more, Oculus didn't mention the change in its runtime update notes, which are curiously future-dated one day forward on Saturday, June 25. The news instead broke when Revive's head developer posted a note on the project's Github download page. "I've only just tested this and I'm still in disbelief," the unnamed LibreVR developer wrote. Accordingly, the Revive team has since removed the patch's DRM-disabling feature, which had later been implemented as an extreme measure to make Oculus games play on the HTC Vive.

It appears that even when Oculus chooses to listen to its fans and potential customers, it can't be bothered to do so publicly. This strips its ability to claim credit for the move, credit which it desperately needs after several negative news cycles. Still, the company's PR ineptitude aside, it's a nice lesson in what public backlash and shaming can do to pressure a company to be a little more open.

Filed Under: drm, interoperability, oculus rift, revive, vr
Companies: facebook, oculus

Oculus Is Hurting VR's Development By Supporting Walled Gardens, Closed Ecosystems

from the tear-down-the-wall dept

Facebook's Oculus Rift was originally expected to lead the virtual reality charge and become a shining example of "VR done right," but a bungled launch and a series of sloppy public relations missteps have ensured that won't be happening any time soon.

The company generated a tidal wave of ill will after production issues delayed Oculus pre-order ship dates by two months or more. That was compounded by some overly broad terms of service language, and an Oculus decision to sell some headsets at Best Buy before pre-order customers had received their own headsets. Combined with a lack of "room scale" support (the ability to move freely in space using handheld controllers) out of the gate and a general nervousness about Facebook's snooping tendencies, Oculus has effectively given the HTC Vive a huge PR advantage as VR begins to slowly claw its way towards mainstream adoption.

Oculus isn't helping matters much this week with moves that indicate Facebook and Oculus are very much keen on embracing walled gardens, DRM, and closed ecosystems at a time when VR very much needs the exact opposite to thrive.

As it stands, Oculus Rift owners can play non-roomscale games designed for the Rift via the SteamVR store. In contrast, HTC Vive customers can't play games designed for the Oculus Rift, since Oculus and Facebook have decided to lean heavily on exclusives out of the gate. To play Oculus games, many Vive customers had taken to using third-party software known as Revive. But in a recent post to Reddit, Revive developers say Oculus and Facebook have deployed an update that stops the workaround in its tracks:

"From my preliminary research it seems that Oculus has also added a check whether the Oculus Rift headset is connected to their Oculus Platform DRM. And while Revive fools the application in thinking the Rift is connected, it does nothing to make the actual Oculus Platform think the headset is connected. Because only the Oculus Platform DRM has been changed this means that none of the Steam or standalone games were affected. Only games published on the Oculus Store that use the Oculus Platform SDK are affected"

Oculus is denying that the software update was specifically targeting Revive, only telling a number of different news outlets that the update was necessary to help curb piracy. Most of the comments to the media imply that shucks -- hacks like Revive just occasionally break during the course of software updates:

"We take the security, functionality and integrity of our system software very seriously and people should expect that hacked games won’t work indefinitely as regular updates to content, apps and our platform may break the hacks."

However, Revive developers say the update isn't checking to see whether or not software was legitimately purchased, but whether or not the Oculus headset itself is connected and being used to experience that content. To get around Oculus' update, the Revive developers have been forced to issue their own update that bypasses all DRM and ownership checks in order to work, something the developers say isn't the path they wanted to take and makes piracy easier than before:

"LibreVR has some concerns about hacking into purchase-protecting DRM in order to get around the Rift's hardware exclusivity. "I am worried about whether I'm helping piracy by implementing this workaround," he said. "When possible I'd like my workaround to help developers generate more revenue, not hurt that revenue." On the other hand, LibreVR also added that "pirates will always find a way to work around DRM, [so] I don't think my effort significantly contributed to that."

So at the end of the day, Oculus' latest decision to lock down its ecosystem not only pissed off the userbase, it contributed to a cat and mouse arms race that may actually ramp up the potential for piracy. Where's the benefit again?

