[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Martin Gantefoehr

You know, that's what makes the internet so great. It's full of outdated, false, half-correct, and hearsay information. But nobody cares. Those sites still get cited, linked to, mirrored and redistributed by myriads of other concerned people, who then claim to use facts and cite those same sources as proof.

The internet? How about any source of infomation has this potential. The site still gets linked to because the majority of infomation is correct, and gives you enough infomation to research further.

[Jeysie]

Well, here's a thought... you all think we should make a post on the site's forums asking why they hadn't responded to the requests from House of Tales? T'would clear up the situation.

The forums are still frequented, by the site owner as well as other folks, and the list is shown as being updated in March 2006.

Also, are non-US versions of Moment of Silence protected by StarForce? If so, this Boycott forum thread may help.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Well, here's a thought... you all think we should make a post on the site's forums asking why they hadn't responded to the requests from House of Tales? T'would clear up the situation.

The forums are still frequented, by the site owner as well as other folks, and the list is shown as being updated in March 2006.

Also, are non-US versions of Moment of Silence protected by StarForce? If so, this Boycott forum thread may help.

Peace & Luv, Liz

That list isn't incorrect, it's just not detailed. The other list is incorrect because it states the US version of The Moment of Silence has starforce protection when it does not.

[Jeysie]

Ah. Sorry, I got confused as to which game list which people were referring to when.

In any case, I will agree with the thought that publishers need to start listing which games use which types of copy protection so this sort of confusion can be avoided.

After all, in the absence of official information, these sorts of unofficial lists can't be more than guesswork and "field reports". And yet, you can't get rid of the unofficial lists completely because customers who care want to be informed.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Legolas813]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

As for the questions on the game list at glop.org: The site maintainer has said on his forums that he puts a game on the list if at least one version of the game has StarForce on it.

That's why I don't like the list. It's probably the most comprehensive one on the Internet, but it doesn't distinguish between regions and different versions of the same game. The people behind the site have said it would be too much work to do so.

[Martin Gantefoehr]

The site still gets linked to because the majority of infomation is correct, and gives you enough infomation to research further.

That's your opinion. I have one, too. The site gets linked because nobody bothers whether or not the majority, half, or even any of its information is correct, let alone bothers to double check, detail or correct it.

Also, this kind of "information", that you generously enough call "incomplete", is of course incorrect, because without any specification, it is suggested that it applies in general, which is not an incomplete, but an incorrect statement. Also, the site states that

Unless otherwise noted, the following list refers to both European and US releases of games.

which, I guess, leaves little space for further exegesis. Unless you claim that it is poetry.

[portabello]

Without a very large organized movement it would be very difficult to get a complete and accurate list. From what I can tell, the glop.org list is the work of a single person with a little bit of help from forum posters. It would be very difficult for a single person to obtain a copy of every release of every new game to test for starforce. He has to go on information he gets from others. It may not be a complete, or 100% accurate list, but its a place to start.

I'm assuming its a single person maintaining the site because ge.she always refers to himself/herself as I when posting stuff.

[AFGNCAAP]

I appreciate he invests much time into (what he believes is) a worthy case by himself. But it goes without saying that, even assuming StarForce is evil incarnate, such boycott may harm innocent people and companies. Therefore, no information would be better than false information. As he acknowledges in the preface that list isn't complete anyway, I really don't understand why can't he list only those versions which he currently *knows* have the protection.

Jeysie:
thanks for your answers. I'm afraid I don't really follow why the stores are less willing to accept CDs etc. just because they are copiable more easily. As long as the original disc is being returned, I mean. If a customer has a pirate mentality, could have produced a thousand copies already anyway. On the other hand, if he is an honest buyer with a legit (or even not so legit, like your GTA example) complaint, he may be put off by such policy. Since you brought up that comparison yourself, I'd argue I see it not different than what StarForce (the company) so often does, ie. assuming anybody with a complaint to be a pirate/scammer by default.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Thanks for your answers. I'm afraid I don't really follow why the stores are less willing to accept CDs etc. just because they are copiable more easily. As long as the original disc is being returned, I mean. If a customer has a pirate mentality, could have produced a thousand copies already anyway.

