FTC DRM comments

203-304
downloaded from http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/drmtechnologies/
Comment Number: 539814-00203
Received: 1/9/2009 12:31:52 AM
Organization:
Commenter: James Rebholz
State: PA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

All DRM serves to do is limit how law-abiding people can use things they've already paid for. It doesn't stop people who were going to steal the product anyway. In fact it rarely even slows them down. The recently-launched EA game Spore, for example, had its highly-restrictive DRM hacked before the game was even launched, and pirated versions of the software outnumbered retail versions. The guy at home who wants to put the game on his PC and his laptop is not the guy you need to be going after. It's the guy in Hong Kong who's just copied the game from a warez server and is selling it on the streets for two bucks a copy.
Comment Number: 539814-00204
Received: 1/9/2009 12:32:22 AM
Organization:
Commenter: John Small
State: MI
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I believe that DRM should be either limited or removed in its entirety for PC games. Most DRM employed on modern PC games, namely Sony's SecuROM software, is easily bypassed by pirates and intrusive and frustrating to actual consumers. I respect the rights of game developers and publishers to protect their content, but the DRM methods currently being employed are not working. The more "effective" developers and publishers try to make them, the more intrusive and irritating they become to actual consumers. Consumers, such as myself, wish to buy software. I don't mind having to buy only the rights to use the software, but I want total control and use of the software that I buy the rights to. Modern DRM policies are effectively limiting the ways I control and use software. Of course, that's the point of DRM, but the way they implement it now is really pointless and irritating. There is no easily visible notification on the packaging of any game I've purchased recently that warns me about the restrictions I'll be forced to operate under. Most notifications only appear in the EULA that is displayed AFTER I have purchased the game. I see this as a misleading business practice. There have been some games I've purchased expecting full use of when in reality I was only allowed to install the game three times and operate it under a single account that restricted use by others including family members that wished to play. Even if my little sister went out and bought her own copy of the game, she still needed her own machine to play it on due to the installation restrictions. This leads me to the topic of DRM being a nuisance. In order for said little sister to play the game with her own account, even if she paid for a second copy, there was no other option other than to employ software hacks designed for piracy. That is simply outrageous that I need to make use of piracy software in order to work around DRM that is too intrusive. Another good example would be DRM software incorrectly preventing use of software due to a false positive within the software. SecuROM, which is the most widely used DRM scheme, is prone to this. I have read about incidents where SecuROM has prevented ANY use of a game due to detecting piracy software on the machine when there was none. Some versions of SecuROM also prevent use if it detects a hardware environment that COULD be used for piracy, such as having two disc drives installed at the same time. In order for people who fall under those conditions to play these games at all, they are forced to employ piracy software, which completely defeats the purpose of the DRM in the first place. If the DRM scheme is so intrusive that paid consumers of the product are forced to employ piracy software in order to use the product then it shouldn't be placed on the product at all. On top of that, since DRM like SecuROM are easily and completely defeated by piracy software, the schemes should simply be removed completely. It is pointless to employ them if they just don't work at all. What does work, then? There are some very good options for publishers to look into that have been proven to work. Ad-driven games work; in all the online polls I've read asking gamers if they would like a game with forced ad placement during downtime like loading screens in place of DRM or even cost at all, the majority always said yes. Another VERY successful option is a digital distribution platform like Valve's Steam. Steam is a form of DRM, but a very non-intrusive and effective one. Steam allows me the freedom of using my games on any machine I want with unlimited use while also letting me purchase games digitally. The catch is that the games are managed under a single account that I must be logged into in order to play the games...but this is completely acceptable to me. It doesn't restrict me at all while effectively managing my digital rights. Conclusion: Developers and publishers have more options. Cut down on DRM or cut it out.
Comment Number: 539814-00205
Received: 1/9/2009 12:33:46 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Natasha Simms
State: MO
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM serves little point as I see it as it only serves to send more consumers to pirated work to have an honest copy of something while the people who actually pirates the stuff see DRM as a joke since it doesnt even affect what they do really.
Comment Number: 539814-00206
Received: 1/9/2009 12:34:10 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Allen
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

As a consumer, I have despised DRM ever since it was first introduced. It is a fundamentally unenforcable technology since there will always be means by which determined criminal elements will eventually find ways to circumvent it. At the minimum, it can provide minor annoyances to consumers that legitimately purchased a product. At the extreme, it can violate customers' civil liberties, deprive them of their privacy, prevent the function of the very product that they legally purchased through normal use, install software on their computer without their consent, or cause damages to other software/data on their computer. In the interest of protecting their intellectual property rights, software makers and digital media owners are hurting their customers and in some cases, actually encouraging the very piracy that they seek to prevent. This is not good for consumers, and I feel in the long run this will hurt companies that use DRM as well. Additionally, as an opponent of DRM, it has started to factor into my purchasing decisions. When I first heard about Microsoft's intent to put DRM functionality into the operating system level of Windows Vista, I actually switched to a competitor's product (the Linux operating system) almost exclusively on this basis. I do not like people snooping into my affairs, controlling access to the data on my computer, or installing software without my full consent. In the foolhardy pursuit of piracy prevention they lost a customer. I shy away from any product or data format with intrusive DRM attached to it, and I do not care how much lipstick they put on that pig. Additionally, the methodologies involved with DRM are imprecise and error-prone. I have heard of numerous instances of Microsoft's "Genuine Windows Advantage" program turning up false positives that have locked people out of using their product that have legally obtained copies of it, and due to hardware failure or upgrade, have been locked out of their computers. That really sucks and deprives people not only of access to the product with the DRM, but all data and other programs residing on their computer. Moreover, the means by which this DRM system was deployed was something akin to a virus, spyware, malware, or other malicious/illegal program in that it was done without any advance warning or consent from the end user. Additionally, it periodically "phones home" and transmits data to other computer systems over the Internet with no authorization from the user. While the consumer might have it on good faith that the data being transmitted is not of a sensitive or private nature, there is no transparency or consent about what data is being transmitted or when in this fashion, so all we have to go on is the good intentions of the manufacturer. In an increasingly digital world, this is a scary proposition since in the future it could mean that you might be deprived of most of your legally obtained possessions without notice (assuming most products you purchase are digital in nature), your identity or other personal information could be stolen or transmitted insecurely without your knowledge or consent, and other groups/organizations could eavesdrop or spy on your activities/data on the legal basis of "piracy prevention." This is definitely a case where I very strongly feel that the ends DO NOT justify the means, and I question the Constitutionality of any laws which attempt to uphold these misguided technologies.
Comment Number: 539814-00207
Received: 1/9/2009 12:36:10 AM
Organization:
Commenter: House
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The use of DRM related technologies is harmful in the video games industry. To provide an example of harmful DRM technology in the video game industry, Microsoft's "Xbox LIVE." Through the use of Microsoft points, which are used to purchase downloadable content (such as small games, add ons and expansion packs and other items which enhance the use of the Xbox 360 platform for the end user) users are allowed to download items online and use them on their Xbox 360. If the hard drive the content was downloaded to is removed from the original Xbox it was used to download through (say, taking one person's hard drive to another's house to play certain games with specials unlocked), if the other Xbox is not connected to Microsoft's service, the content is unusable. This means if a user loses their internet connection but still retains their username they downloaded the content with and have a different Xbox, they cannot use their already downloaded, and purchased, content because of DRM. In this case, if they were to get a new Xbox and had no connection to the internet, they would lose access to all the content they paid for because there is no way to transfer the rights over, only the name the used on the original. Had there not been DRM, any content connected to any account would be easily transferred to a new Xbox without being required to be connected to Xbox Live.
Comment Number: 539814-00208
Received: 1/9/2009 12:37:17 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Scott Melzer
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

As someone who works in the industry I completely understand the urge to protect you products. Which is why we use such a mild form of this type of software. As a gamer though I have to seriously disagree with some companies abuse of it. When I purchase a game I don't want to have to worry about how many times I have installed is I want to put it on a new computer. I also don't want to have to be connected to the internet to activate the game when there are so many other avenues available to the company at hand. I can't say for certain that any kind of DRM helps to prevent any kind of piracy but I can say that most types are a huge inconvenience.
Comment Number: 539814-00209
Received: 1/9/2009 12:38:37 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Khoa Do
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

As a consumer, I abhor DRM. Many times in the past I've had problems with software and hardware locking me out of legitimate uses. DRM on my MP3s bought from one service provider serves to prevent me from listening to my music on music players that are not affiliated with the music provider. For instance, my iTunes music cannot be played on players other than iPods while my music from RealNetworks is similarly restricted. If DRM is implemented in the auto industry, for example, this would be similar to purchasing a Ford branded car and being required to use only Ford-branded gasoline. This issue is compounded by the fact that certain DRM measures, such as Starforce, has caused my computer to malfunction. In two separate cases, it required a complete reinstallation of the operating system. DRMs such as Starforce are not clearly labeled on the product and install themselves onto my computer without my knowledge or approval. If they were clearly labeled on the packaging, I would not have bought the products that had them embedded to begin with. With the advent of computerization, companies are ignoring consumer rights in order to retain control of their products in an unprecedented way. DRMs need to be tightly restricted.
Comment Number: 539814-00210
Received: 1/9/2009 12:51:10 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Adrian McCann
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is overall an awful decision by businesses. Hackers, pirates or whatever you want to call them can usually bypass them. This leaves the consumer, the LEGAL consumer without a game to play, even though they spent hard earned money on it. Pirates however are left to sit there and be happy about how they now have a game. DRM doesn't discourage pirating games, it just proves to be majorly detrimental to those who go through the legal purchasing of the games. Therefore it is my request that the FTC revise the scope so that DRM no longer hurts the consumer. One idea for that..I would think is that cd keys should still be used but in the case of a dispute of the cd key, both parties should be contacted and asked to give a code only found on the box. Anyways, I cannot think of any other possible solutions. Thank you for your time.
Comment Number: 539814-00211
Received: 1/9/2009 12:59:34 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Justin Paice
State: IL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Digital Rights Management Technology is a profound misstep by media production companies. The flaw is not the technology itself, it is a solution to the problem that content provider's think they have. The flaw in DRM lies within the philosophy that a company can control digital information. DRM technology, as it is implemented in most cases, relies on the idea that a computer can deliver content, but that it can also discern between legitimate customers and those who have stolen the information. The problem, simply, is that once the information has been put into someone's computer, it becomes manipulable by that person. There is no getting around the fact that in order to be of any use, movies, music, and software must be computer readable. If information can be read by a computer, it can be manipulated by a computer. Piracy is so easy because DRM technology is inherently flawed. Ideal DRM technology cannot intelligently discern between legitimate and illegitimate customers, and so it does nothing but cause problems for legitimate users. Meanwhile, Pirates need only study up and figure out the way to beat the new technology, which they have proven they are more than willing and capable of doing. The frustrating part of this problem, from the standpoint of a consumer like myself, is that there are plenty of examples available to media production companies of how to effectively control content. The most successful example is Steam, by Valve Software. Steam is a platform for releasing games such as CounterStrike, HalfLife, Portal, Team Fortress, and many other staples of online gaming. Very few people pirate these games, even though they are amongst the most popular games of all time. The Reason: The games all require that they be registered with a CD Key Code (a string of digits included with the retail game) with the Steam Platform. This is a small inconvenience to the user, but rather than just allowing their customers to twist in the wind like so many other content providers, Valve compensates the user for the inconvenience. Every game that is registered with the Steam platform can be downloaded again, at no extra charge, from Steam. If a user loses the installation cd and needs to reinstall, Steam will let them download the game again. Steam also keeps track of updates to all the games in its library, automatically keeping the user's software up to date for them. In addition to this, Steam facilitates matchmaking, allowing players to find servers with other players in which to play the games in their library. Steam also allows users to keep track of friends, or players they have encountered recently, so that they can meet up with them in the future for a rematch. In these, and many other ways, Steam both ensures the content of the producer is being payed for, while making the end user feel like they are having a better experience. Content providers think that they can sell a product that is hampered by DRM without adding anything to the deal. Unfortunately, a pirate can always offer that product cheaper and without the strings. What content providers have to do is make the user want to legitimately use their works, rather than just trying to force them to do so.
Comment Number: 539814-00212
Received: 1/9/2009 1:06:09 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Gabriel Chu
State: VA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM has hindered my enjoyment of media greatly and has hence influenced my purchasing decisions greatly. My most memorable, early experience came with my use of an MP3 player (Panasonic SV-SD80) that required songs to be encrypted on the MP3 player's memory so as to inhibit transfer off of it. Typically, it may take a minute or so to transfer a batch of songs. With the DRM encryption measures, it would take upwards of half an hour or an hour, and that's even if it transferred successfully. Frequently, it would cause my computer to restart, failing the transfer utterly. Needless to say, this was not an enjoyable consumer experience. What's worse is that after extensive personal research and extensive time spent with both Pansonic and Real tech support (the people responsible for the software supporting the player), the problem could not be fixed. As for media itself, I chose to stop purchasing DRM'd content from iTunes as I could not conveniently do with my media as I wished. In order to transfer it to a non-iTunes compliant device, I had to first burn the song to a CD and then rip the CD back to a digital file. Needless to say, this was not enjoyable. Another example is a game I was interested in playing, Spore. However, when I read that Spore was crippled with DRM that limited installation and was otherwise just invasive (it installed software that "called home"), I decided not to buy it. Beyond my own personal use, DRM also takes away the consumer's right to resell their own property. By applying DRM, such as in the Spore example above, after a certain number of installation, a particular copy of the game could no longer be installed. This means that if a person who was finished with the game wanted to sell it to someone, that someone would have either a diminished product, or a perhaps even possibly a product that was no longer even usable. This obviously presents challenges for resale. Particularly in the case of DRM that forces a call home to make sure it can still work, what happens when that "home" no longer exists? Companies are always going out of business, or even just deciding that a particular product line is no longer profitable and therefore discontinuing it. One example where this happened was Google, which had a DRM'd video selling service. DRM is supposed to give content creators control over content use and distribution, but all it really does is punish honest consumers. A dishonest consumer has a plethora of choices to procure any particular media, oftentimes in better quality and more convenient format. If content creators really want to compete with free, then they need to make it simple and convenient, not draconian and hostile. Furthermore, I think it's clearly wrong to use DRM just to try to eke out a little more profit on release by crippling the resale market.
Comment Number: 539814-00213
Received: 1/9/2009 1:08:07 AM
Organization: N/A
Commenter: Ryan Ravanelli
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