Oculus' fall from grace among the VR faithful has been accelerated at times by company founder Palmer Luckey, who has been mercilessly hammered over at Reddit for repeatedly flip-flopping on claims regarding the headset. For example, this is what Luckey said about the ability to use different titles on different headsets last December:

"If customers buy a game from us, I don't care if they mod it to run on whatever they want. Our goal is not to profit by locking people to only our hardware—if it was, why in the world would we be supporting GearVR and talking with other headset makers? The software we create through Oculus Studios (using a mix of internal and external developers) are exclusive to the Oculus platform, not the Rift itself."

Except the company's behavior has focused on the exact opposite: Oculus and Facebook (or predominantly Facebook) pretty clearly believe that a closed door, walled garden approach to VR development is the path forward. The problem is that with a high cost of entry, the VR development community is already struggling for mainstream adoption; VR is very much in the 1.0 era and very much in a period of experimentation, and many (including Valve) believe that more open, cross platform development will help ensure a broader, happier overall userbase. From the overall negative timbre of the VR community right now, Oculus appears intent on learning this the hard way.

Filed Under: drm, oculus rift, revive, vr, walled gardens
Companies: facebook, oculus

Walking Dead Producer Claims Real Cable Set Top Box Competition Will Result In Piracy Armageddon

from the bbbrraaaains dept

As we've been discussing, the FCC has started working more seriously on opening the cable set top box to real competition. As it stands, 99% of consumers currently pay about $231 annually in rental fees for aging hardware that's often worth about half that much. The FCC's goal is ultimately to let consumers access cable content using the hardware of their choice, creating a healthy new competitive market, and by proxy better hardware at lower prices. But monthly set top box rental fees represent $20 billion in annual revenue to cable providers, which is why they've been having a hissy fit about the FCC's plan.

This manufactured outrage has involved claiming that more set top box competition will somehow hurt diversity (despite the plan providing access to a more diverse array of content than ever before). Or claiming that consumers having a choice of hardware will harm children's safety and user security. The latest attack on the FCC's plan? Having The Walking Dead producer and Producers Guild of America secretary Gale Anne Hurd pen a missive over at USAToday claiming that more set top box competition somehow automatically means a huge spike in piracy:

"If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approves Chairman Tom Wheeler’s regulatory proposal to “open” set-top boxes, it will make piracy as easy and dangerous in the living room as it is on laptop and mobile devices. Wait, you didn’t know piracy was rampant on the Internet? Well, the figures shocked even me, and as a producer of horror and science fiction, I’m not easily scared. The season five premiere of my show, The Walking Dead, was illegally downloaded by roughly 1.27 million unique IP addresses worldwide within 24 hours of its debut."

Right, people pirate content. No debate there. That's in part because despite some notable progress, finding legitimate content online remains a bit of an expensive mole hunt (made worse by exclusive streaming arrangements), making piracy just cheaper and easier. But it's also because while copy protection on cable hardware (including the latest HDCP 2.2 standard for 4K) does a great job in annoying paying customers, it repeatedly fails to actually secure content. That's not going to change under a system where users have access to cheaper, better hardware. What will change is that users will no longer be trapped in the cable industry's set top box walled garden, and will have access to more ways to buy and watch legitimate content than ever before, including AMC's own website and streaming service. Outrageous!

Hurd doesn't appear to understand this, or how the FCC's plan actually works, since the outline the FCC has provided (pdf) notes that the FCC's plan leaves it up to cable providers to still "determine the content protection systems it deems sufficient to prevent theft and misuse" and "will not impede the introduction of new content protection systems." In other words, from a copy protection perspective, nothing will really change (unfortunately). But Hurd somehow tries to claim that the FCC's plan means that Google would somehow be driving users to pirated content:

"It would also allow Google — and for that matter set-top box manufacturers from all over the world, including China (where rogue boxes are being built by the millions) — to create and market applications or boxes with software that will treat legitimate and stolen material exactly the same, and may in many cases help to steer consumers to piracy."