Because an individual store isn't interested per se in stopping piracy in general as it is in just stopping personal piracy.

For instance, if a store sells a CD, and the customer copies that CD to kingdom come to pirate but keeps the original, well, the store still got its sale/money.

On the other hand, if the customer who bought the CD makes a copy (or 2 or 3), then returns the original CD, the store has now lost money. The customer has now pirated a CD with lower risk of being caught (without return restrictions, anyway), and the store is stuck with a CD that is now either unsaleable, or has to be sold at reduced cost (since it's opened).

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

On the other hand, if he is an honest buyer with a legit (or even not so legit, like your GTA example) complaint, he may be put off by such policy. Since you brought up that comparison yourself, I'd argue I see it not different than what StarForce (the company) so often does, ie. assuming anybody with a complaint to be a pirate/scammer by default.

True enough. The results are far different, though.

Return Restrictions:

For one, obviously most people who buy an item don't return it, so only a small percentage of customers are being affected.

For two, unopened items have no restrictions.

For three, most people return an item because it is defective in some way. The fact that you can exchange an opened item for a copy of the same item addresses this problem. (There are also things like company recalls and whatnot, in which case even opened items can be fully refunded.)

For four, return restrictions, when fully enforced, are just about completely effective in stopping scams... after all, if the manager won't take the item back, plan thwarted.

For five, if worse comes to worse, the customer can find some place that accepts used games to trade their game in for some cash/credit back.

Finally, a manager can override store policy on a case-by-case basis if need be.

DRM Methods:

For one, every single customer who buys the item has to deal with the restrictions.

For two, you're limited in the use of an actual product you own.

For three, for many DRM methods there just is no legal compromise to enable you to be able to exercise your Fair Use rights.

For four, no DRM method that I know of stops piracy completely, so it's mostly useless at its purpose. (How useless depending on your personal perception of how "big" a problem it is.)

For five, some DRM methods prevent some people from even being able to use the items they bought, due to problems.

So as a comparison:

Return restrictions: Only affect people when they need to return certain specific types of items after opening them, are almost completely effective in stopping scams when enforced, can be legally overridden/compensated for as needed.

DRM: Affect everyone who legally bought the software, can interfere with your legal usage of what you bought, doesn't completely stop piracy anyway, can't generally be legally overridden/compensated for.

Believe it or not, I am not personally against the idea of companies trying to protect themselves against illegal activities. I just think that most DRM causes too many problems for customers with dubious benefit to companies.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[AFGNCAAP]

Missed me? Sorry I'm replying late, but I wanted to gather thoughts first rather than reply to just a part of your post.

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Because an individual store isn't interested per se in stopping piracy in general as it is in just stopping personal piracy.

For instance, if a store sells a CD, and the customer copies that CD to kingdom come to pirate but keeps the original, well, the store still got its sale/money.

But if he distributes those copies among all his friends in the neighborhood, this may affect future sales (of course, the store accepting the returned copy wouldn't help it one bit; I've just wanted to point out that merchandisers should be interested in stopping piracy in general as much as publishers are).

On the other hand, if the customer who bought the CD makes a copy (or 2 or 3), then returns the original CD, the store has now lost money. The customer has now pirated a CD with lower risk of being caught (without return restrictions, anyway), and the store is stuck with a CD that is now either unsaleable, or has to be sold at reduced cost (since it's opened).

True. Note, however, that except the "has now lost money" part, all of these apply if the game was replaced with an unopened copy (which is a common procedure, if I understood you well).

True enough. The results are far different, though.

(I left out those I didn't find arguable)

Return Restrictions:

For two, unopened items have no restrictions.

So basically every customer is a potential scammer, unless he has an access to a shrinkwrap machine.