1. DRM in computer games is implemented to prevent piracy yet the pirate community is never deterred. They always find ways around it. The issue I have is it negatively effects the consumers who actually purchase products through compatibility issues, Battlefield 2142 for example, uses executable software called PunkbusterB.exe that anti-virus software identifies as a trojan and attempts to remove it. The reason it sees it as a a trojan is because it continuously scans the users computer and reports to the developer, even when the game is not in use the file is active which to me is an invasion of privacy. On top of this, if your firewall blocks this transfer of data or your anti-virus removes it it makes the game unplayable, you can start the game and log in but as soon you attempt to join a game it kicks you out. Essentially you have to completely turn off your anti-virus and firewall to play which leaves you completely unprotected. Being concerned about something infecting the computer and sending credit or billing information, I am not willing to disable my firewall/anti-virus so my game will not work. I ended up being stuck with a product I can't use because no companies take back software ones it has been opened because they can't resell it once the CD key has been used. 2. Recently another game released, Command & Conquer Red Alert 3, uses DRM that allows the user to install the game up to 5 times, and it reports each time the game is installed. However, over time if the game is uninstalled and reinstalled or if you experience a critical system failure and have to reformat your computer you may not be able to use your product. This information has kept me from purchasing the software to begin with. 3. In the case of DRM in music, I purchased an album from itunes expecting to be able to put the MP3's on to any 1 MP3 player expecting the DRM to allow me to do so while blocking me if I attempted to put it on multiple players, this is not the case though. In reality, Apple's DRM keeps you from putting the music on any device other than an Apple. I do not own any Apple products and I do not want to spend money to buy an Apple Ipod when I have a Sony PSP that can play music, movies and games that I have already spent $235 on. 4. DRM is more detrimental to the products it is implemented in because it is inconvenient and impractical to the user/consumer and it almost never works the way it its intended to. I personally believe that products with unique CD Keys that are monitored are far more effective and practical as evidenced by Valve's Steam software and Kaspersky anti-virus software. A unique key that is allowed to be used any number of times but only allowed to be active on a pre-established number of devices is far more efficient than DRM and far less cumbersome. As an example, Kaspersky allows the owner to load 3 license software onto 3 computers, if the owner violates this and installs it on a fourth they are prompted to buy an additional license and until they remove the software or buy the license they are blocked from receiving product updates. Finally, DRM is ultimately bad for sales which in turn is bad for businesses and therefor bad for the economy. I refuse to purchase products with DRM that hinders my use and have not purchased any EA computers games or music from Apple Itunes since their respective fiasco's and I have made the decision that I will not purchase current or future products from these companies unless they don't implement such clumsy and stringent DRM.
Comment Number: 539814-00214
Received: 1/9/2009 1:11:34 AM
Organization:
Commenter: William Strait
State: MN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM, especially when coupled with the DMCA, is harmful to consumers. In the best cases it limits how consumers can use their content, under what circumstances, and when they have access to it. In the worst cases consumers are paying for content that may never work, can install malicious software on their PCs, and can turn software consumers believe they have purchased into something more akin to a long term rental. I am confident you will receive countless specific grievances, so I'll keep mine short. I once purchased a game that would not run. My only hint was a vague error about 'illegal' software. At the time I had a program that emulated an unavailable video game console that I used to play fan created games. I was able to confirm this software was the problem by removing it and attempting to play my DRM 'protected' game. Later I spoke with a friend who had the same emulation software installed. My friend told me he had stolen the game and was able to play it without an issue. DRM did nothing to stop my friend from stealing the game (incidentally he did pay for it after the fact), but it prevented me, an honest user, from running it. I also object to the idea that a third party, SecuRom in this case, was able to scan my computer AND 'phone home' with information I cannot legally see (thanks to the DMCA). Either act is egregious enough, but combined it feels tantamount to an invasion of privacy. DRM spawned an entirely new class of viruses called "Root Kits." Root kits were installed and spread by Sony Music a few years ago. They attach themselves to a computer so deeply it is very difficult to detect that they are present at all. They have the ability to transmit information from a running system freely. Malicious software programmers reverse engineered the DRM (When information is outlawed only outlaws will have information.) and put the technology to their own use. What would leak out if one of these were installed on your computer? What about the President's? A recent poll showed the top ten most pirated games were protected by some of the most strict copy-protection schemes in use, primarily SecuRom's solution. In closing, while some forms of DRM may be acceptable (albeit ineffective), the majority of popular copy-protection schemes in use today are harmful to consumers, potential security threats (private and national), and ineffective towards thwarting criminals.
Comment Number: 539814-00215
Received: 1/9/2009 1:12:18 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Whitehead
State: VA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM in games does absolutely nothing to stop software pirates, and only hurts legitimate users. A while ago I bought Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, and discovered their particular brand of DRM didn't play nicely with the dvd drive model that I had, and wouldn't launch. After wasting an hour searching online for a solution, I ended up installing the pirated version of the game. Just ridiculous.
Comment Number: 539814-00216
Received: 1/9/2009 1:13:16 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Raynel Vargas
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I think Digital Rights Management is a way for companies to make sure that their products are only used in the way they intended. Of course if this was the case why not do this for food or clothing... hey why not books too for that matter. Let's make it so you can only eat MC Donald's once a week and not everyday like I see some people doing. Or why not allow only people that companies see fit to read books and also get rid of libraries in general. I mean they aren't making anymore money so why should anyone be allowed to give away their possessions without a company's permission. In all honesty, if I buy a game, compact disc or anything in general then I should be able to give it away to anyone I want. Whether it be a sibling or friend. God forbid a stranger should receive that gift. That would be too much for these big companies. That is one less person they can profit from... or maybe if they open up their minds they would realize that could be a new customer in the making that would pick up accessories or more of those types of products. I buy my media, electronics and all other merchandise with my hard earned money. I should be allowed to use my money as long as I do no physical, psychological or emotional harm to another human being. So if I am finished listening to my music collection and decide to give it to my cousin then I shouldn't need the permission of anyone to do so. Just like a big company doesn't need my permission to go about their everyday business.
Comment Number: 539814-00217
Received: 1/9/2009 1:31:22 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Shawn Sheppard
State: AR
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

As a law abiding citizen of this country, let me start by saying that the DMCA which legitimizes DRM as a draconian lock on data is a travesty to Fair Use and the rights of the consumer. That aside DRM in it's current state is to harsh on the people who do not pirate their movies, cds, and games. It can be argued that my wanting to make backups for my personal use of data i purchased infringes on some intellectual right of the creator, but where is the harm in my copy? Am I causing a loss of a sell of a product that i have already paid money for? No. Am I posting the data on the internet for everyone to download and or share? No. I use the data on the original media as archival backup, and use the ripped data as the media in which I watch/listen, in the case of dvds and cds. Recent PC games I've found myself buying from Valve Software's Steam service. This way I avoid the need for the physical media, and the DRM that is included with them. In recent years the paranoia of the media outlets has caused me and others like me to become the hapless by standards of the war on piracy. I don't condone piracy, but at the same time I look at it as such: If they didn't buy the content and they pirated it, then more than likely they never would have in the first place. There for, there is no lost of a sale.
Comment Number: 539814-00218
Received: 1/9/2009 1:34:33 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Dietz
State: CO
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM encourages piracy. The best example is on recent games where a game can only be installed 3 times. Gaming computers become obsolete very quickly and subsequently get replaced, using up the 3 installs very quickly. Most people still wanting to play the game after this point will not purchase another copy, instead they will find another CD key. Its the same way for music, once DRM music is moved to another computer, or the the program purchased through gets reinstalled, the music is gone. Being forced to keep a computer in a certain configuration indefinitely to listen to or use items purchased is wrong, and removes a users freedom to purchase new equipment.
Comment Number: 539814-00219
Received: 1/9/2009 1:39:35 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Andrew Kehr
State: WI
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM, especially when coupled with the DMCA, is harmful to consumers. In the best cases it limits how consumers can use their content, under what circumstances, and when they have access to it. In the worst cases consumers are paying for content that may never work, can install malicious software on their PCs, and can turn software consumers believe they have purchased into something more akin to a long term rental. I am confident you will receive countless specific grievances, so I’ll keep mine short. I purchased a copy of the game Spore which is managed by SecuRom. As per the EULA it is illegal to uninstall, and as part of SecuRom it reports your information, assumedly to Sony/EA. I have seen SecuRom software not pick up other games protected by SecuRom that have been pirated which makes SecuRom simply a blabbermouth as opposted to protection software. As of now my copy of Spore is a drink coaster, as I have gone over my install limit and the disk is no longer usable. I will have to purchase another copy if I want to continue to play. I also object to the idea that a third party, SecuRom in this case, was able to scan my computer AND ‘phone home’ with information I cannot legally see (thanks to the DMCA). Either act is egregious enough, but combined it feels tantamount to an invasion of privacy. DRM spawned an entirely new class of viruses called “Root Kits.” Root kits were installed and spread by Sony Music a few years ago. They attach themselves to a computer so deeply it is very difficult to detect that they are present at all. They have the ability to transmit information from a running system freely. Malicious software programmers reverse engineered the DRM (When information is outlawed only outlaws will have information.) and put the technology to their own use. What would leak out if one of these were installed on your computer? What about the President’s? A recent poll showed the top ten most pirated games were protected by some of the most strict copy-protection schemes in use, primarily SecuRom’s solution. In closing, while some forms of DRM may be acceptable (albeit ineffective), the majority of popular copy-protection schemes in use today are harmful to consumers, potential security threats (private and national), and ineffective towards thwarting criminals.
Comment Number: 539814-00220
Received: 1/9/2009 1:40:12 AM
Organization:
Commenter: J David Adams
State: NC
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I have had one computer succumb twice to DRM measures implemented in games: once from StarForce, another from SecuROM. With the StarForce DRM, my registry in Windows was corrupted, forcing me to reinstall Windows and spend an entire weekend getting the computer back into order. This was on the game TrackMania Nations. StarForce has since been removed from the game. The second time was with Sony's SecuROM, installed by the PC game Neverwinter Nights 2. Although my computer met the minimum requirements posted on the box, I wasn't able to get one frame per second. The reason I know the bad performance was from SecuROM is a combination of test factors and reading the Atari forums. (Atari published Neverwinter Nights 2.) After uninstalling Neverwinter Nights 2, SecuROM files remained on my computer. After a while, my computer would inexplicably slow down. I ran virus and malware scans, which found nothing, so it had to be SecuROM. I couldn't delete the SecuROM files, even with Windows booted into Safe Mode. I had to format the hard drive and install Windows a *third* time due to invasive DRM. After that, I sent a notice to the BBB demanding Atari remove SecuROM and refund my money. The Atari officials I spoke with offered me a refund if I were to send the game disk to them, which I refused. They didn't even mention SecuROM as a possible cause for the troubles I was having. A search around the Atari message board, however, revealed that running a "cracked" (illegal DRM-free) version yielded a marked improvement in performance. The developers did not take very kindly to this and posted a notice on the Atari message board listing several problems that could be experienced with running a "cracked" copy. Their point, unfortunately, was made invalid due to the game itself having the very same problems. Pirates are simply undeterred by DRM and can remove it quickly with little effort. The European version of Neverwinter Nights 2 was on pirate sites within 48 hours of reaching store shelves there. The PC and Mac game Spore, for another example, was on pirate sites a full week *before* it was on store shelves, DRM-free. I have only had favorable experience with one kind of DRM: Valve's "Steam" platform. Unlike StarForce and SecuROM, which act like a child's nanny, Steam acts more like a VIP lounge bouncer. With the Steam platform, the program checks to see if you bought the game and, once verified, gets out of the way. It doesn't install any unwanted files or slow the computer down. While it's not perfect, it's the best of both worlds: it helps protect the property of the company *and* treats customers like people and not criminals. One more note: DRM on music is, quite simply, the dumbest thing I have seen. Many of the programs that can be used to purchase music with DRM on it can also strip it by simply making a music CD. The programs themselves are designed to defeat the DRM for a legal reason which can then be abused for illegal purposes.
Comment Number: 539814-00221
Received: 1/9/2009 1:48:55 AM
Organization: USS JOHN C STENNIS (CVN 74)
Commenter: Vernon Parker
State: IL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