Note again how Hurd just ignores the fact that set top box competition would also drive users to more legitimate options than ever before. No, apparently Hurd is worried that because these new set top boxes might actually connect people to the Internet (which is already happening in streaming boxes and game consoles), they'll be more likely to pirate:

"This is a real threat. Google's search engine does this today. Here’s what happens when I search “watch Fear the Walking Dead." After the paid results, the first option is AMC and the second is a pirate site — literally, side by side. Chairman Wheeler’s set-top box proposal places no restrictions on search results. If approved, it would allow device-makers to prominently display pirated content from the Internet alongside legitimate options — just like in my "watch Fear the Walking Dead" Google search.

So wait, because The Walking Dead shows up in a Google search result we shouldn't support the push for more set top box competition? Kind of throwing the baby away with the bathwater, aren't we? The FCC is proposing a system whereby users will have access to more content and cheaper, better content than ever, but because these set tops might have a browser we should run in terror? Hurd basically just takes some vague fear about piracy and uses it to villainize a reform effort that could potentially drive more legitimate viewers her direction than ever before.

Of course the idea that set top box reform is some kind of villainous Google plot to ruin the cable industry's day has been a cable industry industry narrative since the FCC's plan was unveiled. The fact that you'll see a huge number of editorials just like Hurd's popping up in newspapers and various websites nationwide isn't mystical coincidence, it's a concerted cable industry PR stunt. Given Comcast is playing a starring role in this PR offensive, Comcast's top spokesperson was quick to applaud Hurd's editorial on Twitter:

why would the gov reward Google w rules that will put stolen content in competition with legit contenthttps://t.co/fms26jk0C3 via @usatoday

— Sena Fitzmaurice (@SenaFitz) April 12, 2016

Make no mistake though. Opposition to the FCC's plan isn't about piracy, or a love of diversity, or Google, or privacy and security. It's about protecting $20 billion in captive rental fee revenue from competition. And because the cable industry can't just come out and say this fight is all about money (because we'd all just laugh at them), they're pushing an army of editorials that try to claim real set top box competition will be notably worse than a zombie apocalypse.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, drm, exaggeration, fcc, gale anne hurd, innovation, piracy, set top boxes, walking dead
Companies: google, producers guild of america

Why Won't W3C Carve Security Research Out Of Its DRM-In-HTML 5 Proposal?

from the questions-to-ponder dept

A few years back, we wrote a few stories about the unfortunate move by the W3C to embrace DRM as a part of the official HTML5 standard. It was doubly disappointing to then see Tim Berners-Lee defending this decision as well. All along this was nothing more than a focus by the legacy content providers to try to hinder perfectly legal uses and competition on the web by baking in damaging DRM systems. Even Mozilla, which held out the longest, eventually admitted that it had no choice but to support DRM, even if it felt bad about doing so.

There are, of course, many problems with DRM, and baking it directly into HTML5 raises a number of concerns. A major one: since the part of the DMCA (Section 1201) makes it infringing to merely get around any technological protection measure -- even if for perfectly legal reasons -- it creates massive chilling effects on security research. To try to deal with this, Cory Doctorow and the EFF offered up something of a compromise, asking the W3C to adopt a "non-aggression covenant," such that the W3C still gets its lame DRM, but that W3C members agree not to go after security researchers.

Who could possibly object to that? But, for whatever reason, the W3C still won't agree to it. Cory and the EFF are looking for security researchers to sign on to tell the W3C to get with the program and to protect security research. They've already got some great names signed on, but if you're in the security research field, please consider signing on as well. Or if you know people in the field, please send them to the EFF asking them to sign on as well.