For three, most people return an item because it is defective in some way. The fact that you can exchange an opened item for a copy of the same item addresses this problem. (There are also things like company recalls and whatnot, in which case even opened items can be fully refunded.)

Not every defect is copy-specific, though.

For four, return restrictions, when fully enforced, are just about completely effective in stopping scams... after all, if the manager won't take the item back, plan thwarted.

Well, yes, obviously, if you approach everyone as he was trying to cheat you, you'll never be cheated (in that particular way at least). But I've always been a fan of the presumption of innocence rule, myself.

Finally, a manager can override store policy on a case-by-case basis if need be.

Which invalidates "For four" a bit, don't you think?

DRM Methods:

For two, you're limited in the use of an actual product you own.

No, and we've discussed that before. You don't own the game per se, you only paid for a right to play it (and owning a physical carrier like CD or DVD is a side effect of this). Admittedly, nobody in their right mind follows this rule to the letter in practice (eg. thankfully, no one legally pursues the sellers of used games on eBay), but technically that's how it is.

For four, no DRM method that I know of stops piracy completely, so it's mostly useless at its purpose. (How useless depending on your personal perception of how "big" a problem it is.)

There are no wonder solutions for anything in life. No legal system I know of stops criminals completely, but that shouldn't mean we ought to drop the idea of law altogether.

For five, some DRM methods prevent some people from even being able to use the items they bought, due to problems.

Similarly, some retailers sell dysfunctional products. Even if StarForce, or other copy protection systems, are allegedly harmful software, this argument has no place here. (Unless, again, you provided some actual figures. "Some" will always abuse any given law or opportunity.)

[Jelena]

This is truly in interesting thread! I´m still bewildered though whether to install Still Life (which I´m really looking forward to playing) or not.
I´ll read the thread again and see if I can decide.

[Panthera]

Originally Posted by LenaJ

This is truly in interesting thread! I´m still bewildered though whether to install Still Life (which I´m really looking forward to playing) or not.
I´ll read the thread again and see if I can decide.

If you have already bought the game, and don't use your dvd-writer (if you have one) frequently, I would say that you can just install it. When you uninstall Still Life again you can use the Starforce remover on the official starforce page.

The discussion is really about boycotting starforce - not buying games with starforce - because of what the program does.. I have starforce, and it hasn't ruined my pc, but I don't have a dvd-writer and my cd-writer was ruined before I got the program...

[Stoofa]

Hey Jeysie, if someone does return an opened game to a store, can the store send it back to the distributer for reimbursement or do they have to swallow the cost? (Assuming the store does not have one of those machines that re-wraps the game.)

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

But if he distributes those copies among all his friends in the neighborhood, this may affect future sales (of course, the store accepting the returned copy wouldn't help it one bit; I've just wanted to point out that merchandisers should be interested in stopping piracy in general as much as publishers are).

Oh, I agree with that last statement. But the businesses I've worked at all tended to be notoriously bad at planning for the long-term. If something stops them from losing money in the short term, they're usually happy.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

True. Note, however, that except the "has now lost money" part, all of these apply if the game was replaced with an unopened copy (which is a common procedure, if I understood you well).

Yes, of course a store is going to lose money on all returns, legitimate or not; the idea is to try to limit the amount of scam returns.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

So basically every customer is a potential scammer, unless he has an access to a shrinkwrap machine.

Again, *not* hyperbole, but experience - there is a not-entirely-insignificant number of customers who originally came into the store to do legit shopping who will try to put a small one over on you if they suddenly smell a chance. Let alone the folks who do come into a store specifically looking to pull a scam.

So unless you have telepathy, or an automatic scammer detector, you have to be cautious. Most stores try to enact policies that stop the most amount of scamming with the least amount of customer inconvenience.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Not every defect is copy-specific, though.

True, but most of them are, and if the same customer keeps having to return the same item a manager might decide to override policy to help them out in some way. (Full refund, checking with the manufacturer, etc.)