There is nothing wrong with DRM as long as the RIAA and other watchdog parties do not make you out to be a villain when you choose to make a back up digital copy of a product that you own. Its one thing to arrest a person digitally distributing content as that is clearly illegal but it is another thing entirely to arrest a person who ha a digital copy of material they already legally paid for. Its like saying if a person records what he/she hears on the radio for later playback for their own private enjoyment is a crime. As long as the material is for private use and not profit, then what is the problem? There will always be people who make copying copywritten material possible. If it is not illegal for them to sell the products, then why allow watchdog organizations to go after people who use it? Why go after a person who makes a copy of a cd for his friend(s) when he has already paid for the material? There was not a problem when the same process was concerning cassette tapes or vhs tapes. My itunes library is more than 70% material copied from cd's I already own. I also have a copy of most of the music on my car stereo hard drive. I also have a copy of most o my music on my parents laptop as it was the only way I could copy the music to my car. There is also a copy of most of my paid for music on my two desktop computers. All these machines that store my usic are machines I use for my own personal benefits. According to watchdog groups, that is criminal, even though I already paid for the material.
Comment Number: 539814-00222
Received: 1/9/2009 1:56:06 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Corey Csuhta
State: VA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Digital Rights Management is a powerful technology for preventing unauthorized usage of intellectual materials. However, the technology provides more caveats than benefits: 1. DRM requires some kind of encryption or obfuscation, which then requires software to de-encrypt it. This software might be restricted to a proprietary model, such as Apple's iTunes, which, until very recently sold mostly DRM protected music. The music purchased could only be played in iTunes and MP3 players developed by Apple that supported the iTunes FairPlay DRM. DRM software on video games and other PC/Mac software requires process time and possibly additional background processes and resource usage. DRM further prevents mobilization of the property you purchased in the even the proprietary model doesn't support it anymore. When you legally purchase media, it shouldn't chain you to the DRM server software model forever. Now that Apple is planning to provide DRM-free music through their service, consumers are free to take their music with them on any device they own, on any operating system, forever. 2. DRM is a poorly explained buzzword to most consumers who are unaware of their restrictions when purchasing media. This in turn generates technical support loads on companies that utilize DRM to help their consumers actually use their product. It should not be hard or restrictive to use what you just purchased. 3. DRM is designed to prevent software piracy, but it does a very poor job at it. There is no instance of a DRM system that has withstood the unlimited resources and time of software pirates. The fact that most software is now developed with well-known APIs and SDKs further reduces the time to reverse engineer a system. As a result, current DRM practices border on making any consumer feel like they're a criminal until proven innocent. In Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage model, if a consumer installs a legal version of Windows XP on their system, it will disable access to itself if the consumer doesn't register their copy of Windows XP in 30 days. Software should not assume the user is planning to steal it. Please recommend an abolishment of DRM practices.
Comment Number: 539814-00223
Received: 1/9/2009 1:57:26 AM
Organization:
Commenter: David Vann
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM limits legitimate uses and inconveniences paying customers much more than it prevents content piracy. Being forced by companies to accept DRM protected content without alternatives infringes on the freedoms we have a right to as US citizens. It would be very simple to ban certain DRM technologies altogether, but companies with the funds to employ lobbyists have a much larger say in this than citizens do. A practical alternative would be to require an accessible DRM free alternative to DRM protected content. It makes business sense as well; companies like Apple have demonstrated that people are willing to pay content providers more to have DRM protections removed. If people are willing to pay more for the same content, it wouldn't be unreasonable to protect public interest (which is the duty of the FTC), and require content providers offer a premium, DRM free alternative. This would be a small step, and these premium alternatives should be limited to less than 200% of the original price. Apple's own iTunes Music Store has shown that charging a 30% premium for DRM free content is not only viable, but very popular with consumers. It wouldn't be out of line to limit DRM free premiums to 150% or less of the original, DRM enabled price.
Comment Number: 539814-00224
Received: 1/9/2009 1:59:49 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Kyle Teigen
State: WA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

A company has the right to protect it's intellectual property and prevent the piracy or thievery of its own products. A company does not have the right to undermine, exploit, damage or destroy an individuals computer in an attempt to achieve these means. A number of DRM methods are secretive and manipulative, cause a multitude of problems, and do little to actually prevent the piracy of a companies IP. A company has no right to install software, drivers or code of any sort without the user's consent. A software user has the right to be properly informed of any and all changes that a piece of software, including DRM protection, will make to his or her computer, operating system, data or any other digital material the DRM may affect. Not only does much DRM operate in the dark, without user knowledge or consent, it can create massive problems for users, including software incompatibility to rare instances of hardware failure. Despite all these issues, DRM does little to curb the massive influx of illegal piracy. New software is pirated at shocking rates, easily available all across the web, despite stronger, more restrictive, and more dangerous DRM. DRM needs to be responsible. DRM needs to be fully disclosed to a consumer. DRM needs to be properly tested and guaranteed to function as well as any other commercially released code. DRM schemes which are effective in preventing piracy without causing undue difficulty or risk endangering a user's property or data need to be developed.
Comment Number: 539814-00225
Received: 1/9/2009 2:13:05 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Hartmann
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The major problem with Digital Rights Management is that it can prevent the consumer from using the software that they have purchased. Digital Rights Management has in the past forbidden the customer from installing the software more than a set number of times. This can cause it so a customer is unable to install the software on all of the computers they own or to install it on a replacement computer, requiring the customer to purchase an additional copy of the software because they have different hardware.
Comment Number: 539814-00226
Received: 1/9/2009 2:16:38 AM
Organization:
Commenter: McKee Sloan
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

To keep this short, I will simply state that DRM does very little to hinder the people it is attempting to halt ('pirates;' people who steal intellectual property) and places more of a burden on those people who it wishes to protect (the creators of whatever the product is and the consumer). I understand many developers, especially those in the software and video game industry, think of DRM as a means to keep their IP safe, not dissimilar to locking your car or house. However, this analogy falls apart quickly. If I could only unlock my car five separate times (see Bioshock), it wouldn't be doing me much good at all. If I could only park it at five separate locations, then what would happen if I moved and had nowhere to park (reinstalling software on a new computer/HDD)? The only DRM I have found to be rewarding to any party (excluding thieves), in terms of software, is that of Steam, created by Valve. I highly suggest you look into it and, if you do continue on with this assault against paying customers, attempt to learn from it.
Comment Number: 539814-00227
Received: 1/9/2009 2:19:36 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Sorrell
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I bielieve that much DRM these days are more or less pointless exercises. I realize that companies need to find ways of protecting their software from piracy, but the simple fact is that the simplest form of DRM, CD keys and serial numbers that perhaps connect to a verification server for online games (which many pc titles are these days) would be enough to stop the people who any DRM at all can stop. The others- true hackers and pirates- are not going to be stopped by DRM. Many modern games with incredibly intrusive and unfairly limiting DRM systems like install limits have been hacked within hours of release, sometimes even before official release, enabling all those who would pirate a game in the first place to easily sidestep the things that only annoy honest people to begin with.
Comment Number: 539814-00228
Received: 1/9/2009 2:24:25 AM
Organization: Product Innovation and Development
Commenter: Reniger
State: MI
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I always "vote with my money" and refrain from purchasing media or hardware with DRM. Thank you for allowing me another voice. This method of protection for intellectual property is harmful and often damaging to the consumer's property. There are better methods available to reasonably secure IP on modern media. That is as simple as the analysis should be.
Comment Number: 539814-00229
Received: 1/9/2009 2:38:26 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Eric Moore
State: UT
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I understand that companies need to do something to protect their content from being stolen, but I am a consumer and something can never be "mine" if I can only use it a limited amount of times. That doesn't exist anywhere else in the marketplace. A product that is solely used on something as fickle as a PC, (especially Windows) has to have the option to be used an unlimited amount of times. Things break, and I myself have had to reinstall/fix/rebuild my computer more than 3 times in a SINGLE year, and now you expect me to repurchase your product? That does not make any sense. Make a system where you have to login to a server with your legitimate copy in order for it to work, or something along those lines. There HAS to be a better way. A solution that actually keeps the consumer in mind and where they get the better deal rather than the producer, has to exist.
Comment Number: 539814-00230
Received: 1/9/2009 2:52:11 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Josh Reflek
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