Filed Under: drm, html5, security research
Companies: w3c

Conspiracy Theories Over Steam Game Suddenly Crashing Wrong; Just More Broken Anti-Piracy Code

from the crash-override dept

If you follow video game news as I do, you probably came across a fascinating and somewhat thrilling series of speculative stories revolving around a game called Spintires, which is being sold through the Steam platform. The driving game had been selling for some time, and selling fairly well, when all of the sudden it stopped working. Just like that, the game was crashing all over the place. Some sites, including this later-updated Gamasutra post, began digging into a wellspring of conspiracy theories about purposeful sabotage by the developer over money disputes with the publisher.

There may be something rotten in the state of Spintires, as the game's players have taken to Reddit and its official forum recently to complain about alleged "time bombs" hidden in the code by the game's developer that are rendering it unplayable.

The reason that a conspiracy theory like this found purchase rather than being laughed away was the rocky history between the developer of the game, Pavel Zagrebelnyy, with the game's publisher, Oovee Game Studios. Just a week before the crashing of the game began, Zagrebelnyy had been participating in interviews with sites and offering up less than flattering comments about Oovee.

"They owe me a s***load of money according to our contract," Pavel tells me in a new interview. "But I don't have any leverage because my judicial skills are zero. I haven't had a meaningful communication with Oovee for many months (maybe a year)."

Oovee, in the same post, acknowledges that it has been late in paying Zagrebelnyy, but promises that this will be corrected. A week later, the game of Zagrebelnyy's that Oovee published is suddenly broken and unplayable. At that point, Oovee released a statement, acknowledging that the crashes were a widespread issue and stating that those crashes were "date-related." The internet took that statement and ran with it, extrapolating it into a tale in which Zagrebelnyy had inserted time-bomb bits of code into the game that could be weaponized to cause it to crash on certain days or within certain date-ranges if he were so motivated, say by a lack of being paid by the publisher.

But that speculation and the conspiracy theory behind it then crashed upon comments from Zagrebelnyy and Oovee, which acknowledge to the theorists that, naaaah, it's just another case of anti-piracy efforts fucking things up for all the legitimate customers.

Zagrebelnyy gave the following response:

"Well, I dont understand who and why started the rumours of sabotaging - apparently they are based on reverse engineering Spintires code? Anyways, publisher (Oovee) have the source codes so they know (they should) I didn't sabotage Spintires - there is no such code! But there is in fact a time-related bug (a self-check uses time functions to see if game wasn't cracked by pirates) which was not fixed in time (because we have little to no communicating with Oovee.)"

And Oovee:

"We are aware of recent press speculation relating to sabotage of the spintires game by the lead developer Pavel. We wish to express our displeasure at this speculation and totally refute these and other recent allegations. It is a shame that some press are reporting this without talking to us, and even saying in some articles they are yet to talk to us. The situation on the bug is that we became aware of a major bug last week that caused the game to stop for some users."

And so another conspiracy theory falls, this times at the hands of faulty DRM. I'll put this here so nobody has to in the comments: never blame malice when incompetence is just as likely. Or maybe just blame DRM always and for everything. You're going to be right a decent amount of the time.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, crashes, drm, pavel zagrebelnyy, spintires, steam, video games
Companies: oovee game studios

DRM Is Evil, Part 8,492: Nook Pulls Out Of UK, Exploring Options To Let People Retain Access To At Least Some Books

from the drm-sucks dept

Yet another story of how badly DRM screws over legitimate buyers, with no actual benefit for copyright holders. This time, it's about the total failure of Barnes & Noble's Nook ebook reader, which is struggling globally, and shutting down entirely in the UK. Nate Hoffelder has a great article explaining why the Nook has been such an abject failure, but a key point highlighted by the Register is that the company is still working to see if there are ways that legitimate buyers can keep access to at least some of the books they purchased.

In one of the most amazing statements this author has read, the company says it's trying to set up a deal with Sainsbury's Entertainment on Demand "to ensure that you have continued access to the vast majority of your purchased NOOK Books at no new cost to you" (emphasis added).