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Well, yes, obviously, if you approach everyone as he was trying to cheat you, you'll never be cheated (in that particular way at least). But I've always been a fan of the presumption of innocence rule, myself.

I generally agree, but considering that retail companies can lose literally thousands to millions of dollars a year on "shrink", ranging from clerical errors, to damaged merchandise, to scams, to shoplifting, etc. I can't blame them for being careful to try to eliminate as much of each category as possible. (And these sorts of losses are all documented, I should add, as opposed to DRM-using companies who can only *guess* at how many sales they lose to piracy.)

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Which invalidates "For four" a bit, don't you think?

Which is why I added the qualifier "when fully enforced". Still, my point is, unlike DRM, return restrictions can be overrided when it seems appropriate. And even then there are precautions: most places require ID while returning items, and any suspicious manager can do some calling around to other stores if he has to. (Like, he knows the customer has a history of returning items repeatedly or such.)

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

No, and we've discussed that before. You don't own the game per se, you only paid for a right to play it (and owning a physical carrier like CD or DVD is a side effect of this). Admittedly, nobody in their right mind follows this rule to the letter in practice (eg. thankfully, no one legally pursues the sellers of used games on eBay), but technically that's how it is.

You have the right to play it, yes... and if you're under US law, at least, you also have a number of Fair Use rights including being able to make backup copies among other things, and you have the right to resell your original copy as long as you do not retain a copy. So I have to admit I don't see your point here.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

There are no wonder solutions for anything in life. No legal system I know of stops criminals completely, but that shouldn't mean we ought to drop the idea of law altogether.

True, but deterrents should be at least moderately successful in stopping crime in comparison to how they affect law-abiding citizens. Near as I can tell DRM does very little to stop piracy but does a lot to cause problems and/or infringe on the rights of legitimate customers.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Similarly, some retailers sell dysfunctional products. Even if StarForce, or other copy protection systems, are allegedly harmful software, this argument has no place here.

Yes, but retailers don't intentionally sell dysfunctional products; i.e. they intend their wares to be working products. Whereas DRM methods deliberately interfere with certain computer functions by their nature.

Originally Posted by Stoofa

Hey Jeysie, if someone does return an opened game to a store, can the store send it back to the distributer for reimbursement or do they have to swallow the cost? (Assuming the store does not have one of those machines that re-wraps the game.)

No, they can't send it back. Most types of merchandise you have to swallow the cost, which is why things like clearance merchandise are common.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Again, *not* hyperbole, but experience - there is a not-entirely-insignificant number of customers who originally came into the store to do legit shopping who will try to put a small one over on you if they suddenly smell a chance. Let alone the folks who do come into a store specifically looking to pull a scam.

So unless you have telepathy, or an automatic scammer detector, you have to be cautious. Most stores try to enact policies that stop the most amount of scamming with the least amount of customer inconvenience.

Fair enough, I guess (although you don't treat every customer as a thief despite there being a significant number of shoplifters), but it was actually the "unless he has an access to a shrinkwrap machine" part that I found particularly amusing there.

You have the right to play it, yes... and if you're under US law, at least, you also have a number of Fair Use rights including being able to make backup copies among other things, and you have the right to resell your original copy as long as you do not retain a copy. So I have to admit I don't see your point here.

My point is that you don't "own" the game. You "own" the CD it came on, and are free to break it, toss it in the fire, or hang on on the ceiling, but as soon as what you do changes the ownage of content rather than / in addition to physical CD, you should (in theory) consult the user's license. "You're limited in the use of an actual product you own" gives a misleading impression about it, like there was actual item in your possession somebody forbids you to make use of.

If by that you actually meant that customer's Fair Use rights are limited, then I don't know why you listed this point twice.

True, but deterrents should be at least moderately successful in stopping crime in comparison to how they affect law-abiding citizens. Near as I can tell DRM does very little to stop piracy but does a lot to cause problems and/or infringe on the rights of legitimate customers.