All DRM should be banned from inclusion in any product. It only serves to hinder the consumer who legitimately purchases a product from using it freely and without difficulty. Piracy is unstoppable, it will always find a way. DRM also is a deterrent to sales, as many consumers are aware of it's presence in any given product and will tell anyone they know to not purchase media that contains it and to blacklist companies that would employ such a distrusting scheme toward would be customers. Limited installs, code wheels, reference manuals or any other version of DRM which makes it a hassle for a paying customer to use something that is already fully paid for, is insulting to their intellegence, furthering a decision to not purchase anything from that company and instead pirate and intentionally distribute the media not only without remorse but now with well deserved malice. Why pay for something, if it's will to work is tempermental, when you could simply download a pirated version with the DRM already excized. Even corporations themselves have turned to piracy for hacks and workarounds that the DRM has necessitated, just to make their shipped product work. DRM cripples the experience of a product, debases the trust between customer and company, causes undue hassle with limited installing, uninstalling and regular use. Get rid of it, or the consumers wont buy your products and will have no qualms with pirating it.
Comment Number: 539814-00231
Received: 1/9/2009 2:53:03 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Tuck
State: MA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The intent of copyright law is to encourage authors to create works and release them to the public, initially in commercial publication and eventually as part of the shared wealth of culture in the public domain. DRM subverts this bargain by preventing a work from being copied, with the desired effect of preventing it from ever providing a long term cultural benefit by entering the public domain. This effect is only made worse by device specific digital storage. When the storage format or device is obsolete or off the market, a DRMed work will only be available to dedicated archivists. Imagine if Charles Dickens had only released his novels as DRMed downloads for a proprietary e-book reader. Some people would have bought and read his books. Some of those would have passed their e-book readers to others, who might have read Dickens. But we certainly wouldn't have gotten that chance, nor our parents, nor our grandparents. Perhaps Dickens is popular enough to have stayed in print, with a constant chain of rights holders, and non-DRMed originals that were carefully preserved to allow new DRMed copies to be produced and sold (long after even a modern copyright would have expired). But would that have been true for most authors? How about for modern works that are even more closely tied to specific devices, like video games? DRM is clearly incompatible with the copyright bargain. Copyrighted works should not be made subject to DRM, and DRMed works should not be subject to copyright. Anything else is a betrayal of the basic concept of copyright: to encourage the creation of works to be added to the general pool of human culture.
Comment Number: 539814-00232
Received: 1/9/2009 3:02:50 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Michael Hawkins
State: IN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Digital Rights Management or DRM in it's current implementation is the single most ludicrous method of handling the escalating piracy that has affected how the entire world experiences various forms of media. Simply put from a consumer perspective: DRM takes away the rights from legally obtained media that the same illegally obtained media would have. There are better ways to deal with this!!! Apple's iTunes has taken steps to include digital booklets with most of the legally bought albums. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails fame put his signature his latest album and it sold out in minutes. Consumers will not have desire to purchase media without incentive. With the appeal of the internet's anonymity, there is no incentive to follow the law. The answer is to add in that extra (UNIQUE!!!) item or experience that makes the purchase worthwhile. For instance: Add a barcode with each cd that gives discounts to concerts or memorabilia.
Comment Number: 539814-00233
Received: 1/9/2009 3:07:40 AM
Organization: N/A
Commenter: Neal Ruescher
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I believe DRM should not be included in games at all as it does not impede software being downloaded and utilized illegally. People still find a way to hack the game and post it online for others to use and abuse. What DRM does is annoy individuals who want to spend the money on the game. Worst of all unless one does research on the game itself one has no way to determine what sort of limitations the DRM imposes. Please at the very least ensure that DRM has to be noted in very plain sight for all to see when purchasing any sort of software or media
Comment Number: 539814-00234
Received: 1/9/2009 3:08:35 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Platek
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I own and operate far too much equipment to be bothered with DRM content. In my opinion, it will damage the market as I am not the only professional I know that refuses to buy a product that will be a bear to use across all of my platforms. Just because your "average" consumer doesn't own more than x devices doesn't mean I should be locked out of using something I purchased on all of my equipment legally. While piracy is a problem in the digital media industries, legalizing punitive measures against consumers will only lead to further market skepticism and less consumer spending, as well as an easily predicted exponential rise in the very piracy DRM attempts to subvert.
Comment Number: 539814-00235
Received: 1/9/2009 3:08:56 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Lann
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Honestly, I have been a gamer for as long as I can remember and i have bought many of my titles until here recently when more and more security measures have been taken against piracy. Many of these acts have done nothing but force people to resort to piracy to even enjoy a game more than once or twice, see Bioshock's protection as an example. For buying the game one is able to activate it a limited amount of times, and requires a hardware check to see if someone is playing it on a friends computer sound good? Wrong, the way of using a single CD-Key per user that would require a online check has been the way of the past, but it is tried and true, and I would personally prefer that method over what has been used here recently. I personally would like to see things go back to the way that they were before the DMC forced stricter security measures that punishes the average users of said product.
Comment Number: 539814-00236
Received: 1/9/2009 3:08:57 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Daniel Nagel
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM changes a purchase into a rental, simply enough. It requires good faith that activation servers for a product with DRM will always exist and that if the company goes belly up that the product in question will have DRM stripped. If not, one just rents a product for the lifespan of a companies support for the product.
Comment Number: 539814-00237
Received: 1/9/2009 3:27:15 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Robin Fussell
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM, where can I begin? In the days of old, there was little DRM, Movies, Music, almost all were free of it (of course we had macrovision on VHS, but that wasn't usually an issue) Today however we have complex systems of DRM, these don't protect anyone, period. They cause a lot of issues for end users, Spore is a good example, why can I only install something I own a limited number of times. That's like telling me I can only unplug and plug in my toaster 5 times before I need to call the manufacturer to make it work again, this is not a product it's a lease, yet this is not how it is purported. Music is another annoyance. If I purchase a CD (DRM free) I can copy it all I want to tapes, mp3 players, metallic phonographic plates, whatever I want, it's my music, I get to listen to it how I wish. Apple is an example of this gone wrong, of course now they're bringing us new DRM free music, but guess what (and this has GOT to be illegal) for them to remove DRM from the music you already own so you can listen to it in the way you wish, you have to pay them again, this is nonsense, in this case DRM was used in a manner to increase post-purchase revenue from the same product. The same goes for operating systems, The inability to keep windows working without having to contact microsoft to fix it has actually influenced me to simply forgo contacting them when I add hardware to my system and using online cracks (although I am using a legitimate copy of windows, my circumnavigation of DRM is necessary for me to use the product as intended due to insane restrictions placed by them) What if your car only worked for the first 3 houses you lived in, you move to a fourth and you have to get them to fix it (sometimes for a fee), or apply it to any other product out there. The application of ownership to art such as music and movies is well out of bounds by these people, They want control not just over their movie, but on how you can watch a product that you own (the single copy of the movie) Vista has shown industry pressure can have horrible repercussions on the end user, If you want to watch a HD movie vista will lower its quality if you don't have a completely digital (and DRM supporting) hardware setup (often very expensive) yet I own this movie, who are they to say I have to watch it in a lower quality than I purchased, simply because I didn't buy extra hardware (I use analog VGA and analog sound...neither meet the requirements to view certain movies in their intended quality) Games DRM should be producer side and not passed off to customers. This is already done in many cases (multiplayer games) where you cannot play online without a valid serial number, since they are in control of the game in this arena, this is fine,. Putting third party software on my computer just so I can play is NOT fine. If I choose to not use this third party software (for example Securerom, something I did not purchase nor want on my PC) I cannot play a game I lawfully own, how is this even legal. It is your duty to protect us as customers here in the United States, to allow this continuation of DRM on all of our digital products is criminal.
Comment Number: 539814-00238
Received: 1/9/2009 3:39:00 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Marc-Andre Unger
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I believe that DRM technology does more bad than good. I do understand that developers want to protect their property and have a right to do so as I myself work for a software developer. However I do believe that the current form of Security, DRM, is an intrustion into the rights and privacy of the customer. In many cases the DRM software stays present on PCs even while the software is not running or even after it has been deinstalled. Customers are also being limited to a certain amount of installations of the software on their PC and in many cases even adding or removing an additional harddrive will trigger the DRM software to prompt the user to use another activation of their software as the hardware has changed. Some Videogame retailers have even told customers upon complaints about loosing all of their activations and being unable to play the game anymore to simply go and buy another copy of the game. This is unacceptable and makes you think that you have paid them simply for renting a software rather than purchasing a licensed copy of their product. Furthermore DRM often hinders the normal usage of the software and makes it unstable or crash so that many people switch to illegal DRM free downloads, which is sad as the developers dont seem to realize that in many cases they are actually loosing paying customers by putting up blockades that in fact only hinder the paying customers of using their software while hackers are still able to bypass their security. Therefore I do believe that companies should try to find a different approach on copy protection that is more customer friendly while still offering a copy protection. Kind Regards Marc
Comment Number: 539814-00239
Received: 1/9/2009 3:39:34 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Arthur Hanna
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is a terrible thing for consumers. I want to be able to buy music and movies without the hassle of DRM and have full fair use of them. DRM means that I don't own whatever it is that I've bought. I am just renting it from Sony or whoever maintains the licensing servers. As has happened many times, the servers were shut off and all that money went for a product that doesn't work any more. Please don't support this technology. DRM is a product that consumers don't want.
Comment Number: 539814-00240
Received: 1/9/2009 3:43:30 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Orange
State: MO
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I don't believe that media should be crippled by DRM. By putting restrictions on what a user can do with media that he has legally purchase an incentive is created to use pirated DRM-free media instead. More often than not DRM is abused by the copyright owners to make honest consumers pay several times over for the same media. Ostensibly the point of DRM is to prevent piracy, but it has the opposite effect while hurting honest consumers - both by restricting their natural private property rights that should be associated with purchasing a media product and by artificially increasing the price of said products to cover for the cost of the DRM implementation - not to mention that often there's a need to buy upgraded hardware or software that can handle the DRM.
Comment Number: 539814-00241
Received: 1/9/2009 4:13:18 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Steven LaVey
State: OR
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I have been a victim of digital rights management before, I had purchased a game for 40 dollars and was only aloud one activation of this game I had it installed for three months and the computer stopped working, I had waited to get a better computer and tried to install it on my new computer, that is when i found out that you were only aloud one activation, the price of the game now is 45 dollars so it brings the total up to 85 dollars for the one game just to play. I have also had the other experience of DRM with computer games i had bought another game for 30 dollars, I could install this game on any computer so long that i had the disk to play, after a few months of playing taking the disk out of the drive and replacing it back, the disk gotten damaged and could not play so i was forced to buy a new disk for 15 dollars. i believe that DRM on games is to drum up sales to get the consumer to spend more money to use what the have essentially rented. In Closing i believe that DRM does not curtail piracy it actually promotes it for some of the reasons that i have mentioned that so far and some of the reasons that i have not experienced as long as there is a challenge to break the DRM, there will always be people who want it removed. I believe that if there was no DRM that piracy will actually decline! if it wasn't for the industry want to increase sales and try it, that it may actually work
Comment Number: 539814-00242
Received: 1/9/2009 4:33:39 AM
Organization:
Commenter: George Dent
State: NV
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The essential purpose of DRM is to prevent copyrighted material being pirated. However, no DRM technology has ever achieved this aim, and always hurts the innocent consumer more than the pirates. Take, for example, a DVD that will not play back on a computer. A pirate with a real intent to pirate it will easily find their way around the technology, while the person who bought the DVD is left with no course of action if they wish to watch it on their laptop or computer. It can also lead to a monopoly on the market. Take for this example Apple Inc's FairPlay DRM. Apple's iTunes Music Store is the biggest retailer of music in the US, and the only portable hardware their music will play on is an iPod. In conclusion, DRM only hurts the customers that legally purchase the materials. Those that illegally download music and movies are able to watch them without Draconian limits on when and where and how many times they can listen/watch them.
Comment Number: 539814-00243
Received: 1/9/2009 4:36:59 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Protz
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

example1: Music. Here, DRM is a hassle for the consumer and a problem for the artists. The consumers are not entitled to make legal backups of protected songs anymore (or, are limited as to where/how/when these backups can be made). If the service provider ceases to exist, music that has been paid for will - without any possibility of re-authorizing your digital rights - end up as worthless data junk. Stripping the files from the DRM routines may be illegal, depending on where you live - so it´s no option. So if a consumers files become damaged due to whatever cause (scratched CD, destroyed harddrive), he has essentially lost all of his money worth of music, since he is not entitled by most DRM mechanisms to make backups - at least not, without a loss of quality. This is of more concern with CDs, as digitally distributed audio files are generally of a lower quality than music distributed on CD. The artists however will earn less revenue, since record labels tell them that they need to pay for the "necessary" DRM mechanisms. In most cases, artitst have no say about whether or not these techniques are used on their latest albums. Apart from changing to a smaller, independent label (forfeiting the advertising power of the large companies and therefore possible revenue) there is nothing they can do about it. example2: Software DRM fiascos have been on the rise in the past few years. The first really loud outcry came with the game Bioshock. It´s authorization scheme only allowed three installations at all, without the ability to gain an installation credit back by de-installing the game. Re-installing the operating system and re-installing the game afterwards counted as a fresh install as if it was done on a different pc. Enthusiasts, who often wipe their harddrives during the course of hardware tests, found themselves unable to play the game after a short time since they couldn´t install it anymore. Plus, even though it is strictly a single player game and canno be played online, you have to have internet access to be able to play it. What good did it do to sales? According to several websites the game was available as a cracked, DRM-free copy 2 days after release. So the publisher paid a lot of money for the DRM, for the activation servers which have to be kept running so people can install the game a few years down the line, and only gained a few days of a head start from the pirates who probably would not have bought the game anyway, even if they wouldn´t ve been able to get it "for free". 2K Games gave in to the players and loosened the restrictions, because they realized that a lot of customers were upset. They got a lot of negative press due to this. The same story went down recently with Spore. A hotly anticipated game, sales were rather lukewarm concerning the hype since the DRM was again a very painful and installation limited affair. Some websites even advised against buying the game, since its DRM mechanisms install quite deep into the system and might pose a possible future security risk. According to news sources, the game was available as a pirated version even before it hit stores, so again DRM did nothing to prevent this. Limiting the number of available installs has only one purpose: To limit the sales of used software. But if a program is sold as a budget title later, DRM can backfire in a different way. Here in Germany, the game EARTH2160 can now be bought for 10€ in the bargain bin. You cannot play it though, since the voice driven activation servers for the keycodes are broken. Without any DRM, this would not have happened. BTW, Securom which is used as a DRM software in Bioshock, Spore and many other titles is made by Sony DADC Austria. The same company that had a problem with their audio copy protection mechanisms installing unwanted software on PCs a short time ago.
Comment Number: 539814-00244
Received: 1/9/2009 4:47:28 AM
Organization:
Commenter: takahashi
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is not fair in many ways and disrupts ownership 1)I'm using it within the law, yet I am limited on what I can do = not full ownership 2)what happens if a company goes outs of business and no other organization adopts their IP? There's no way to renew DRM or ask for unlock 3)What if I wanted to let a friend barrow it? Or have someone play/listen for demo purposes (may help them buy the actual product)? I can't do that anymore with DRM and etc of silimilar complaints. If it's a rental service, I don't mind a DRM since it's more suitable for rental, but not for items I paid to purchase.
Comment Number: 539814-00245
Received: 1/9/2009 4:56:02 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Jim Chambers
State: OH
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Dear Sirs, While I respect the rights of companies trying to protect their IP's and other properties, DRM is just a pain. At least to the average consumer it is. Unfortunately "pirates" will find ways around it and continue to steal. I don't like it either, but there is no denying it. DRM is one of the reasons I don't bother playing games or purchasing downloaded music on my computer. If I buy something, I would like it to work on both of my computers. Also just as reasonable, any member of my family should be allowed to play a game without purchasing their own copy. Imagine if Parker Brothers forced all your family members to buy the Monopoly board game; that would be just silly as you only need to buy one board. Spore did just that. If my wife wanted to play, she would've had to buy her own copy, it's not reasonable. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Mr. Jim Chambers
Comment Number: 539814-00246
Received: 1/9/2009 4:58:02 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Kyle Sluder
State: MD
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology imposes unfair and illegitimate restrictions on the private use of digital media. It violates every semblance of common sense that one may purchase a physical item from a store and not be allowed to disassemble, duplicate, or otherwise manipulate that product at will within the bounds of copyright. Most egregious, however, are the offensive measures that certain DRM packages take with respect to a consumer's other possessions. DRM products are known to disable CD and DVD burners on the systems which they are installed, employing techniques germane to computer viruses in order to hide themselves from detection and removal. They either provide no option for the consumer to opt out of their installation, or willfully ignore the user's demand not to install themselves. The level of technological sophistication required to even know of DRM technology is so far beyond the capacity of people with better things to do that DRM software can act as it wishes with impunity. For those who even think to read the fine print on the packaging of DRM-encumbered media, no explanation is given that unlike passive copy-protection schemes such as Macrovision with users may (and probably won't) already be familiar, modern DRM is active and harmful to existing functionality. Today, cigarette companies are required to disclose the harmful effects of their products, which are used for their pleasurable effects. Entertainment products encumbered with DRM are similar; they are consumed for their entertainment value, but the additive DRM software has known--in fact designed--effects. Why are DRM-encumbered products not required to display a prominent, legible, plain-English description of the intentional damaging effects of their products? I envision a large sticker warning that "This product contains software that is designed to render useless hardware and software for which you have already paid," or perhaps "This product is not actually yours. You give your money to the checkout clerk but we still own it and tell you how you can use it." Producers are on good ethical grounds to demand that others not violate their copyright. However, DRM technology is used to leverage this legitimate concern into artificial markets. For example, why do some record labels believe that I am not within my rights to play a music track I have purchased on an online music store on my in-dash CD player? The apparent simplicity of "purchasing" an album belies the hideously complex music licensing laws in this country with which the labels justify their requirement that I purchase the same song multiple times for different devices. Likewise, why is the number of computers I own, or how often I rebuild them, of any concern to video game manufacturers? Is it any of their business that I believe Microsoft Windows to be an insecure operating system and therefore periodically re-install it? Electronic Arts certainly thinks so; they have limited the number of times one may install a "purchased"--excuse me, licensed--copy of Spore, a very popular game. I implore the Commission to find that DRM is an illegitimate encroachment on consumer rights. With more people turning to computers and computer-powered devices to enjoy their content, the shift from passive copy protection to active DRM threatens to envelop even more media in forms that are impossible for those without incredible technical skill to comprehend. As it stands, DRM has been demonstrated to rob consumers of the functionality of their existing products. It is time to put a stop to this madness.
Comment Number: 539814-00247
Received: 1/9/2009 5:16:50 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Craig Marron
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Any information worth anything is free.
Comment Number: 539814-00248
Received: 1/9/2009 5:18:31 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Michael Besto
State: IL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I have not paid for a single song in the past 5-6 years. Now that music is available via non-DRM I will be purchasing nearly $500+ worth of digital content. The major reason being this. If I download a song on iTunes, I want that song forever. I know when I bought a CD that I would always have that song as long as I kept the CD in good condition. Why should today be any different? Thanks! I hope you enjoy the newly accounted for cash flow because I was unwilling to give it up in the past. Regards, -mb
Comment Number: 539814-00249
Received: 1/9/2009 5:22:47 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Haney
State: MN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is something that only really hurts the actual consumers. If someone wants to pirate something, it will be pirated, these people are really good at what they do. DRM just limits the people who actually buy the items in terms of new installs on a video game if they reformat their computer, or redownloading a song from itunes if your hard drive wipes. DRM only hurts the people who actually buy their music/movies/video games.
Comment Number: 539814-00250
Received: 1/9/2009 5:46:27 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Christopher Stenseth
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I like computers, I have many. At work, at home, at my girlfriends and my brother is borrowing on right now. DRM related locks and restraints hinders me of having my games and software on them all. Why should I not be allowed to use a product i bought on multiple computers that are mine? I now can buy a mp3 from itunes and listen to it in all my mp3 players. Why should that kind of usage seem illegal for movies or software?
Comment Number: 539814-00251
Received: 1/9/2009 5:47:57 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Bruce Volpe
State: AZ
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

