> the market interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.
You said it. DRM is close to censorship in its core idea - it's preemptive policing. The market will find routes around it.
> I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere.
Not true. There is a lot of opposition in principle to the totalitarian approach (which DRM embodies). If there would be no opposition, then it will work as "they take as much as you give them". I.e. if you don't value your own freedom, they for sure won't do that for you.
It's true that people are routing around existing DRM solutions. It's not true that this represents any threat to DRM. As the Steam platform has demonstrated, if you make paying the easy solution and piracy the hard one, the target audience (viz. people willing to pay money) will choose the easy one.
The average consumer will not try to route around unfree information as long as it shows up when they click play. Policing content is not the sort of "market censorship" they care about.
As the Steam platform has demonstrated, if you make paying the easy solution and piracy the hard one, the target audience (viz. people willing to pay money) will choose the easy one.
Steam is still DRMed and can be annoying enough. Try to get Loom there to play on your Scummvm and good luck with that. I don't use Steam since I don't want to support DRMed approach. I use GOG and other DRM free distributors for gaming. If DRM isn't very obvious and disruptive it doesn't mean it's not there and it doesn't make it any more ethical than a hidden camera which you are unaware of. I'd say it's better when it's noticeable, at least you can be aware of its risks.
> Policing content is not the sort of "market censorship" they care about.
Tell them about it when their distributor will pull the plug and go out business, informing them that their DRMed content will be lost forever. I'm sure they'll appreciate the view that they shouldn't care about it in such situation.
> It's not true that this represents any threat to DRM.
You don't need to technically threaten something that's already broken. Most DRM is broken in short time. However DRM needs to be threatened on practical and legal levels. Practically by byocotting the DRMed content, and legally by repealing DMCA 1201 and similar laws created to back up DRM.
My opinion is that Steam's DRM is as ethical as it can be, and the only thing wrong about it is accepting other additional schemes like GfWL on top of it.
I will oppose other forms of DRM, like everything Sony has done, but I think companies like Valve have to be rewarded for doing something good for game studios and players alike.
I see your stance the same as I see the RMS stance on software licenses. Too extreme to be practical for all purposes.
If you want to grade what's worse, DRM or closed source software, I'd say that the first one is worse. While closed source software restricts user's freedom for modification and redistribution, DRM goes way beyond that and violates much more.
I'd say it's practical, reasonable and not extreme to be opposed to any forms of DRM. There is simply no excuse for it to exist.
Unlike Valve, other distributors (GOG/CDPR) proved that DRM free gaming distribution is practical. So I don't see Valve as a best example in the gaming industry. Music is DRM free. Digital books publishing offers more and more DRM free options. It's the video industry which lingers behind the most.
Piracy exists not only because people don't like to pay. It also exists because of... generosity, and human nature in general. Pirates get warm fuzzy feeling when they share something.
Netflix also has a big and arguably loyal user base, same goes for Xbox, PlayStation and other heavily DRMed platforms. Does it indicate that DRM approach is ethical or that simply many people are oblivious to its potential problems? As often, many ignore it until they are bitten. If that happens, people learn about DRM the hard way.
About Steam going DRM free - I'd like that, and I'd subscribe to their service if they'd do it. But they are heavily involved with DRM addicted gaming companies, and unlike GOG don't put any effort into convincing them to publish their games DRM free. GOG invests a lot of time and effort to do it. For Steam it would either mean an enormous amount of reworking their contracts, or simply cutting off a significant part of their catalog. They aren't as principled as GOG to do that.
Steam is kind of the least worst DRM, why: it has more advantages !
- Easy installation, no hassle with CD's: Check
- Automatic updates: Check
- Price: Sales from time to time: Check
- Does it get in the way ?: Only slightly.
However there are quite a few bad risks attached:
- Need internet ? Yes :(
- Can the block your account and screw you over ? Yes :(
- What if they go bankrupt ?
So all in all I don't prefer steam, but for Linux atm it brings in a few games :)
Exactly. If your time has no value then all is free. Most people value their time, the system does not have to be perfect. People who claim there should be no copyright because the future is inevitable probably still go to the doctor.
"Copyright not existing" and "concessions to DRM not being included in standards" are wildly different things, as are "copyright not existing" and "DRM not existing".
Ten years ago, would you tell people to go to the doctor if they asserted that the music industry could and would survive selling their music without DRM?
The music industry has been selling music without DRM since recorded music was invented. I don't think there's any surprise that they survived by continuing to sell without DRM.
9 years ago Sony was panicking, realizing what they had done, and began infecting users PCs with malware in a desperate attempt to undo the "harm" they thought the CDs lack of DRM was causing them.
And of course the movie industry was surviving without DRM for some time too. Both thought that lossy analog copying was DRM enough.
DRM model will die. But such proposals like this one with putting DRM into HTML standard will only prolong its lingering and it's another serious reason to oppose them.
You said it. DRM is close to censorship in its core idea - it's preemptive policing. The market will find routes around it.
> I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere.
Not true. There is a lot of opposition in principle to the totalitarian approach (which DRM embodies). If there would be no opposition, then it will work as "they take as much as you give them". I.e. if you don't value your own freedom, they for sure won't do that for you.