What do you base your judgment on, if you admit yourself we can only guess how much money is lost due to piracy?

Yes, but retailers don't intentionally sell dysfunctional products; i.e. they intend their wares to be working products. Whereas DRM methods deliberately interfere with certain computer functions by their nature.

Actually, the salespeople who do sell faulty wares on purpose were exactly whom I had in mind.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Fair enough, I guess (although you don't treat every customer as a thief despite there being a significant number of shoplifters)

Heh, actually, if you want to get technical... stores have a lot of shoplifting deterrent techniques; it's just that some are more obvious as such than others.

For example, having friendly, attentive employees who walk up and down their sections straightening merchandise and approaching customers to ask them if they need help has a twofold purpose. On the one hand, it helps ensure that the aisles stay clean and customers have easy access to someone who can help them. On the other hand it helps ensure that someone planning to shoplift has a hard time finding enough time alone to do so.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

but it was actually the "unless he has an access to a shrinkwrap machine" part that I found particularly amusing there.

Heh! Well, you can't protect against everything. Someone who owns a shrinkwrap machine probably is "serious" about their scamming, and there are other ways of dealing with that sort of thing. (Which I'm personally not privy to... it's generally the security folks who worry about "big" stuff.)

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

My point is that you don't "own" the game. You "own" the CD it came on, and are free to break it, toss it in the fire, or hang on on the ceiling, but as soon as what you do changes the ownage of content rather than / in addition to physical CD, you should (in theory) consult the user's license. "You're limited in the use of an actual product you own" gives a misleading impression about it, like there was actual item in your possession somebody forbids you to make use of.

We're picking virtual nits here... the law states that no matter what the license says, you have certain rights to how you can use the item you bought, and the question is whether DRM methods interfere with that. So while I agree with your assertion, I don't see the practical relevance of it in regards to refuting my statement.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

What do you base your judgment on, if you admit yourself we can only guess how much money is lost due to piracy?

The same thing as you do your POV, guesswork... well, and also the fact that links to cracked DRM-"protected" games aren't hard to find. Just surf enough anti-DRM postings for people's examples of how DRM doesn't stop piracy.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Actually, the salespeople who do sell faulty wares on purpose were exactly whom I had in mind.

Well, I would point out that AFAIK a retailer purposefully selling faulty wares is commiting a crime... which isn't exactly a favorable analogy to DRM methods, I might point out.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

What do you base your judgment on, if you admit yourself we can only guess how much money is lost due to piracy?

It only takes a single person to go through the legwork of cracking DRM. From there, anyone who pirates that software isn't affected by DRM in any way, shape or form. The only DRM that this doesn't apply to so far is Starforce, which pirates can still get around (though sometimes they don't have to... more on this later).

Meanwhile, everyone who legally buys the software is affected by DRM. Usually this is innocuous and doesn't do any harm, but it's still there, and sometimes it does affect people negatively (the DRM might not be compatible with perfectly legal software or other DRMs, for example, or in the case of certain audio CDs, won't play in many types of players). These negative effects are never seen by the pirates.

So. We've got a "solution" that affects one pirate out of many thousands, and affects every single legitimate customer. Worse, the pirated version usually has more functionality due to not requiring the disc in the drive and other such nonsense.

But wait, it gets better!

Many games only have DRM in one region. That is, America will get a DRMed version of Derelict Moonbase Demon Killer, while Europe's version will be free of it. The end result of this cute little charade? The European version shows up on the pirate networks available for easy access to every American pirate out there. In this case, the American DRM doesn't serve any purpose at all! It's as effective as locking an open door! AND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

This, of course, means zilch to the legitimate American consumers who buy it and then have to deal with the DRM and whatever quirks this year's model brings.