One must be very careful using DRM. In particular with games it can damage the market for a long period of time if abused by companies. A better approach to DRM, which is not the same thing, would be similar to the technology Valve uses called Stream. They allow you to purchase a game, download it as many times as you wish, and control your access to it. As long as you do nothing illegal or break terms of use policies then you are free to use the game as you wish. This is a much better approach for the market as a whole and one that should be encouraged much more than DRM.
Comment Number: 539814-00252
Received: 1/9/2009 5:48:47 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Giancarlo Giacomello
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The DRM is a violation of both the rights of the consumer in using the product in the ways he\she preferres, and his right of propriety on the rightly payed goods. The DRM pretend to be born as a way to fight piracy, but instead damages only the legal buyers. A product using DRM, doesn't allow me as his owner to do any backup copy of what I legally payed, doesn't allow me to use my product without registration and, finally, seriously limitates my possibilities of resell the item as preowned once I'll be tired of it, limiting in a serious way my freedom of using my stuff as I like. On this behaviour the position of software houses like stardock, that limits his security checks on the registration of the acquired product to get both assistance, benefits and patches is, on my opinion, a great way of fighting illegal spread of pirated software. The results in terms of online shipment of their products using this kind of attitude speaks for itself. The consumer must be protected and guaranteed in both his purchase and the way he decides to do it.
Comment Number: 539814-00253
Received: 1/9/2009 5:49:14 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Lewis
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is hardly any type of obstacle for pirates. Once a game's DRM is cracked (and typically it is before a game even HITS the public market), it is available to any and all pirates of the software. Which means to me, as a person who enjoy my games in my recreation time, that the only people who the DRM effects are those who legitimately purchase the game. Why should it be those who buy a game legally that have to suffer the irritating limitations of the colorful variety of DRM that's put on our PC games? It's pure stupidity.
Comment Number: 539814-00254
Received: 1/9/2009 6:10:37 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Phair
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is pitiful. It does nothing to stop hackers and others that want to pirate software/music/video/whatever. With a few minutes and google anyone can find anything they want DRM free. However the people who purchase the DRM'd product receive an inferior product. Often times the product will not work the way it is supposed to due to the DRM. Implementing and researching DRM technologies only increases the cost of the products so consumers and producers pay more while the pirates recieve better free products. Please do whatever it takes to rid the world of DRM, for it will be a better place without it.
Comment Number: 539814-00255
Received: 1/9/2009 6:54:49 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Federco Altieri
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

How you can see, I'm not fron an English -speaking country, so I first ask to forgive me for my bad English. Adout DRM I say it's reasonable for SH, but even for musicians and other artists, to protect their products from illegal copying: They do what they do (games, Music, films, etc) to gain something from theyr products, and they also bet often a lot of money on it. So I think there's no problem on it. I have to admit that I live in a society who celebrates Illegal copying as a model (Italians are masters on it, It's not a coincidence that Berlusconi is our Government Chies...), Talking about videogames, 10 players on the same game match with only one license of use (when luicky). But at the meantime i think that SH should give some real advantages to legal users if they want to try to contain illegal copying. Some of the DRM actually in some top rated games (Crysis, spore...) turn often to impossible the life of legal players and customers. It's a customer's right to use it's license until it wants: the limits of activations are fool in my opinion. I recently bought Crysis on steam: they say i have 4 activations left: it's not right. Do you really think I will buy again Crysis to gain others activations?
Comment Number: 539814-00256
Received: 1/9/2009 6:56:50 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Jones
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I am tired of buying DRM music that will play on one device but not the other. I'm tired of DRM as I can not mack backups of MUSIC I OWN! DRM Sucks I no longer spend money on any DRM music or videos. Good job guys, way to win your customers over. WOOT!!!!!!!!!!
Comment Number: 539814-00257
Received: 1/9/2009 7:27:31 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Shai Azoulai
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I am not opposed to DRM in principle, however I strongly disapprove of the way that many corporations have implemented DRM. Especially egregious are cases of "Spyware DRM" such as occurred with the EA game SPORE. It should be illegal for software to be installed on computers without notification. And all DRM software should be simple to remove.
Comment Number: 539814-00258
Received: 1/9/2009 7:29:01 AM
Organization:
Commenter: David DiLorenzo
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Sins of a Solar Empire was released in February of last year by Stardock, and was one of the top 10 most purchased games of 2008 (number 6). Besides being a well received game, Sins was released with no DRM at all, and it proved many people wrong who had predicted low sales due to piracy. To top it all off, despite being a hugely popular game with no copy protection to speak of, it was not to be found on the top 10 most pirated games of 2008. On the other hand we have Spore, released in September of 2008. Spore had what many considered to be draconian DRM bundled with it in an attempt to prevent it from being pirated. It was a highly anticipated game and took the top spot for sales in 2008, beating out all the competition. However, despite the highly restrictive DRM, Spore also was the number 1 most pirated game of 2008. In the first 10 days after it's release, over 500,000 copies had been downloaded, and as of early December that number reached over 1,700,000 (yes, 1.7 million). So we have 2 games, both of them hugely popular, and the only one with DRM is also the one which is the most pirated. This shows that DRM has absolutely no value in terms of stopping piracy, and it never will. Once a game is released, it's security measures are fixed. Sometimes games do receeve patches that update the DRM, but there is no way to force a user to patch their game. Now while the DRM is fixed in place, crackers have no such limitation and have the benefit of constantly improving methods and technology, and with the ability to examine the security of that game at their leisure (something developers can't do with crackers), they will crack it. DRM wastes resources the developer could use on other things, and it often harms the users computer as well. Many people have had issues with DRM causing system instability, and more often it will cause problems for the stability of the application itself, causing constant crashes and other problems. Meanwhile a person who pirates the game does not suffer these problems as the crackers have removed the program's DRM. In effect, DRM is only able to affect legitimate users who purchased their product legally. This goes to the heart of the matter. Companies constantly try to control how you can use their products, sometimes in order to force you to buy an item twice, and sometimes to prevent piracy. DRM has never been effective in any application and it never will be, so the only people who get stuck with music that wont play on their PC are the people who paid for it. With the advent of the internet, it does not matter if a product is 99% secure, it only takes a single copy to be cracked before it is spread all over the world in a matter of minutes. This is a process that is impossible to stop, and as mentioned, the only users harmed are the legal ones. When I purchase a product, it becomes my property, and as such I can do with it as I like, within reason. I can sell my old product to a thrift store or to another person, I can destroy it, I can lend it to a friend. Why is it then permissible for a company which no longer owns my product, just the intellectual property it's made up of, to tell me when and where I can use it? Why should Sony get to decide that it's OK to play my CD in a stereo system, but I am not allowed to play it on my PC's CD player? I submit they they should not be able to exert this sort of control. Instead of assuming I am a criminal and not allowing me to use my product how I wish, criminals should simply be prosecuted for breaking the law. You may say "but these types of crimes are difficult to detect, so DRM helps prevent them from happening at all," but you must remember that DRM is not capable of doing so in all cases, and with the internet this means it cannot do so in any cases. The only person DRM will ever hurt is the consumer, a fact I can attest to as I once had to disassemble my computer because a DRM toting CD got stuck in the drive. This is simply unacceptable.
Comment Number: 539814-00259
Received: 1/9/2009 7:32:44 AM
Organization: Thyrsus Enterprises
Commenter: Eric Raymond
State: PA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

This comment is not confidential; I grant unconditional permission to republish it in full. For a version without the paragraph breaks smashed out by your defective software, see http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=734. DRM is a disaster for everyone involved with it, because it cannot do what it claims but imposes large costs in the process of failing. The people who have sold DRM technologies to Big Media are frauds playing on the ignorance of media executives, and both the media companies and the consumer have suffered greatly and unnecessarily as a result. DRM cannot do what it claims for at least three reasons. First, pirates readily bypass it by duplicating physical media. Second, DRM algorithms cannot "see" any data that the host device does not present to them; thus, they can always be spoofed by a computer emulating an environment in which the DRM algorithm thinks release is authorized. Third, for humans to view or hear the content it must at some point exit the digital realm of DRM to a screen and speakers; re-capturing the data stream at that point bypasses any possible protections. DRM can make casual copying difficult, but cannot thwart any determined attack. Piracy operations operating on a scale sufficient to affect the revenue streams of media companies laugh at DRM. They know it is sucker bait, injuring ordinary consumers but impeding piracy not one bit. In the process of failing, the DRM fraud imposes large costs. DRM makes consumer electronics substantially more expensive, failure-prone, and subject to interoperability failures than it would otherwise be. It makes media content less valuable to honest consumers by making that content difficult to back up, time-shift, or play on "unauthorized" devices. All too commonly, technical failures somewhere in a chain of DRM-equipped hardware lock consumers out of access to content they have paid for even in the manner the vendor originally intended to support. But the worst effect of the DRM fraud is that it generates pressure to cripple general-purpose computers in an attempt to foil emulation attacks. As a society, we can live with silly restrictions on device-shifting the latest blockbuster movie, but we cannot tolerate (for example) attempts to prevent PCs from running software not certified in advance by a consortium of Big Media companies. Yet that - and even more draconian restrictions - is where the logic of the DRM fraud inexorably leads. Such measures have already been advocated under the misleading banner "trusted computing", and half-attempts at them routinely injure today's computer users. I would not ask the FCC to ban DRM, even if that were within its remit. Markets will teach the media companies that DRM is folly, just as markets taught software companies that "copy protection" was a losing game back in the 1980s. What the federal government can and should do is decline to prop up the DRM fraud with laws or mandates. Specifically, if the "broadcast flag" or any other similar measure is again proposed, the FCC should reject it. To the extent that FCC regulatory or administrative action can mitigate the damage and chilling effects caused by the DMCA's so-called "anti-circumvention" provisions, that should be attempted. Most generally, the FCC should make policy with the understanding that when media companies claim that DRM is useful and effective, they are not only misleading the FCC but deluding themselves.
Comment Number: 539814-00260
Received: 1/9/2009 7:39:09 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Manning
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

