[winninganthem]

Securom is not a trojan.
It is a copy protection software used on discs to prevent people from being able to duplicate the data on the disc.
When you burn a game protected with Securom, you will be able to copy it, but when you try run the game off of the copy, the computer will be able to detect the difference and won't let you.
However, games protected with newer versions of Securom are flawed. For example, I bought a copy of Neverwinter Nights 2 on PC and was unable to get it to start. The game installed fine, but would always tell me that there was no disc in the drive when there was one.
I did a little research on the issue and a lot of users that experience that same problem point the finger at Securom v2, which apparently gets really paranoid and suspects that you're pirating the game even when you have bought a legal copy.
I believe that software makers should get rid of DRM and copy protection schemes because it frustrates and punishes legitimate customers when it doesn't work right, and is not effective at achieving its main goal of stopping piracy.
No matter what software makers do to try to stop piracy, pirates will always find a way to succeed. Software makers should focus instead on thinking up new incentives to make consumers want to buy their product. For starters, I want a program that I can install on any computer (with the system requirements) that I want, as many times as I want, without needing to deal with a silly activation process. With all the bad press about DRM, I'm surprised why developers insist on inventing new ways to inconvenience their paying customers.

[Rhywun]

Really, this is getting out of hand.

I tried to install the update ("For MAC players, the patch can be obtained by simply starting your game.") but instead I got some weird errors and at the end of it all, the game file had simply vanished. There goes one of my installs, I guess.

I suppose it's "my fault", because not only did I choose a custom install location, but I moved the Spore .app outside the Spore folder because I am SICK TO DEATH of companies creating a separate folder just for their application plus one or two useless files. I guess I learned my lesson.

[folklore]

winninganthem said:

Securom is not a trojan.

That depends on how it actually works. If it "is installed without notice" as the lawsuit related to SecuROM claims, it most certainly is a Trojan horse by most definitions of the term. The current Wikipedia entry for Trojan horse defines it as malware that appears to perform a desirable function but in fact performs undisclosed malicious functions.

Here, you expect the installer to perform a desirable function (i.e., install Spore) but it also performs an undisclosed malicious function (i.e., installs SecuROM). This is how Sony's previous DRM on audio discs worked, anyway - it installed software without consent. That's a Trojan, pure and simple.

My guess is that the EULA for Spore includes language that covers SecuROM. I don't know that for certain, since I don't own Spore. SecuROM could still easily be considered malware, even if the user "consents" by clicking through the EULA.

I understand that game developers want to get paid, and I even understand having relatively restrictive activation on games since they tend to be heavily pirated among the target demographic. But when game developers start installing additional DRM software on my computer without my consent that is explicitly designed to interfere with the operation of my computer... that's where I draw the line. I had every intention of buying Spore but I will not until they drop the SecuROM junk.

[Rhywun]

folklore said:

I even understand having relatively restrictive activation on games since they tend to be heavily pirated among the target demographic.

You do? I don't. The cracked game appeared online before the game was even released! It's a joke. DRM does absolutely nothing to stop anybody from getting what they want. I don't know what the answer is, but treating your customers like thieves isn't it.

[folklore]

[quote name='Rhywun']
>

folklore said:

> I even understand having relatively restrictive activation on games since they tend to be heavily pirated among the target demographic.

You do? I don't. The cracked game appeared online before the game was even released! It's a joke. DRM does absolutely nothing to stop anybody from getting what they want. I don't know what the answer is, but treating your customers like thieves isn't it.

The harder something is, the less people do it. That some people will still pirate the game doesn't change the fact that fewer people will pirate the game if there is copy protection.

Think of it this way: Does Walmart treat its customers (and employees) like "thieves" simply because they install cameras inside their stores? Of course not. But installing cameras is a reasonable way to find and prosecute shoplifting and employee theft that's mostly benign to honest customers. It's not 100% effective, of course. A 100% effective way to eliminate theft would be to strip search each person as they leave the store. Obviously, that wouldn't go over well with customers. So instead, Walmart tolerates a certain amount of theft because they cannot tolerate the lost business that would accrue from the 100% effective method.