Finally, people need to stop asking "how much money are companies losing to piracy" because that's the wrong way to look at it. Companies are not losing money because they never had the money to begin with. The purpose of trying to stop piracy isn't to get money back, the purpose is to get more sales, and these are not the same thing. The issue isn't that money is being lost, the issue is that potential money isn't being gained. So with this in mind, the question to ask is "are these DRM measures getting companies more total sales and resulting in more profit when all is said and done?" And frankly, I don't see how they are.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Heh, actually, if you want to get technical... stores have a lot of shoplifting deterrent techniques; it's just that some are more obvious as such than others.

For example, having friendly, attentive employees who walk up and down their sections straightening merchandise and approaching customers to ask them if they need help has a twofold purpose. On the one hand, it helps ensure that the aisles stay clean and customers have easy access to someone who can help them. On the other hand it helps ensure that someone planning to shoplift has a hard time finding enough time alone to do so.

Um, yeah, one such "friendly and attentive" employee made me leave certain bookstore out of frustration once.

But regardless, as you said, it has a twofold purpose, ie. it can, if done right, be interpreted as simply trying to please the customer. The same can't be said of refusing to pay money/credit in return for a bought item that disappointed me in some way.

Heh! Well, you can't protect against everything.

Originally Posted by Jeysie, earlier on

For four, no DRM method that I know of stops piracy completely, so it's mostly useless at its purpose. (How useless depending on your personal perception of how "big" a problem it is.)

Now replace "DRM method" with "return policy" and "piracy" with "scams"... I don't know, seems like a double standard to me.

So while I agree with your assertion, I don't see the practical relevance of it in regards to refuting my statement.

I'm not refuting it. I explained I misunderstood you there.

The same thing as you do your POV, guesswork...well, and also the fact that links to cracked DRM-"protected" games aren't hard to find. Just surf enough anti-DRM postings for people's examples of how DRM doesn't stop piracy.

Oh, you mean the very same argument that Starforce was almost torn apart for one of its forum moderators using it (regarding non-protected Galactic Civilizations II)? It's as pointless here as it was when used by them. It's not that anyone reasonable believes piracy may disappear entirely. It's whether it is noticeably reduced or not, what counts.

(Where was I using guesswork?)

Well, I would point out that AFAIK a retailer purposefully selling faulty wares is commiting a crime... which isn't exactly a favorable analogy to DRM methods, I might point out.

So what? I'm confused. As a reminder, the conversation went like this: (bold emphasis mine)

YOU: For five, some DRM methods prevent some people from even being able to use the items they bought, due to problems.
ME: Similarly, some retailers sell dysfunctional products. Even if StarForce, or other copy protection systems, are allegedly harmful software, this argument has no place here. (Unless, again, you provided some actual figures. "Some" will always abuse any given law or opportunity.)
YOU: Yes, but retailers don't intentionally sell dysfunctional products; i.e. they intend their wares to be working products. Whereas DRM methods deliberately interfere with certain computer functions by their nature.
ME: Actually, the salespeople who do sell faulty wares on purpose were exactly whom I had in mind.

...and now you say it's an unfavourable analogy? Sure it is, I don't think DRM messing with my computer without me knowing is anything I should grateful for. My question was, does it happen often enough to be entirely against DRM as such?

Originally Posted by sethsez

It only takes a single person to go through the legwork of cracking DRM. From there, anyone who pirates that software isn't affected by DRM in any way, shape or form.

I'll take your word for it, but I find it very hard to believe. I'm not familiar with piracy scene for sure, but I don't think communication and web skills are that well developed, even in today's world. I mean, by that logic, why do abandonware sites add games that are already hosted by dozens of others? I suppose everyone that was seeking for free copy of a particular game, downloaded it years ago?

Meanwhile, everyone who legally buys the software is affected by DRM. Usually this is innocuous and doesn't do any harm, but it's still there, and sometimes it does affect people negatively (the DRM might not be compatible with perfectly legal software or other DRMs, for example, or in the case of certain audio CDs, won't play in many types of players). These negative effects are never seen by the pirates.