If I buy a book, I can lend it to a friend to read. A book is a creative work, just like a video game or an mp3 or any other work. I should be able to lend that to my friend as well. I understand stopping the making of copies and distribution of copies, however, when I buy something, I expect to own it. When I have my book, I have control of it. There will always be people who may photocopy the book and distribute it, but there will also always be bad apples and criminals. We're human, after all. And making it harder to simply use an item in an expected way just doesn't make logical sense. DRM, in effect, is the same as when there was one trouble maker in an elementary school class and causes the teacher to punish the whole class. The idea is that then there is added pressure on the trouble maker to conform. It didn't work in elementary school, and it doesn't work now. Especially when there is no pressure being created from the behaving people on the troublemakers. Finally, DRM costs the companies who use it money. Plain and simple. They focus on trying to not lose money instead of making more money. The best way to lose is to try not to lose, the best way to win is to try to win. Companies are spending valuable resources on things that simply constrict a customer and creates a public relations and customer service nightmare. It has gone past the point of diminishing returns. If you build a security system to your house to keep people out, the determined people will still get in. If someone wants to devote enough time and resources, they will get in, regardless of your security.
Comment Number: 539814-00261
Received: 1/9/2009 7:52:44 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Gigov
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

All DRM protections for interactive multimedia (a.k.a. Video Games) have been cracked, destroying the whole point of their existence. If there is a game who's protection has not yet been removed, then it has either just been released in the market or there is no interest in the title. For example Rockstar spent over $200 000 on their DRM which was defeated two days after the game's PC debut. PC Games should come with DRM ratings in several categories. 4. Internet dependent. Cannot be activated or ran without an internet connection. Example: Grand Theft Auto 4. 3. Malicious and hidden. Installs itself without asking or even informing the user. Prime example: SecuROM. 2. Malicious with warnings. Warns the user that it may cause harm with some hardware configurations and asks for confirmation before installing. Example: StarForce. 1. Harmless. Does not install files outside the game's destination folder. Is removed along with game when uninstalled. 0. No DRM. DRM systems that employ direct Input/Output (I/O) operations are not supported by all disc drives and therefore must have a warning on the box, for people to be informed before purchasing.
Comment Number: 539814-00262
Received: 1/9/2009 8:21:00 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Ann McCann
State: MA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

If you buy something, it should be yours. DRM hurts legitimate consumers. I'm a senior citizen, and officer of my small town Friends of the Library. If there had been DRM in the early 1900's, we wouldn't have libraries - and all that they make possible, today! I've bought many books and college courses over the years. I paid Audible.com $14.95 for about 6 years, I had a long commute and never had the time to sit down and read Dickens! - but all the books I bought could disappear in an instant. At least I'm able to listen to them in my kitchen now that I've retired: that's not possible with a lot of DRM loaded stuff. Book publishers have made money, even though I can lend out orgive a book to my neighbor. The electronic folks have to figure out a way to let me keep and use what I've legally bought!
Comment Number: 539814-00263
Received: 1/9/2009 8:27:27 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Archer
State: MN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

There are only two things to consider about DRM. The first and most natural is: Does it work? The answer is a resounding "No." The most high-profile case of DRM use is with the game Spore, which became one of the most-pirated games of the year. Clearly, DRM had next to zero effect in terms of helping the copyright-holders control any user's access to their game. The second question, which only needs to be considered in the wake of the first, is: Does it do any harm? While, strictly-speaking, the answer is a "no," as there was no widespread, genuine damage caused by any DRM; it is clear that the use of more restrictive policies does caused perceived harm, whereby consumers feel that the illegal version of the game, the DRM of which is bypassed or supplanted is a superior product. Consumers simply end up seeing a choice between an illegal product which has no restrictions on installation or use (as computer games largely have been since they were first on the market), or a legal product with harshly-limited usage (note that whether this is the actual case or merely perception by a large number of consumers isn't always clear, and doesn't always matter). Thus, DRM seems to be entirely pointless: it neither accomplishes its stated goals, nor helps create a well-received product.
Comment Number: 539814-00264
Received: 1/9/2009 8:29:38 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Minett
State: VA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Personally, I don't mind minimal DRM such as requiring the CD/DVD to be in the drive for start up of the game, and a CD key during installation. Anything past that starts to annoy me and deter me from buying a game. I do not pirate, but will simply not purchase a game for a PC with more DRM than that, unless it's downloaded via steam (but not with anymore DRM than steams default) or an MMO. I find not allowing family members to play the same game together on a LAN, and especially DRM like limited installs and secuROM to be particularly offensive as they do nothing more than assume a paying customer is a pirate. If a game like Spore can be hacked and made available before its release without any DRM, then why make the legal paying customers suffer? If DRM and secuROM are to be used on a game, I think EXACTLY what is to be used should be included on the game box in easily noticeable locations and with full disclosure, something like the surgeon general's warning on cigarette boxes. It should take up a full side of the box or large enough chunk that people can't miss it. Also, programs like secuROM should come with the uninstaller software, without having to download the uninstaller after hunting it down on the internet, or format your hard drive. Finally, if numbers are to be used in an arguement, please make sure they are the correct numbers and not made up or referenced incorrectly. See the following article for an example: http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars Sadly, DRM makes me want to pirate a game to give the developer the middle finger, rather than make me want to buy it. If a developer is going to treat me like a pirate when I legally purchase their game...what reason is there to actually buy a game just to be punished and treated like a pirate? It is my personal opinion that DRM hurts the gaming industry more than it helps. There isn't a single instance where DRM has worked, and the game hasn't been hacked and pirated as much as people want to. So why punish the people that buy the game and reward those that pirate it?
Comment Number: 539814-00265
Received: 1/9/2009 8:32:12 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Joshua Karstendick
State: PA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I urge the commission to outlaw DRM as anti-competitive and contrary to the public interest. DRM strips consumers of their right to sell the goods that they have bought. It also restricts consumers from fully using the goods that they have bought. For example, a consumer who buys a song or piece of software with DRM may find himself unable to use that good any longer just because he switched to a new MP3 player or a new computer. This leads to vendor lock-in, which is anti-competitive. In addition to the high costs imposed by DRM, it provides no benefits. Those who are determined to circumvent DRM have always found a way to do so; therefore, DRM poses no deterrent. It only serves to harass legitimate customers.
Comment Number: 539814-00266
Received: 1/9/2009 8:32:27 AM
Organization:
Commenter: K. Price
State: NY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Good Morning FTA, Asking the Public for their insights and opinions regarding the issues of Digital Rights Management is a leap in the right direction. Attempting to squeeze a new era of information technology into an outdated business model has been a challenge for you, as industry regulators, as well as for the public. New solutions must be found through new perspectives. Sharing data, information and the transfer of data should be FREE TO ALL PEOPLES guided only by appropriateness of content by rating. Our technology, hardware and software, should be built in a way which uplifts the system of freely sharing information. The internet should be our goldmine of collective resources, free to all. We need to remove the word -regulation- from this approach to digital rights, and begin an era where people make money from freely sharing and distributing information, technology, intellectual property as well as the programs which make it all possible. No more DRM. It is time to break out of this battle and create a new system. It is time to educate people on appropriate ways to use the technology and information that is at their fingertips. The Digital Rights Movement is not about protecting rights, it is about protecting who gets paid, when and how. It is time to let the financial bottom line play second string to the importance of a greater, more educated society. I do not think that placing -Digital Restrictions- which retard the distribution of any digital information is a viable solution. As our collective understanding of how technology impacts our lives, we will evolve into a society which uses technology to either control one another, or to unite and lift one another. If we approach this new era from an attitude of control, we will meet resistance. If we approach this new era from a perspective of education and freedom, we will expand and grow. I ask the FTC to look beyond the clutter that is clouding the issue today, and adopt an underlying principal which makes information and information technology a thing that has -no need- to be railed against, thereby deleting most of the issues which plague you/us today.
Comment Number: 539814-00267
Received: 1/9/2009 8:44:10 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Francesco Masci
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

in my opinion drm in the wors sistem ever made for protecting the game..it's only annoyng for the honest player who buy the game and has to spend hour trying to install a game and a program they didn't want to install while downloading the file in some illegal ways is really quicker and hackers has found a way to bypass this sistem...so is useless
Comment Number: 539814-00268
Received: 1/9/2009 8:44:16 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Brent Taggart
State: OH
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Game companies should not be allowed to use DRM. It ruins games.
Comment Number: 539814-00269
Received: 1/9/2009 8:49:21 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Janes
State: VA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The use of DRM in any form of media is short sighted. Limiting how a user can use what he buys is only going to frustrate legitimate buyers. Pirates will get their media anyways as people crack the DRM almost immediately. Suddenly piracy looks good to people who legitimately buy the media as the cracked versions of songs/movies/games don't have the limitations of the legitimate versions. I don't buy songs from any online service (ITunes or any of its competitors) because more of those services than I can remember have shut down their servers which stops all their music from working. When I buy something I want it to be mine, I don't want a license to listen to it as long as the distributor feels like keeping up its servers. Similarly I don't want to buy a video game only to have it install software on my machine that CANT BE REMOVED and also only be allowed to install it on my machine 3 times (this was the case with the game SPORE). The ways companies have tried to prevent piracy over the years have changed, but one thing that hasn't changed is it ALWAYS inconveniences the buyer, while it only inconveniences pirates for as long as it takes to crack the media.
Comment Number: 539814-00270
Received: 1/9/2009 9:00:05 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Max Turkewitz
State: MA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I would like to discourage the use and legality of DRM, it is destructive to freedom, choice, and creativity. It creates roadblocks and frustrations for legitimate customers. It was in my opinion a poor response from industries that refused to modernize and fought back when their customers did so.
Comment Number: 539814-00271
Received: 1/9/2009 9:03:01 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Brandon Cherry
State: TN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM for most computer software (and content that can be used on a computer) is complete waste of time and demonstrates to the consumer that the content providers are constantly looking to "double dip" and sale multiple copies of the same thing to one consumer. up until the CD was released, many music companies were taking advantage of this by selling, for example, AC/DC's album "back in black" first on album, then on cassette, and finally on CD to the same customer. This has also happened in the VHS/DVD/HDDVD-bluray with movies. They would like continue this trend in the future but without physical media requirement changes the only way to continue this is via DRM and it is wrong. Computer software is even worse because they want you to be locked into one computer to use this even though in todays age computer hardware changes more often than the software you use with them. Also, in their attempts to lock software to hardware in many cases either break the software they are trying to protect or break the cobble the operating system enough that they lower the functionality of the hardware. Ironically, the stolen versions of this same software do not require the "customer" to jump through hoops or risk corruption of their computers to use. Many purchasing customers end up having to go the illegal route after spending time trying to get legitimate software to run. Consumers could vote with their dollars on these products and not buy them however they are rarely informed that "strong" drm is built into the software they purchased until they have already opened the software making it impossible to return.
Comment Number: 539814-00272
Received: 1/9/2009 9:05:54 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Smith
State: IN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM punishes the people who bought the software. After the, at most, few days it takes to bypass the DRM, all of those who illegally download the software are rewarded with a fully functional copy of the software without the DRM. There is no such thing as DRM that doesn't cripple the functionality of the software regardless of what the companies that sell DRM may say. By utilizing DRM, software publishers are removing all of the incentives to buy their software -- including the moral incentive. Sure everyone knows it's wrong to illegally download software, but many people also feel strongly that it is wrong for the software companies to limit how they use what they legitimately paid for (for example, requiring a disc to be in the drive at all times, requiring internet connection to authenticate, having background programs running to authenticate). That same frustrated user, who bought the software, sees the guy who illegally downloaded it enjoying a greater level of functionality because it is free of the DRM. How does DRM discourage piracy?
Comment Number: 539814-00273
Received: 1/9/2009 9:08:04 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Matthew Elzer
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I am apposed to nearly all types of DRM. When I buy a CD, if I don't like it, I can sell it used, or give it to a friend. DRM music does not have the ability to be resold or gifted. Video games (which are an expensive investment) cannot be backed up, which means if my 6 year old scratches the disc, I'm out 60 bucks. There are people out there that break the law every day by copying their music and distributing it, DRM laws are not stopping them, the laws meant to stop the illegal activity hurts the consumer instead.
Comment Number: 539814-00274
Received: 1/9/2009 9:08:46 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Edward Crowder
State: CT
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