Copy protection can be thought of in the same way. Of course it's not 100% effective. But an activation code is a relatively benign way to ensure that most people have a legit copy of the game. Honest customers aren't generally affected, and those that are can find some way to be made whole (e.g., calling customer service). A DRM Trojan, however, is much closer to the intolerable strip-search - it's just bad for business to sneakily install software that can break your customer's computer.

[winninganthem]

I agree.

Using your example of Walmart's security cameras to detract thieves: After you buy something from Walmart, you can use it wherever you want, how ever you want.

On the other hand, after you buy a DRM-protected software, it only lets itself be used under certain circumstances :p

[folklore]

winninganthem said:

I agree.

Using your example of Walmart's security cameras to detract thieves: After you buy something from Walmart, you can use it wherever you want, how ever you want.

On the other hand, after you buy a DRM-protected software, it only lets itself be used under certain circumstances :p

Depends on what it is. Copyrighted material (for example) may legally be used only in particular ways. ;)

The difference, of course, is that books generally don't actively try to thwart criminal copyright infringement. Software does.

[Immeral]

folklore said:

The harder something is, the less people do it. That some people will still pirate the game doesn't change the fact that fewer people will pirate the game if there is copy protection.

I don't think I completely agree with this part of your post. Now days, all it takes is for one person to crack the program and voila, through the wonders of the internet, everyone can get a copy easily. I agree with the rest of your post though... that's why the 'strip search' you mention seems so extreme. The balance is way off. I agree some sort of basic, easy protection is fine but anything beyond that is just punishing paying customers.

[Rhywun]

folklore said:

Copy protection can be thought of in the same way.

I'm not so sure. There's a big difference between a physical product that's relatively easy to protect from theft, and a digital product that can be replicated innumerable times with barely any effort at all. The old model just doesn?t work any more. That's what DRM is: an attempt at applying the old model to a new medium.

[folklore]

[quote name='Immeral']

>

folklore said:

> The harder something is, the less people do it. That some people will still pirate the game doesn't change the fact that fewer people will pirate the game if there is copy protection.
>
I don't think I completely agree with this part of your post. Now days, all it takes is for one person to crack the program and voila, through the wonders of the internet, everyone can get a copy easily. I agree with the rest of your post though... that's why the 'strip search' you mention seems so extreme. The balance is way off. I agree some sort of basic, easy protection is fine but anything beyond that is just punishing paying customers.

You assume that everyone who would like to copy the software illegally knows how to find an illegal copy. I'd bet not.

While it's not terribly difficult to find out where to find a cracked copy, even that little bit of extra effort that's required will reduce the number of people who illegally copy the game. In the aggregate, it's enough to make copy protection worth it for software developers.

Or so they think. In truth, there isn't much peer-reviewed criminological literature on criminal copyright infringement, so it's not an argument that's supportable with much empirical evidence.

[folklore]

[quote name='Rhywun']
>

folklore said:

> Copy protection can be thought of in the same way.

I'm not so sure. There's a big difference between a physical product that's relatively easy to protect from theft, and a digital product that can be replicated innumerable times with barely any effort at all. The old model just doesn?t work any more. That's what DRM is: an attempt at applying the old model to a new medium.

Compared to having an original thought, copying a book is barely any effort at all - even when that copy had to be made longhand. But I'll sidestep the obvious argument over intellectual property rights here. ;)

In all practicality, you may be right. The key for software developers to actually make money in the future may be to provide compelling online content. Whether that's multiplayer aspects of games or an online community surrounding some in-game element or something else doesn't really matter. In the short run, access to the online content could be controlled with an activation key found inside the retail box of a one-time purchase.

In the long run, however, it will probably mean that many games will become closer to "software as a service" with monthly pricing structures that resemble MMORPGs rather than the one-time cost we're used to now. Of course, this means that games will actually become much more expensive to play. I can't tell you how many people I know that have been paying a monthly fee for World of Warcraft or EVE and shelled out a heckuva lot more than they would have for a one-time purchase on a game.

That's just my guess as to where the market is leading. But if you're right that there's simply no way to protect games from copying, it's certainly one already-proven avenue to make money.