Of course, this is hardly a new phenomenon. Remember when Microsoft had a DRM it called "PlaysForSure"? And remember when it shut down those servers, blocking people from ever moving that content to new machines? Or how about when Scholastic shut down its Storia DRM'd book offering, meaning parents who purchased ebooks for their kids had digital pixie dust instead. Or when Rhapsody/RealNetworks killed off an old DRM, killing off access to songs people had legitimately paid to access. Or when digital comics company JManga shut down and with it took down access to purchased content. And remember when Adobe changed its DRM and made old ebooks obsolete?

This kind of thing happens again and again and again. And for what? What benefit does it actually create for copyright holders? At best it only serves to entrench the most dominant retailers, taking power away from the copyright holders (who already took power away from the actual creators). And it tends to do nothing to stop actual copyright infringement, because all of those works are still readily and easily available.

Filed Under: drm, ebooks, lost books, nook, ownership, sales
Companies: barnes and noble, nook

Bandai-Namco Blows Money On DRM Rather Than Fixing Its Terrible PC Port Of Tales Of Symphonia

from the to-nail-down-a-$20-game-that-was-cracked-within-hours dept

When console games are ported to the PC platform, the end result is often merely adequate. Some ports are amazing because the software developer actually knows and cares about the platform their game is being ported to. Others are just quick cash-ins, relying on name recognition to bring in sales the end product hasn't earned.

Some turn out well. Some turn out bad. And some are Tales of Symphonia, a twice-ported title that originally appeared on Nintendo's Gamecube back in 2004. Tales has landed on PC with all the grace of limbless cat with an inner ear disorder.

Here's a NeoGAF forum member's list of everything that's wrong with the port.

The games resolution is locked internal at 720p, no matter what resolution you choose.

The different languages are broken, since they used a wrong font and some words dont even show up. And some things havent even been translated into other languages.







The game is locked at 30fps

It has new typos

It still partially uses Ps3-Button-controls

Random crashes (including when using alt-tab to switch programs)

Only 6 save slots.

Opening the config and save menu can take 30 seconds to load.

Then there's this:

It uses a DRM thats called VMProtect, that creates a new *.exe everytime the game starts.

How cool is that. Every time the game is played, the DRM dumps another .exe on the user's hard drive. Why? Because DRM is stupid. In this case, the DRM runs the whole game in a "virtual machine with non-standard architecture." Sure, storage is cheap and no one's really in danger of filling up their drives with "fake" .exes, but is that the gold standard of DRM? One that creates its own bloatware while you play?

And why is the DRM even needed? Namco-Bandai is utilizing top-of-the-line DRM for a PC port of an eleven-year-old game that's selling for $20. Now, it has a lot of pissed off PC gamers on its hands, wondering why they were handed a fourth-rate piece of crap, rather than a port that shows the manufacturer cares for its games or its customers. A game with this many problems doesn't need DRM weighing it down (and shedding .exes every time the program is accessed).

Game modder Peter Thoman, in his review for PC Gamer, absolutely nails how effed-up Namco-Bandai's priorities are.

Namco-Bandai cannot afford even the very minimal changes required to support arbitrary resolutions or superficially QA their product, but they can afford a completely ineffective DRM system. An ineffective DRM system for a game which people, if they were so inclined, have been able to pirate freely for over a decade.

That is apparently the quality of the decision making processes within this company. Their fans—and PC gamers—deserve better

Filed Under: drm, symphonia
Companies: bandia-namco

Software Company Asks Users For Input On DRM; Goes Ahead And Institutes It Anyway Over Their Objections

from the by-'listening,'-we-meant-nodding-thoughtfully-while-moving-forward-with dept

Nothing does more damage more quickly to your community than deciding to place your fear of piracy over the the concerns of those who've already paid for your product. DRM is rarely, if ever, the answer. And yet, it remains an inexplicably popular "solution."