My greatest concern about DRM is that intellectual property owners often use it to circumvent or simply to ignore the fair use provisions of copyright law. Copyright law allows for fair use of intellectual property for certain uses such as education; small portions of a work may also be freely copied for use in news stories and commentary. These fair use provisions are not legal afterthoughts. They are there by design so that artists, scholars, educators and others can have reasonable access to the works of their peers for review and the furtherance of scholarship. This principle is noted in the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to enforce copyright laws not exclusively to protect the interests of IP owners, but rather, for the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8). Copyright is intended to give IP owners only LIMITED and TEMPORARY rights. However, by using DRM, IP owners are free to ignore the law of the land, locking down IP by means of code in ways the law never envisioned. This is wrong and un-Constitutional, and as an increasing share of the world's intellectual wealth is created in digital format, it threatens to hobble progress in the arts and sciences.
Comment Number: 539814-00275
Received: 1/9/2009 9:13:50 AM
Organization: Digital Paradox
Commenter: Davis
State: AR
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is worthless. Publishers believe that it will help their sales by preventing piracy and the like, but in reality it makes many, many users mad as it can lock them out of games and music that they have previously bought legit. With the right DRM, it can even bog a users system down. Basically, I believe there are better alternatives than DRM and with for every publisher to realize that and take note that nobody but them likes it.
Comment Number: 539814-00276
Received: 1/9/2009 9:16:31 AM
Organization: Trinity Healthcare Services
Commenter: Jared Lowe
State: WV
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is seemingly a waste of time. Pirates can still break the code, and consumers who buy these products are punished by not being able to use the product to its fullest potential. Anti Piracy measures probably cost these companies more money than the results of this piracy. Most people are not thieves or pirates. The majority of us are consumers and fans of these products and we are willing to plunk down our money and buy products which we deem worthy of our cash.
Comment Number: 539814-00277
Received: 1/9/2009 9:20:13 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Anon Anon
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM only punishes consumers who purchase content. I have an advanced, custom built home theater system that shares content with my phone, other tvs in the house, and my laptops. To make sure that I am not burdened by DRM, I only pirate content, movies, tv shows, video games, and music. Pirate content is the only way to be sure that your system is broken by DRM. DRM has made sure that I only pirate content. If I paid for it, I'd be screwed by DRM.
Comment Number: 539814-00278
Received: 1/9/2009 9:24:14 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Brian Sleigus
State: NJ
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I feel that the DRM that is put into software must be described on the box similar to a Cigarette warning label. If the DRM limits how many times you can install it, such as the one Electronic Arts uses, it must be clearly and visibly stated, in a box of similar size to the ESRB rating box. Also, all DRM installed by software should be able to be COMPLETELY removed from your hardware. It can render the original software inoperable if removed, but there must be some way to remove this. Some recent DRMs such as SecuROM leaves files behind upon installation that can leave your computer open to outside exploitation of your hardware because of how the files work. I personally don't think that limiting the amount of times you can install the software should be legal, or limiting it to one piece of hardware that you own should be legal. Image if you bought a movie you really liked on DVD and had to buy a copy for each DVD player you owned if you wanted to watch it in different rooms of your house, or if you bought a new DVD player all of your DVDs had to be replaced. This is what computer software is moving towards. This only hurts the people who actually pay for the products, no DRM has successfully stopped software piracy and as a consumer who actually buys their software, it is getting more and more expensive and inconvenient to stay legal. Thank you for your time.
Comment Number: 539814-00279
Received: 1/9/2009 9:31:49 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Adam Gaver
State: MI
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I'm sick and tired of DRM. It has always been trumpeted as great for business, but it is bad for the consumer. I do not like buying the SAME product several times because the RIAA and the MPAA are afraid their product will be stolen. The thing is, it will regardless of what measures they use to protect it. The only person it hurts is the honest person who wants to buy a product. Me and the general public.
Comment Number: 539814-00280
Received: 1/9/2009 9:35:23 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Kurt Maier
State: TN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM technology is the reason I have stopped using many software and hardware products. It's unnecessarily intrusive and interferes with the consumer's ability to use the device or information he legally purchased. It saves no money, stops no piracy, and contributes nothing to society.
Comment Number: 539814-00281
Received: 1/9/2009 9:36:13 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Chad Czajkowski
State: WA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Control will always be circumvented by the people. The more the companies fight this inevitable fact, the more they push their customers away. The more the government gets involved, the worse it will get. Just end DRM and the music companies will find that most things won't change. They should instead look to control their expenses internally.
Comment Number: 539814-00282
Received: 1/9/2009 9:38:34 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Bryan Peters
State: VA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The big media and publishing companies for books, video games, software, music and film would have the government and media believe that DRM is to cut back the amount of piracy that goes on. In reality this can not be further from the truth. DRM is an attack on fair use, something the media companies have seen as a barrier to further potential profit and DRM coupled with the DMCA by passes the consumer right to back up their DVDs, make non-commerical mixtapes for family members, to lend a friend a book, to play legally purchased movies on their computer, or to allow more than one child to play the same video game on the family computer. DRM does nothing to prevent piracy. There's an infinite pool of human resources to break the DRM and to have the "cracked" versions leaked before the full product even hits store shelves. DRM is only meant to punish and to extort legal paying customers and does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. I'll cover a handful of scenarios below. Amazon Kindle and Amazon E-books. Amazon came out with an electronic ebook reader. It's quite a novell device. You have a one time payment for the device, the device will connect wirelessly to the amazon store and you pay for electronic versions of books. These books are DRMed. Meaning, you cannot share these books with other PC users. Only those who purchased the book can read the book. How many of us have rented books from the library? How many of us have bought a life changing novel or self help book and lent it to a friend or family member? How many of us, when times were tough, sold our books back to book stores to re-sale? Or donated them to charity? In Amazon's world, this shouldn't be reality. Everytime the book is read by another individual, that individual should pay the full price of that book directly from the distributor. The trouble with Amazon's thinking though is this; the DRM scheme was broke before the Kindle even shipped it's first 10,000 units. Another example is the recently blockbuster Batman: The Dark Knight. A huge hit in the theaters. The parent company really hoped to cash in on it's holiday DVD sales. They implemented a DRM protection scheme on the disc. Even though fair use laws says it's legal for me to back up my data, even though fair use says I can do with my data as I please for non-commercial purposes, the DMCA states that I'm legally not allowed to by-pass DRM protection schemes. All the DVD players in my home are Linux based media centers. I purchase DVDs, I rip these dvd's to the media center's hard-drive and keep a library of these files so I can watch them any instant I wish, from any room of my home. Unfortunately, the Batman DRM scheme disallows me to play this DVD anywhere on my computer, on Linux, on an Apple computer and on Windows. The media companies decided to be pro-active and allow me to go to a website, type in a promotional code to download a digital copy of Batman so I may watch it on my computer. The catch? It gives you two choices, a format of the file to be watched on Apple computers, and another to be watched on Windows computers. Each of these digital download files are also DRMed and can only be viewed with certain software on their respective operating systems. Neither which I own. Furthermore, after paying money for the Batman DVD they wanted customers to pay again for the digital download. Essentially they wish to charge twice for the same product. The hilarity in the case of the Dark Knight, is that it is available on major illegal file sharing networks in quality that surpasses the DVD quality. I can download it via these networks faster than I can download the paid for restricted and official digital download, and this pirated copy I can play on any device I wish, in any software I wish. Another example is the Spore video game. This installed an application known as SecureRom onto customer's computers without them ever being informed this software would install. The software imbeds itself in the Windows kernel and removing it could damage the consumer's PC. The point of this software? To ensure that if this game was installed on a computer, only a certain number of accounts on that computer, could play the game. It also limited the number of times the game could be installed on the computer. Of course, like Batman the Dark Knight, this game was easily cracked and was the most pirated game of 2008. There are far too many technical scenarios to go into where this prevents legal paying customers from using their purchased software. Almost as a rule, when a new DRM scheme comes out, it is broken within days and it increases the likelihood of piracy. The piracy problem is simply this: Piracy will not go away. Not ever. But the way many "pirates" look it it, is it is becoming too problematic to purchase legal media and to be treated as a common criminal, or forced to spend their money 2, 3, and 4 times for the same media just so they can change the device it plays on. A long time ago, the media companies in terms of movies and music, were able to get someone to buy an album or movie 3 and 4 times in their lifetime by simply switching technology from vinyl, to tape, to cd or from vhs to dvd. But today we live in an era where the physical medium is not the important part. The data is. And data can be put on any device by anyone easily. If you're going to criminalize and punish legal use through a one - two punch of DRM and DMCA restrictions, the consumer see's themselves as a "criminal" either way. They're a criminal if they watch legal media on a "unlicensed" device because they must crack the DRM, they're also a criminal if they just pirate it for free therefor bypassing all the encryption and restrictions of what can be done with said media. Why pay to be treated like a criminal? Why pay to be a criminal when you can do it for free and with little chance of facing consequences? The media companies were late to provide electronic means to distribute their media on the internet. iTunes and Amazon are a good start, but unfortunately with their DRM schemes they are not as big or profitable as they could be. Thank you for your time.
Comment Number: 539814-00283
Received: 1/9/2009 9:42:45 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Zera Pulsipher
State: NV
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

As a consumer who is very concerned about his rights I particular offense to even the idea of DRM. The only people these draconian methods keep from playing games, listening to music, and watching movies, are those unwilling to illegally obtain them. As one of these people i am tired of getting the poor end of the deal. When I buy media I buy it to listen, watch, or play it, whenever or wherever I fell like doing so. If I own the rights to listen to a song i purchased digitally there should be no limit to how often i move it from device to device. Not only is it inconvenient, but also highly unethical. All in all it only makes me think "Why buy something if it will limit me to using the product I now own?" I would greatly appreciate my rights being protected especially in this digital age where it's been progressively harder for the consumer to enjoy a product. I hope that someone will look out for us. Zera Pulsipher
Comment Number: 539814-00284
Received: 1/9/2009 9:45:12 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Richard Mukalian
State: PA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is nothing but a hindrance to those who legally purchase software/music/etc. Why should we not be able to truly own what we pay for? When i purchase a piece of software, i would like to be able to keep using it in the future. When you are limited to "3 installs" of a product you purchase, you really aren't buying, you are renting. For instance, what if a virus, or hardware failure, forces you to reformat your computer a few times? This is a common occurrence and can possibly happen up to 3 times over the course of about 2 years. After that third time, you will be forced to pay for the software again. This just seems ridiculous, especially since there are no regulations that force software manufacturers to bring up this limitation in a clearly visible area. This can only lead to annoyed customers and later frustration for those who make the software. Also, what happens when the authentication servers are taken offline? Say a company goes bankrupt and is forced to shut down the servers that verify that the software is legal. Suddenly, every copy sold can not be installed. This is all done in a supposed effort to combat piracy. The issue here is that all DRM schemes have been broken in the past, none are infallible. Basic limitations that stop the average person from just copying a disk are fine, but not ones that force you to install invasive software or go online to register the product. No matter what publishers do, some hacker will break it, its inevitable. Why should dollars be wasted on advanced DRM schemes that do nothing but annoy and limit paying customers? If the assumption that all DRM can be cracked with enough effort is true (and it is), than the only person affected by extreme limitations are those who have done nothing wrong.
Comment Number: 539814-00285
Received: 1/9/2009 9:49:17 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Gino Fazio
State: OH
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