That's all true, but you're glossing over a fact practically each software, operating systems included, "sometimes does affect people negatively" and "might not be compatible with perfectly legal software".

Many games only have DRM in one region. That is, America will get a DRMed version of Derelict Moonbase Demon Killer, while Europe's version will be free of it. The end result of this cute little charade? The European version shows up on the pirate networks available for easy access to every American pirate out there. In this case, the American DRM doesn't serve any purpose at all! It's as effective as locking an open door! AND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

The copy protection isn't responsible for publishers' stupidity and lack of ability to look at the wider picture.

This, of course, means zilch to the legitimate American consumers who buy it and then have to deal with the DRM and whatever quirks this year's model brings.

Why don't they buy European version instead? Or is it only pirates that know how to search the web?

Finally, people need to stop asking "how much money are companies losing to piracy" because that's the wrong way to look at it. Companies are not losing money because they never had the money to begin with. The purpose of trying to stop piracy isn't to get money back, the purpose is to get more sales, and these are not the same thing. The issue isn't that money is being lost, the issue is that potential money isn't being gained.

I agree. I don't see how this semantic difference affects the following part, but I agree.

So with this in mind, the question to ask is "are these DRM measures getting companies more total sales and resulting in more profit when all is said and done?" And frankly, I don't see how they are.

Fine by me. I was never shown any convincing evidence either way, so I can't argue with your belief.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Um, yeah, one such "friendly and attentive" employee made me leave certain bookstore out of frustration once.

I feel for you there... I'm a "loner" shopper myself. But from my experience the vast majority of customers like having the employees behave that way.

They want you to be all outgoing and chatty and perky and engage them in small talk. They want you to act like you're personal friend/assistant. And if you try to smile and be polite, but are quiet and shy, they'll accuse you of being rude even though you're not. </bitter aside>

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

But regardless, as you said, it has a twofold purpose, ie. it can, if done right, be interpreted as simply trying to please the customer. The same can't be said of refusing to pay money/credit in return for a bought item that disappointed me in some way.

Well, not all methods of stopping scams are favorable to legitimate customers, unfortunately. But I have already outlined how return restrictions generally do a good job of allowing legitimate returns while restricting potentially scamming ones.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Now replace "DRM method" with "return policy" and "piracy" with "scams"... I don't know, seems like a double standard to me.

No, neither method is perfect. But seeing as how I already addressed in my previous posts that return restrictions are still generally quite effective in stopping scams in comparison to the inconvenience they cause the customer, whereas DRM is not, sorry, no, I don't see how it's a double standard.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Oh, you mean the very same argument that Starforce was almost torn apart for one of its forum moderators using it (regarding non-protected Galactic Civilizations II)? It's as pointless here as it was when used by them. It's not that anyone reasonable believes piracy may disappear entirely. It's whether it is noticeably reduced or not, what counts.

(Where was I using guesswork?)

Let me put it this way: Unless you happen to have some links/pointers to scientific studies which detail the number of people pirating programs and how many of those people would have bought the program if they couldn't pirate it, we're all using some degree of guesswork.

Seeing as how DRMed games tend to be just as freely available pirated as non-DRMed games, I personally fail to see the point. So, I as a legitimate customer am forced to put up with DRM stuff when the pirates not only aren't stopped, but they get to have a copy for free that's *better* than mine (because it doesn't have the DRM)? Yeah, brilliant.

Plus, if we want to continue our comparison of returns vs. DRM... return scams work on an individual basis. Even if one person has a successful scam, it does little to help anyone else who wants to scam; they still have to go through the entire process themselves.

Whereas as Seth stated, if one person cracks a DRM method and posts it somewhere, every single other person can pirate it for no fuss (other than finding the link).

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

...and now you say it's an unfavourable analogy? Sure it is, I don't think DRM messing with my computer without me knowing is anything I should grateful for. My question was, does it happen often enough to be entirely against DRM as such?