Daz 3D, which produces 3D art software as well as assets for use with third party software, has decided to do something about its perceived piracy problem. Last November, it had this to say:

[W]e feel the best way to fight piracy is make the convenience of doing something legally more so than the inconvenience of pirating. That is why we made finding, downloading, installing, and loading content in Studio as streamlined and easy as possible while making getting a pirate-able copy of the original product harder.

The solution to the problem, according to Daz 3D, was to have the software "phone home" at least once to obtain a key for content/software files, which would only arrive in encrypted form. Supposedly, this would be limited to once per computer but the new, encrypted files would pose problems for existing users.

Those on older versions of Daz's software would be unable to access any new content. Transferring old data could also result in problems -- something Daz acknowledged in a later post, noting that scripts and tools might not work with unencrypted content.

At the time of the announcement, no plan was in place to provide offline users with authentication keys, nor would it be possible to purchase new content without running through Daz's "Connect" service, which not only authenticates users but "assembles" newly purchased content for use with Daz software.

Daz did the right thing and put its proposals up for discussion. This generated dozens of pages of comments, many of which were from users opposed to the addition of DRM. Some were concerned about the Daz Connect DRM breaking content they'd already paid for. Others simply didn't like being treated like pirates when they'd actually paid for software and add-ons.

Daz's representatives were active in forum discussions and very straightforward about their reasons for looking into instituting DRM. The company is hoping a few extra installation hoops and another layer of authentication would deter casual pirates, leaving them only the diehard crackers interested in "capturing" a niche "market."

The willingness to listen and participate in the discussion separates Daz from many other companies who've added DRM to their products. Unfortunately, it appears the discussion had little effect on Daz's final decision. The post may be titled "You've been heard," but the content contained in it indicates the listening was little more than a formality. Daz will be moving ahead with its original plan, despite customers making it clear they'd rather have a product that doesn't introduce compatibility problems. Nor do they want to be limited to a single distribution system. And they're less than thrilled about the "phone home" requirement.

The new post, delivered four months after the original announcement, changes nothing about the DRM structure. While it does add some fail-safe measures (like third-party escrow that will prevent users from being locked out of their purchases if Daz goes out of business), the end result is still the same. DRM is coming to Daz and there's nothing users can do about it.

Currently Daz Connect gives customers the ability to install (among other things) encrypted content. Daz Connect also lets customers retrieve a Key to decrypt their content. Customers have raised the concerns of:

What if Daz is not available to provide the keys anymore, chooses not to, or starts charging an additional fee to get a key for previously purchased content?

Solution: We have developed and fully tested a utility which will decrypt, and save in non-encrypted formats, Daz products on a customer’s computer. We are also working out details with a software escrow company who will provide this utility to the public free of charge in the event that Daz is no longer in a business position to, or is unwilling to continue offering this as a free service. This will also be added to the Daz EULA to ensure customers of our commitment to enable them to always be able to use content that they have purchased a license for.

Obviously this does not address other issues such as scripts and tools that work on un-encrypted content. But those are solved in other ways. We are working (and will continue to work) with developers who have this need, in order to show them how to do it with encrypted content.

Apparently, "hearing" actually means ignoring concerns people expressed, including portability from older versions of Daz's software. And, as is nearly always the case when DRM to added to a previously DRM-free product, the company is presenting it as a win for paying customers.

Is the encryption associated with Daz Connect essentially Digital Rights Management (DRM)?

We strive to add great benefits to being connected while limiting the impact to the user experience. Although we have included file encryption to protect our artist community, the primary target is to provide a better experience for our users. Daz Connect delivers and updates products more efficiently but relies on the fact that files are in a location and format that is maintained by the application. In this sense, Daz Connect provides some measure of digital rights management.

So, Daz is thinking of its customers while simultaneously willing to ignore those customers to institute something it thinks will decrease piracy. While I can appreciate the fact Daz wants to protect its bottom line, it needs to be aware that instituting these new restrictions will result in actual lost sales -- something that may ultimately prove more harmful than the theoretical lost sales Daz attributes to piracy.

Filed Under: drm, opinions, users
Companies: daz 3d