As a consumer of video games ranging from console devices to personal computers, I understand that intellectual property must be protected, but at what length and at what cost to its target audience? Current DRM methods for personal computers have become invasive, obtrusive, and in some cases, damaging to the computer’s underlying operating system. These practices should not be tolerated, especially when disclosure of the DRM and advanced notice of the dangers of the DRM is not communicated to the purchaser at the time of sale. I hope something can be done to rein in the malicious practices that are being used as an attempt to thwart piracy and the resale of games. The primary audience for these products should not have to suffer because of the acts of software pirates and used-game resellers.
Comment Number: 539814-00286
Received: 1/9/2009 9:55:15 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Alexis McDavid
State: KY
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I strongly oppose the use of DRM in retail store package games. DRM such as that on SPORE, are ineffective at preventing piracy. As an example, SPORE had one of the most draconian DRM policies to date. SPORE was also the most pirated game of 2008. What DRM does do, is hurt the honest customer who buys the game box from retail outlets. Many DRM software suites are known to cause problems with a consumer's computer. And the DRM suite does not always uninstall when the user uninstalls the game. It is also possible for a customer to lose access to a game they paid for, if an unfortunate series of hardware or software malfunctions push them over their install limit. Continuing with the SPORE example, there are arguments that EA customer support can unlock additional installs. However, EA may not be around forever. In these troubled times, enough big company names have already fallen. If 5 years from now, EA goes under, who can unlock the games people people paid for. There is a clear incentive to pirate games in this environment. A purchased game can almost be seen as a rental. Eventually, you may get locked out of a copy you paid for because of DRM issues. It has happened to me already. In addition, many DRM applications can harm the performance of one's computer. A pirated copy however, will work fine for years, and does not intrinsically become a burden from installing DRM software. As a case in point, at least one of my friends purchased a copy of the game from the store, then also downloaded a pirate copy. He felt it was wrong to truly pirate the game, but also wanted to oppose the draconian DRM, and abuse to his computer and rights as a consumer. DRM can serve a purpose however. DRM should exist to help the customer. If the DRM does not harm the customer or limit their rights, but instead gives them additional options, then opposition to it will disappear. I offer up Steam as an excellent example of DRM done right. I've been a customer of Steam for a long time, and have purchased over 60 games from them. I swore not to buy SPORE because of the DRM issue, but now that it is available on Steam, I will be purchasing it. Steam (www.steampowered.com) allows a customer to create an account, and pay for games. The games are then downloaded and accessed through that account. However, the user does not have to be online to access the games. They can be played offline without the computer having to "check in." The Steam software does infect the computer at deep levels to monitor software use. It is just the key to unlock the games, and it is amazingly unobtrusive. I prefer to buy my games from Steam, even when retail boxes are available that have no DRM on them. Please, I encourage you to work to protect the rights of us, the consumers. Current use of DRM abuses our rights to legally use property that we purchase. DRM, if used as an enhancing feature, instead of a club, will only enhance the bottom line of publishers, while giving consumers choices and protecting their rights. Sincerely, Alexis McDavid
Comment Number: 539814-00287
Received: 1/9/2009 9:56:11 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Ryan Meyer
State: IA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Working as a computer repair technician in college, I witnessed first hand as *dozens* of people lost their music, video games, etc because DRM was incompatible with their system after a crash. When you contact these companies, such as Wal-Mart's online music store, they offered little or no customer service or support in the matter. I now do IT security consulting and find DRM such as the Sony rootkit to be not only an inconvenience, but a significant potential security threat in that malware could utilize the DRM tools to resist removal. In a nutshell I do not find DRM to be acceptable, particularly on movie files. Software DRM in the form of "activation" borders on this acceptability line - I've wasted literally hundreds of hours of my life on the phone with Microsoft's indian activation center - but I feel a lot of this will be resolved naturally with SaaS.
Comment Number: 539814-00288
Received: 1/9/2009 10:01:15 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Ian Koetter
State: OK
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is an attempt at having it both ways- entertainment companies say I do not own the software, music or movie but do not provide the means to replace my copy should I lose it or damage it in the future. By restricting my usage rights with DRM, there should be some responsibility to the ownership of the license provided with purchase.
Comment Number: 539814-00289
Received: 1/9/2009 10:03:13 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Michael Higgins
State: PA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is a waste of time. It infuriates customers, costs $$$ to implement, maintain, is constantly being attacked and broken. Stop treating consumers like criminals from the start, and maybe we would buy more content online. Oh wait, did iTunes just got mostly DRM free? Yeah, they are starting to get it....
Comment Number: 539814-00290
Received: 1/9/2009 10:05:36 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Sidney Hale
State: TN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Witness the recent decision of Walmart to turn off it's DRM management server. Walmart eventually rethought their decision and kept the DRM server running, but for how long? When Walmart turns their DRM server off, everyone who has paid for the right to view or listen to this media will no longer be able too. This is a violation of the rights transferred to users of the media purchased. DRM technology also stifles fair use of data. If I purchase media, then I have the rights to enjoy said media as I see fit for personal use. Neither should I be limited to one player for the media due to the limitations of a copy protection mechanism.
Comment Number: 539814-00291
Received: 1/9/2009 10:06:27 AM
Organization: Private Citizen
Commenter: Lloyd
State: OK
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is not an effective piracy deterrent. It can't be made effective. It is a nuisance and can damage end-user computers and other equipment. It should be discontinued. DRM is also an attack on fair use. Distributors do not own merchandise they have sold. End users have the right to use their property as they wish.
Comment Number: 539814-00292
Received: 1/9/2009 10:07:19 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Moor
State: AL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments: 539814-00292.pdf
Comments:

Attaching a text file to preserve spacing/formatting. Thank you for your time.
Comment Number: 539814-00293
Received: 1/9/2009 10:10:09 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Allard
State: CA
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

All DRM succeeds in doing is hurting the people that go about purchasing their music and other media legally. For example, with iTunes DRMed music you can only burn a CD of that music five times. Want to burn another CD, well sorry you can't because you really don't own what you purchased, just the license to use it. People that download music and other media illegally never run into this problem. DRM does not prevent piracy of media, if anything it encourages it.
Comment Number: 539814-00294
Received: 1/9/2009 10:12:38 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Adam Fyllingen
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Please restrict the DRM policy to prevent unauthorized DRM installations and/or unnecessary restrictions towards resale.
Comment Number: 539814-00295
Received: 1/9/2009 10:14:40 AM
Organization:
Commenter: james may
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

firstly i wud like to say i understand why it was made but everyone i know dislike like it and state if it carrys on the ways its going they will be forced to join the pirates e.g. with microsoft a number of the them have purchased vista but because of drm it can be only used once , microsft office 3 tmes and this is a major problem as a number of us have a pc and 1-2 laptops for the kids to do their work on and withkids every one nows that they go on dodgy websites and cotract viruses which leads to the computers being needed to be reformated and when this is done ooops u cant use ur version of vista which u have legitametly bought due to drm its now worthless. evry one saw`what happed with spore ea wanted to cotrol how u play sorry but a friedn of mine is a pc gamer on world of wacraft and he has that installed on 2 pcs 3 laptops and my pc so he can play where ever he wants . the consumers already tought ea a lesson by downloading it with out drm 1.7 million times !!!! basically the these organisations want to control how you use your legitimatley bought media like a robot but what they dont know is if the consumers dont buy their software what will happen to them and they wont be nothing without the consumers.
Comment Number: 539814-00296
Received: 1/9/2009 10:17:20 AM
Organization: No one
Commenter: Andrea Giongiani
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

The problem with DRMs is that they do not halt piracy in any way. A skilled cracker, or simply a user who knows a little bit about PCs knows how to work around any kind of DRMs used. What this "tool" used by software houses do is simply making the life of honest gamers difficult, while pirates continue to play unhampered with the latest games. Piracy is, of course, to be get ridden of, but the DRMs are simply not the right way to do this. A possible alternative would be to make it so that additional content like more missions, patches and so on are only given to paying, registered customers. Coupled with lower pricess (100$/70€ are WAY TOO MUCH!) and better cases (i long for the old paper boxes with manuals worthy of being called such) and additional content this would be enough to combat piracy without harming the honest consumer. You must also understand that no protection is unbeatable, piracy can't be defeated with brute force, you must use brain. Brain, not brawns.
Comment Number: 539814-00297
Received: 1/9/2009 10:22:04 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Cody Crosby
State: Outside the United States
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

It's more of a hassle to the real consumer than it is an obstacle to pirates. When a person has to download software illegally in order to get their legal copy to work, it should be the publishers problem.
Comment Number: 539814-00298
Received: 1/9/2009 10:23:37 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Justin Gray
State: TX
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM is draconian technology implemented into software to "protect" it from piracy. In actuality, all it does is punish the consumer who legally purchased the game and causes frustration. There have even been times where I find myself purposefully pirating a game so that I won't have to deal with DRM and it's inherent problems. I think a good example of a DRM free PC game is Sins of a Solar Empire by Stardock. They created a very popular RTS game sans the DRM and have managed to make a profit. They're business model is the epitome of what all developers should do. They create a game with the intention of making it so good that a consumer will decide to buy it instead of pirate it because they like it so much. .
Comment Number: 539814-00299
Received: 1/9/2009 10:24:15 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Ben James
State: WI
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM, especially when coupled with the DMCA, is harmful to consumers. In the best cases it limits how consumers can use their content, under what circumstances, and when they have access to it. In the worst cases consumers are paying for content that may never work, can install malicious software on their PCs, and can turn software consumers believe they have purchased into something more akin to a long term rental. I am confident you will receive countless specific grievances, so I’ll keep mine short. I once purchased a game that would not run. My only hint was a vague error about ‘illegal’ software. At the time I had a program that emulated an unavailable video game console that I used to play fan created games. I was able to confirm this software was the problem by removing it and attempting to play my DRM ‘protected’ game. Later I spoke with a friend who had the same emulation software installed. My friend told me he had stolen the game and was able to play it without an issue. DRM did nothing to stop my friend from stealing the game (incidentally he did pay for it after the fact), but it prevented me, an honest user, from running it. I also object to the idea that a third party, SecuRom in this case, was able to scan my computer AND ‘phone home’ with information I cannot legally see (thanks to the DMCA). Either act is egregious enough, but combined it feels tantamount to an invasion of privacy. DRM spawned an entirely new class of viruses called “Root Kits.” Root kits were installed and spread by Sony Music a few years ago. They attach themselves to a computer so deeply it is very difficult to detect that they are present at all. They have the ability to transmit information from a running system freely. Malicious software programmers reverse engineered the DRM (When information is outlawed only outlaws will have information.) and put the technology to their own use. What would leak out if one of these were installed on your computer? What about the President’s? A recent poll showed the top ten most pirated games were protected by some of the most strict copy-protection schemes in use, primarily SecuRom’s solution. In closing, while some forms of DRM may be acceptable, the majority of popular copy-protection schemes in use today are harmful to consumers, potential security threats (private and national), and ineffective towards thwarting criminals.
Comment Number: 539814-00300
Received: 1/9/2009 10:30:31 AM
Organization:
Commenter: John Doe
State: MN
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

DRM, when used by software companies, does not prevent the pirate from pirating and only inconveniences and unduly burdens the legitimate purchaser. The pirate will pirate the software, no matter what barriers the software manufacturers put in place. As an example, sites like www.gamecopyworld.com will actually put up guides to circumventing DRM included in video games. Limited software installations, CD-Checking software, and spyware-like root kits (StarForce) are all obstacles and problems for legitimate purchasers of the software, not pirates. In some cases, legitimately purchased software will not even run on a computer until the DRM has been circumvented or disabled (www.glop.org/starforce). These obstructions should not be allowed. Instead of coming up with more and more draconian ways of punishing the people who buy the software, companies should find new ways to grow their user base and encourage people to buy the software.
Comment Number: 539814-00301
Received: 1/9/2009 10:31:23 AM
Organization:
Commenter:
State: FL
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

Thank you for allowing me to remain anonymous. The current methods of attaching DRM info to music files and the root-kit approaches that some companies take to computer games simply do not work. I would contend that piracy of these things is not a large problem, and that legal online music sales are what is causing the music industries' main loss in CD sales (as well as a naturally injurious business model and refusal to make things available in modern formats until after the fact, instead choosing to blame their customer base for using common technology). Computer game piracy is probably more of a problem, but combatting it has so far resulted in actions insulting and damaging to legitimate buyers. Companies which produce an easily copiable product should not be surprised when people who have bought and therefore own copies of that product, well, copy it. Since it would be wrong to shackle computers to the point where you cannot freely copy data, other things should be done by the companies in question, not by lawmakers. (I'm talking about lower prices, requiring registration to operate the software after purchase, that kind of thing). -Anonymous Citizen
Comment Number: 539814-00302
Received: 1/9/2009 10:33:48 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Tony Henline
State: MD
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

I feel that DRMs should be illegal to include with software you are purchasing because of a number of factors. The first is that the quality and function of DRM software is completely up to the company making it, and this results in users installing things on their computer with possibly unknown effects. An example of this is the similar to the lawsuit against Sony for including software to track computers that played their music CDs. The second factor is that the supposed purpose of these DRM software additions is to prevent piracy of video games. However, despite more and more aggressive and common use of DRM, computer games are still often available on the internet for illegal download before the official release of said games, and the DRM has been removed. This means that only people buying the games legally are being subjected to the DRMs and their potential issues, rather than the people who are breaking the laws and are supposedly targeted by the DRM software. The final factor that I feel is of major importance in this issue is that some DRM software actually prevents users who have purchased a game legally from playing it. Either because the DRM does not correctly detect the hardware in the users computer, the user has installed the game a number of times before, or even just because the DRM is designed to make installation impossible when other software is found on a users system. In my opinion, this type of control over how and where a user plays a game that they have purchased is completely unacceptable for companies to expect. In light of these reasons, I seriously hope that the FTC will determine that the bundling of DRM software must either be made illegal, or that it is at the very least highly standardized and supervised in it's function and use by a party other than the company designing it.
Comment Number: 539814-00303
Received: 1/9/2009 10:36:51 AM
Organization:
Commenter: Alexander Kramer
State: MI
Agency: Federal Trade Commission
Rule: FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
Attachments:
Comments:

So-called 'Digital Rights Management' ought to be done away with entirely. It does nothing productive; it inconveniences consumers, preventing them from making backups, or from taking their music with them, while doing little or nothing to discourage software piracy - as it happens, DRM encourages people to acquire DRM-free pirated software to avoid the inconveniences it causes. Worse still is DRM that is not disclosed. In this case not only is an end-user inconvenienced by the DRM, it's an unpleasant surprise waiting for them after they have already paid for a product - and in most cases, by the time they've learned of the DRM it's far too late for them to return the product and get their money back. To use iTunes as an example... why would a consumer spend ten dollars on an album they can only transfer to five computers and burn onto seven CDs when they can get the same album for free with no limitations on how many times it can be transferred, copied, or burned? To expect people to pay for a strictly inferior product is foolish. And that's what DRM does to a product - it reduces how much the consumer, the end-user can do with their product, reducing its competitive value. On the other hand when you compare the same free file with a now DRM-free ten dollar album, you are looking at two identical products save for cost. Once you take out the issue of product quality, of usability, you can move on to the moral issue - buying the ten-dollar album means you are supporting its creators, while downloading a pirated copy goes from being an issue of usability to being more apparent as simply another form of stealing.