Well, my points:

1. Legitimate retailers don't intentionally sell faulty wares. Since using DRM is legal, I don't see how dragging in illegal retailers who do intentionally sell faulty wares is relevant. I guess now I'm the one who is confused.

2. Even if a DRM method is 100% harmless to your computer, it may still interfere with your Fair Use rights.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

I'll take your word for it, but I find it very hard to believe. I'm not familiar with piracy scene for sure, but I don't think communication and web skills are that well developed, even in today's world. I mean, by that logic, why do abandonware sites add games that are already hosted by dozens of others? I suppose everyone that was seeking for free copy of a particular game, downloaded it years ago?

One reason I can think of off the top of my head: Redundancy. If one site goes down for whatever reason, there are still copies available on other sites.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

That's all true, but you're glossing over a fact practically each software, operating systems included, "sometimes does affect people negatively" and "might not be compatible with perfectly legal software".

Yes, but again, most software does not intentionally interfere with your hardware or other software, whereas DRMs methods *do* intentionally do so.

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Why don't they buy European version instead? Or is it only pirates that know how to search the web?

One reason I can think of is that you don't always get the same game. Ask anybody who played a non-US version of Fallout, for instance.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Christian IV]

I have been away for a while from here as I have had to invest some serious time in learning some of the 3D authoring and modeling softwares, as part of our development program, it is nice to check in and see such interesting and intelligent discussion here, Rowne and Panterra, AFGNCAPP, Jeysie and all of you .....I have been following the developments with Starforce and its Russian creators closely for it reveals some key issues about gaming and the CGI industry and publishing challenges and digital formats all wrapped together. Also about modern morals and ethics too. There would be no problem if no one made illegal copies of games, or distributed them on the internet for others, the piracy and cracking of game codes and protections shows brilliant minds at work doing things that they would be much better off not doing. If the game developers would create better and more challenging games with more content, instead of cookie cutter mutant monster shooters and sicko crime based things, maybe the consumers would have a more creative and productive avenue for their energies.

Starforce appears to be quite dangerous technically through I understand that it has been cracked. This does not keep the SF protection system from harming computers that it installs itself onto, nor from damaging drivers and shutting down systems that have emulators or authoring software on them. To allow a foreign software to gain Ring O access, basically admin rights to any computer is a violation of all the ethics and free speech and ownership rights that can be imagined. I am very grateful that a strong effort is underway across the internet to ask companies to stop using Starforce.

I am all in favour of copyright protectiion, I am a professional artist and have worked in publishing for many years as well, and the value of an original work is truly the property of its creators, whether that creator is an individual or a development company. The unit price of modern games is not that high, even for comem editions, and building up a library of games is no different from building up a library of books or music or art, it is the responsibility of the collector or user or reader or player to do so ethically and honestly.

The points made in this thread are all valuable and interesting and I like Rowe's posts for their perscepacity and introspection, and the additions to the list of potentially harmful effects of Starforce appears to be mostly complete by now. I would add that the software's most potentially damaging effect lies in the way that it breaks the security of your computer and opens up a back door for additional invasions, AND the potential for damage to system hardware and conflicts with other drivers. And to allow any foreign software to have oversight and control and the ability to make a cold re boot
in my system is something I will never allow, just as I will never allow any individual or institution control over my mind and thoughts and opinions.

I am very glad for this discourse and the awareness I see among posters here and across the net, and am encouraged that the spirit of intellectual and personal freedom seems alive and well yet among us.

One of the sad things about the fall out over copying of games and cracking of protection codes, I understand from my tech, that console games are much harder to crack and therefore many companies are switching to creating in that format and for the audience that appears to like more simplistic and banal games. We see a gradual and at times fast erosion of taste and content and inner value in many forms of media these days and games are a part of this, I fear anything that threatens the already threatened state of authorship and development in the indiustry, and hope that the copy protection problem does not exacerbate the already tenuous hope we may have for new and good quality adventure games and other forms of imaginative and artful creation.